Unsearchable Riches

Modern Technology and another way I'm NOT like Jonathan Edwards

2011-08-15T08:26:00.003-04:00

Our pastor asked me to preach this past Sunday night, as he was going out of town on vacation. As I was preparing for the message Saturday morning, I noticed a unusual pop-up error message on the system tray of my PC. It said something along the lines of “No audio available because no audio hardware has been found.” I thought that was peculiar since I listen to audio on my PC all the time. Since 99% of all computer problems are solved by rebooting, that is exactly what I did. However, this issue turned out to be one of those 1% problems and my computer never booted back up! There was nothing I could do to revive it and I instantly went into panic mode.

You see, I understand that in the old days it was actually common for men to prepare sermons without the aid of a computer. I have it on good authority that Jonathan Edwards never once touched a computer. Sadly, though, I'm not one of those people. I am completely dependent on my computer. In fact, I've gone totally paperless and preach and teach from an iPad (although I still use old-fashioned real books when I consult commentaries). Thankfully, though, I work in IT and not only did I have a work computer I could use as a backup, I even had a SATA-to-USB adapter that I got from a Computer Security Forensics class I took a couple years ago that I was able to use to transfer the contents of my old dead laptop's hard drive to my work computer. In no time, I was back in business – finished the message, converted it from Word to PDF, sent it to Dropbox, and then imported it from Dropbox to my iPad and stored it in my GoodReader iPad app. I was good to go, albeit it took up more of my Saturday than I anticipated.

This whole episode got me thinking about how Jonathan Edwards might use modern technology. I've read several accounts of his preaching style and techniques. One thing he did was write out his sermons on small 3x4 (or so) sized pieces of paper that he could hold in the palm of his hand. I think he wanted his notes to be as unobtrusive as possible. So, my guess is he would be more inclined to preach from an iPhone than an iPad, if he had the choice.

I've been reading Douglas Sweeney's recent book, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word, and discovered another interesting fact regarding the notes Edwards used in the pulpit. Instead of writing out Bible verses in his notes, “Edwards frequently substituted long, squiggly lines, trusting his memory to provide the missing text while he was preaching.” (Sweeney, 97) Evidently, Edwards was the original “walking Bible.” Me? I write out every line of every verse I plan to use in my message. It's so easy to transfer the text from Bibleworks to Word and it frees me from sounding like a “squiggly line” when I try to quote verses from memory while I'm speaking. For me it's just something about standing in front of a crowd of people and trying to recall a verse from memory that just never goes as well as planned!

Oh, in case you were wondering, here is my text from yesterday's message, written in the style that Jonathan Edwards might have used:

Inerrancy and the Kings of Judah and Israel

2011-07-30T20:11:00.002-04:00

Anyone who has studied the chronological information given in Kings and Chronicles regarding the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel knows that harmonizing all the data is a daunting task, to say the least. Several factors contribute to this difficulty but primarily we could note that (1) these numbers often reflect co-regencies that may not be readily apparent to the reader, (2) Israel and Judah used two different months of the year to determine a regal year (Judah used Tishri-to-Tishri while Israel used Nisan-to-Nisan --- this would be similar to corporations using different months to begin their fiscal years), and (3) the counting of regal years sometimes begins with 0 (ascension year system, normally used by Judah – like we count birthdays) and sometimes with 1 (non-accession-year system, normally used by Israel – like we count presidential years).

When one takes these issues into consideration, many of the so-called problems and contradictions in the Biblical record go away. At least until you get to the reigns of Athaliah and Jehu, whose reigns begin at the same time due to Jehu’s slaughter of the previous kings, but whose chronological information seems to go haywire. Athaliah, it may be remembered, was the daughter of Ahaz and Jezebel. She married, Jehoram, the previous king of Judah, probably as a result of Jehoshaphat’s willingness engage in a closer, more friendly relationship with Israel (1 Kings 22:44; 2 Chron 18:3ff; 20:35-37). It appears that Judah may have adopted Israel’s regal counting system as part of this new relationship. If that is the case, then the numbers start to work again, just as you would expect. Problem solved.

Interestingly enough, the text itself may give a clue to this very transition. Take a look at these two verses:

2 Kings 8:25 (ESV)
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, began to reign.

2 Kings 9:29 (ESV)
In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to reign over Judah.

This apparent contradiction is easily resolved if we conclude that 2 Kings 8:25-29 was written using the new system imported from Israel, while the scribe who recorded the information found in 2 Kings 9:29 was still using the old system. Both statements are right (from their own vantage point) and the discrepancy might alert a careful reader that something strange has just happened with the numbering scheme.

Unfortunately, some ancient versions, such as the Greek version complied by Lucian of Antioch, felt compelled to harmonize these verses by modifying the Masoretic text. While I am not an advocate of the infallibility of that text (it is, after all, just a copy of the God-breathed original), in this case at least, there was no need to assume a scribal error and remove an inspired clue to the solving of the puzzle.

When asked about his work, Edwin Thiele, whose work I have summarized from above, said, “Let me say without hesitation that the areas of greatest strength and certainty are precisely those areas where in the past the greatest difficulties and uncertainties were found.” Based on what I read of Thiele’s work so far, many of the statements in the Biblical record that appear on the surface to be erroneous, when all the facts are known, turn out to be extremely precise statements of historical fact.

Lieutenant Colonel C. A. Olsen, 1919 - 2011

2011-07-19T19:48:00.006-04:00

A couple years ago I posted an article on my blog about my great-grandfather, Henry Olsen, and some of the historical pictures regarding him that I found on the Internet. His oldest son, H. Paul Olsen, was my grandfather. My middle name, Paul, comes from him. My first name, though, comes from another of my great-grandfather’s sons, Clarence Andrew Olsen. As I remember the story, my mother wanted to name me after her beloved Uncle Clarence, but he suggested that she use his middle name rather than saddle me with the name, Clarence. Taking his wise advice, I am Andrew Paul Efting.

My great-grandfather (seated in the middle) and his children. Standing in the back is my grandfather, H. Paul Olsen. Seated on the far left is my great-uncle, Clarence A. Olsen.

Unfortunately, we lived across the country from my Uncle Clarence, and so I never knew him as well as I would have liked. My Mom always spoke so fondly of him, though, and told many intriguing stories regarding his extraordinary life. Sadly, he passed away this week at the age of 91. To me he was always, Uncle Clarence, but to others he was a special friend, mentor, beloved college professor, or Lieutenant Colonel C. A. Olsen, war hero, or simply, “The Colonel.”

In honor of his life on the sad occasion of his death, I thought I would post portions of an article that was written about him by one of his great-nieces, Mary Ellen Olsen Huff, in conjunction with this past year’s Veteran’s Day. I count it a great privilege to have know him and to be named after him. If after reading this you are interested in learning more about him, you can visit the Facebook page created in is honor.

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

The life my Uncle Clarence led in the military is the stuff movies are made of, books are written about. Last month he celebrated his 91st birthday. He is still one amazing and sharp witted man, he lived one fascinating life AND he served Christ throughout his military career.

When he was just 12 years old Clarence discovered his love of the French language and in high school he studied it for three years under an exceptional French teacher, he learned to speak the language fluently as well as to read and comprehend it. He feels that learning the language as he did was what chartered the course of his life and that it was God's plan for his life, learning the language was his gift. During this time he also taught himself to play the piano and took voice lessons at a local conservatory - two more things that served him well in the years to come.

During World War II he joined the Army Air Corps (the forerunner of the Air Force) and his military career began. I've heard him tell the story about D-Day and landing on the beach of Normandy. To sit and hear someone who was there give a firsthand account of the events of that day in great detail is astounding - a history lesson like no other. Because of his knowledge of the French language he received an assignment with the French underground as the liaison between the leaders of the French Resistance and the Allied Forces and eventually he was the interpreter at the post-Potsdam Conferences and a translator for General Lucius Clay. He was the only member of his unit to receive the two World War II decorations the "Croix de Guerre" and the "Decoration Militaire."

He returned to civilian life for a time after the war and earned his master's degree, then while working on his doctoral studies the Korean conflict began and without finishing his thesis he re-enlisted in the Army.

During the 1950's and 60's the list of things he did sounds somewhat like a James Bond movie - if the movie used French subtitles. In a word, he became a spy. His assignment was counter-intelligence. There are stories he can't even talk about, it's still too painful. His life was in danger on many occasions. I know at least once he awoke to find someone standing over him with a knife, trying to kill him. For years there were countries he didn't dare travel to for fear of retaliation if the wrong military person knew he was there - that's how significant his role was. But the stories he does tell - they are amazing.

He became the liaison between the French security forces and the U.S. Embassy in Paris, France. In Frankfurt, Germany he was the chief French interpreter for international maneuvers. In Heidelberg and Oberammergau, Germany he was the director of an anti-Communist propaganda project. He also worked at the Pentagon, as the U.S. Army contact officer for the Foreign Military Attaché at each of the 50-plus embassies in Washington, D.C. He was also often called on to be the French interpreter for the Department of Defense and an Escort Officer for French-speaking royalty and high government officials.

He was tall, handsome, well spoken with impeccable manners and a real gentleman. Even many years after he had retired he was still the consummate gentleman, always. I still remember when he would come to visit in college and we would be sitting in the dining hall and anytime a female would approach the table he would stand up until they sat down. He had such a presence about him that you immediately felt respect, he didn't command it - you just sense there was something there that deserved respect. He spent a lot of time getting to know not only my friends but the high school and college kids who would want to talk to him about his life, he often spoke in chapel or in other classes when he was here visiting and he had a real ability to connect with young people.

In the early 60's he did tours of duty in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and once again became the liaison officer between the U.S. Armed Forces and the chiefs of state in those countries.

Throughout his military career he was well known as a Christian - he was a man of God in uniform. He was well respected and highly trusted by other high ranking officials. He was well respected for not only what he had accomplished in his military career but for who he was and what he stood for. He didn't apologize for it but he didn't shove it down anyone's throat either. He let the life he lived do the talking.

As the wars came to an end, a commanding officers recommendation led to Colonel Olsen's appointment to the staff of West Point Military Academy and eventually he became the head of the French Department. He taught there for five and a half years until he retired from the military in 1970. At his retirement ceremony, the Commandment of Cadets presented him with a Citation from General Westmoreland, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and an additional Citation from the President of the United States for his outstanding work with and influence on the West Point Cadets.

Uncle Clarence at West Point, 1964, holding me, back when I was adorable.

Uncle Clarence went on to teach French at Asbury College and lead a very busy life until he officially retired from any job when he was 73 years old. Even after his retirement he stayed busy in his church, assisting with the music and playing the organ. For many years he traveled often, visiting people, staying with someone who was going through a difficult time, lending a hand wherever he could - everything from cooking to babysitting he was willing to do and he did it all well.

He has continued to this day to have a great influence on many lives that he has touched over the years, including mine. For many years he would visit us in Florida each year for a few weeks in the winter up until a little over a year ago when a degenerative problem with his spine made flying too difficult. We now keep in touch with letters and phone calls and he continues to amaze me with his sharp mind.

That is the man I honor today - my Great Uncle, my very special friend, Colonel Olsen.

Precious in the Sight of the Lord

2011-03-22T18:32:00.004-04:00

Our family on Daphne's side

These past couple of years have been hard for Daphne and me. While in most ways our world has gone on as normal, two events have interrupted our lives in a profound and sad way. Two years ago my Mom passed away. She had not yet turned 70 and it was too soon to have to say goodbye. This past month, Daphne’s younger sister, Christine, finally succumbed in her fight against cancer. She left a loving husband and three precious, young children. There is no doubt about it, death is hard on those who are left behind. We cling to precious memories and suffer grief, even while trusting in the goodness and greatness of our gracious God. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, it is hard to know what to say to those who have lost their wife, their mother, or their sister. In that regard, it was interesting to me to see how John Calvin responded to the untimely death of a friend’s son. The following comes from a biography of John Calvin by Herman Selderhuis.

Calvin starts by expressing his heart-felt grief over the matter:

When I received the message about the death of master Claude and of your son Louis, I was so shocked and so despondent that for several days I could only cry. And although I tried to find strength in the presence of God and wanted to comfort myself with the refuge he grants us in time of need, I still felt as if I was not at all myself. Really, I was no longer able to do the normal things, as if I myself were half dead.

Perhaps the most helpful part of his response could be summed up by these ideas – don’t dwell on the why’s, instead, concentrate on the kind providence of a loving God:

There is nothing that robs us more of our power, nothing that dejects us more than when we let ourselves fall into such complaints and questions as: Why did things go like this? Why not another way? Why like that just here? There would be reason to utter such words if we on our part had made a mistake and if we had neglected our duty, but if we have done nothing wrong this matter, there is also no place for these types of complaints.

If in your pondering over your son you were to consider how difficult it is in these dark times to bring our life in a pure manner to a good end, you would surely consider happy one who has been delivered from this at an early age.

And so it is God who has reclaimed your son, that son whom He entrusted to us to care for under the condition that he ever remain His possession.

Calvin spoke this same way when his own son died:

The Lord has dealt us a heavy stroke in the death of our little son. But he is our Father. He knows what is good for his children.

No, death is never easy. It is not intended to be. But, as the Scriptures say, “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart.”

Christine's Family

Jerome and Textual Criticism

2011-02-01T11:05:00.005-05:00

I was fascinated a while back when I came across a blog posting where the author claimed that Jerome had testified to the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7b-8). This claim was interesting to me on many levels. First, if true, it would be a surprising piece of evidence that truly ought to be considered as part of an overall “reasoned eclecticism” evaluation of this variant reading. Second, those who are promoting this evidence normally take a dim view of such text critical methodology, preferring instead to take a “faith-based” approach that ignores the massive evidence that exists against the authenticity of the Comma. Thirdly, it reminded me of a paper I wrote for a seminary class on the Majority Text, where in the course of research I came across several other quotes by Jerome that referred to the textual state of affairs during his day. I want to mention something about those but first let's take a closer look at this particular claim concerning Jerome.

Jerome’s testimony for the Comma is said to come from the preface for the canonical epistles as found in Codex Fuldensis, an early Latin version of the New Testament. Helpfully, Google has the full text of this document available online, so you can read the preface for yourself (see page 399), that is if you can read Latin. The key portion reads in English as follows:

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”

The book that contains this preface was published in MDCCCLXVIII, or 1868, so it is not certain when the preface was actually written but it seems clear to me that it wasn't written by Jerome. The author appears to reference Jerome as one of the “unfaithful translators [who] contrary to the truth of faith have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.” Sure enough, if you examine the text of this Codex Fuldensis, it does not include the Comma. Check it out yourself -- On page 426, verse 7 reads, “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant” (for there are three that bear record) and then the text skips directly to verse 8, omitting the Comma. So, the way I read this preface is that someone is complaining about Jerome's work regarding the Comma. Obviously, the author of the preface believes in the authenticity of the Comma, but the author does appear to be Jerome and it is not clear to me how ancient this evidence is.

Now, while this particular data point is suspect, there are a significant number of actual quotations by Jerome that do speak to the state of the textual corpus during his day. The follow data comes from a chapter entitled, St Jerome's explicit references to variant reading in manuscripts of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger in Text and Interpretation. Metzger lists 27 such references. I'd like to highlight just a few of the more interesting ones:

1. Regarding the longer ending of Mark, he says that it “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel – almost all the codices of Greece being without this passage...” What is significant here is that what is the majority text today was evidently not the majority text in Jerome's day.

2. Another example of this phenomenon is Matt 5:22, where the majority of extant texts today include “without a cause” but in Jerome's day, he could write, “most of the ancient copies do not have the qualification without a cause.”

3. In regard to the Pericope of Adultery (John 7:53-8:11), he states that the pericope “is found in many of both the Greek as well as the Latin copies of the Gospel according to John.” Here he doesn't say “most” but “many.” So, while he certainly knew of this variant reading, if you compare this wording to what he said about the longer ending of Mark, it would seem to indicate that he found more evidence for the pericope than the longer ending. That is consistant with the fact that the periocpe occurs in the Vulgate. However, today, I think most text critics, while ultimately rejecting both, would say that the longer ending of Mark has much more support for authenticity than does the pericope.

It is fascinating to read what Jerome says. I don't know exactly how much stock we can put into his observations, as his access to manuscripts may have been limited or incomplete. Nevertheless, it is still worth something, as a consideration from a text critic who would have been motivated to be as accurate as possible. At the very least I think it demonstrates how slippery ideas like “majority” really are when dealing with this subject.

The Root of Bitterness

2011-01-19T17:06:00.004-05:00

I have heard many excellent messages on the subject of bitterness. It is an issue that many of us struggle with simply because we live in a fallen world and have to face the terrible effects of sin in our own lives and in the lives of others. We are all prone to harbor bitterness against parents, church leaders, friends, and even God. So, sermons on bitterness are often very helpful and certainly needful.

Unfortunately, many good points are made from the wrong text, especially when dealing with this subject. The reason for this is that one of the most popular texts that preachers use regarding bitterness doesn’t really deal with the concept of bitterness at all. You can take the verse, out of its context, and come up with teaching and applications that are probably helpful and appear to be Biblical, but are not taught at all in that text. And that’s a problem. It’s a common problem, and truth be told, I’ve probably used this verse the wrong way, too.

The problem text is

Hebrews 12:15 (ESV)
See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;

There are two keys to properly understanding this verse. The first is the context in which this verse appears and the second is the OT reference to which the author of Hebrews alludes.

Hebrews, in general, is a call to faithful endurance. We are to look to Jesus, who as the author and finisher of our faith, is our example and the sustainer for this endurance. Hebrews 12, which begins with this reiteration of the book’s theme, contains the last of the five major warning sections in verses 12-29. These warnings serve to warn the reader what will happens if he fails to endure. In my understanding, they operate as one of the means that God uses in the lives of his children to encourage them to persevere in the faith (cf., Acts 27:22, 31 for an example of how promises and warnings can work together and consistently). Regardless, though, of how you view the warning passages in Hebrews, we can at least observe what is going on in verses 14-17. We are told to strive for peace with everyone and holiness without which no one will see the Lord, and then we are told to see to three things:

1. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God
2. See to it that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble
3. See to it that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau

With that context in mind, specifically the warnings regarding the possibility of not seeing the Lord (12:14) and failing to obtain the grace of God (12:15), let’s now look at this term, “root of bitterness.” The author of Hebrews gets this terminology from Deut 29:18, which says,

“Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit;”

The King James translates this last phrase, “a root that beareth gall and wormwood.” Wormwood is associated with bitterness all throughout the Bible (“bitter as wormwood,” Prov 5:4; Lam 3:15; Rev 8:11). Two things should be immediately clear from this passage: (1) Turning away from God is the essence of developing a root of bitterness; and (2) the “root of bitterness” is a person, someone among them who turns away from the Lord, not a feeling or an attitude. The context in Deut 29 is the same as Hebrews 12, a warning about turning away from the Lord (cf., 12:25, “do not refuse him who is speaking”). Notice how the passage in Deut continues:

Deut 29:19-21 (ESV)
“….one who, when he [referring back to the “root of bitterness”] hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. 20 The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. 21 And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.”

Thus it will be bitter for the person who turns from the Lord and walks in the stubbornness of his heart, as if you can, for example, happily ignore God’s warning to pursue peace and holiness. The bitterness of God’s judgment is perfectly illustrated by the person of Esau, whom the writer of Hebrews references in the next two verses:

Heb 12:16-17 (ESV)
that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Notice that the consequences for Esau (“no chance to repent”) are the same as for the “root of bitterness” in Deut 29:20 (“The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.). Esau is an example of a “root of bitterness,” someone who rejects God, his covenant/birthright, and ends up with no way to inherit the blessings of salvation that he could have had. Esau failed to obtain what the grace of God would have given him, and author of Hebrews implores us not to do the same thing. If we do, it will be bitter for us, just as it was for Esau and just as it was for those in Duet 29.

That, in a short blog post, is the message of these verses in Hebrew 12:14-17.

The most powerful preaching and teaching will use God’s word according to its true and right meaning, not inadvertently ripping it from its meaning and context. This analysis may mean a fairly significant paradigm shift for some in how they think about, approach, and apply this passage – it did for me! And, of course, we still need preaching on personal bitterness, just not from this passage.

Biblical Creationism, Part 2

2010-11-07T16:30:00.004-05:00

My last two weeks lessons have been the most important in our series so far on the topic of Biblical Creationism. Last week, I started my lesson on “Let there be Light” with an introduction that linked the Doctrine of Creation with the Reformation Day topic of justification by faith alone. Here is a short synopsis: the analogy that Paul makes in Romans 5:12-21 between Adam and Christ only makes sense if Adam is a real historical character. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness works the same way as the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. That’s Paul’s point. If the “because all sinned” in Romans 5:12 only means people died because of their individual sins, then Paul’s analogy, if it is to be consistent, must say that our justification to life is based on our individual righteous deeds – which, of course, is no gospel at all! The only reasonable way for us to be imputed with Adam’s sin is if he was indeed a historical character. How can we be imputed with the sin of a fictional or mythological person?

My lesson today concentrated on the creation of the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8 and how some people in past suggested that the waters above the firmament were the source of the water’s for Noah’s flood. The problem with this idea is that Psalm 148:4 indicates that those waters are still there, and besides, a careful reading of Genesis 1:6-8 does not put the separated waters in the atmosphere or in space but beyond the universe. This led me to discuss the Arguments Creationists should NOT use page on the Answers in Genesis website. The lesson we need to learn from all this is that we should defend the supernatural events of the Bible with the Bible, not scientific or naturalistic arguments. Otherwise, we may find ourselves defending the truth of God’s word with arguments that sound good at the time but that may end up on a similar list in the future. Far better to believe the Bible when it says that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, especially when dealing with a subject that the Bible itself says requires faith to believe (Heb 11:3). Spurgeon puts it best, as he normally does, when he says, “I defend the Bible the way I defend a lion – I let it out of its cage and let it defend himself!”

If you are interested in listening to these lessons. I have most of them posted at http://sermon.net/refugebaptist.

Biblical Creationism

2010-10-04T08:39:00.006-04:00

I am beginning a new adult Sunday School series on Biblical Creationism at Refuge Baptist Church. This is a topic I have been thinking about a lot recently. I am grateful for the opportunity to teach on it and hope it will be a blessing and encouragement to faith for those in our church. Here is a link to the first lesson.

Related to this series is a message I preached at Grace Baptist Church back in February, 2010. Those who are interested in this topic may also want to listen my message on Apologetics to the Glory of God.

Exegetical Fallacies are too much fun!

2010-08-18T09:18:00.006-04:00

Recently, I got called on the carpet for suggesting that a particular interpretational strategy was an exegetical fallacy. I just read Carson’s short book on Exegetical Fallacies and it was fresh in my mind. Perhaps I rushed in foolishly where angels fear to tread but I couldn’t help myself. It was just too obvious. Which leads me to another of Carson’s fallacies:

“17. Abuse of ‘obviously’ and similar expressions.”

Some things are obvious but it’s too much fun when commentators use the expression to advance their view on a controversial passage. Let’s take the interpretation of Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. I have read where one author has compiled a bibliography of over 1000 sources that discuss this highly debated text. So, with that in mind, I offer the following quotes for your enjoyment:

“Indeed, why do we contend over the meaning of these words, as if they were obscure or ambiguous, while nothing clearer or more certain can be said? Peter, in his own and his brethren’s name, had confessed that Christ was the Son of God [Matt. 16:16]. Upon this rock Christ builds his church. For there is but one foundation, as Paul says, apart from which no other can be laid (1 Cor 3:11).” (John Calvin – the obvious meaning is Christ is the rock)

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory.” (John Broadus – the obvious meaning is Peter is the rock)

"’This rock’ is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one ‘apostolic see’ in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun . . . Hence, the logical antecedent for [this] is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself!” (James White – the obvious meaning is Peter’s confession is the rock)

To be fair, these men all back up their remarks with exegesis. Nevertheless, I find these three statements, taken together, quite humorous.

My Summer Reading List

2010-07-26T20:45:00.003-04:00

Summer is almost over but I am just now able to get back to reading some non-assigned texts. The past couple of months have been consumed reading tomes on hermeneutics for a class I am taking through Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Virginia Beach. While I have enjoyed the reading for my class, I am looking forward to digging into the following:

Creation, Fall, Restoration by Andrew S. Kulikovsky. HT: Dr. McCabe’s blog

I have been looking for books that take a intentionally biblical approach to the creation debate. I question if we should expect science to speak accurately about supernatural, non-repeatable events. It is far better, I believe, to rely on Scripture to prove what the Bible teaches and for which it alone is authoritative. I do not know for sure the position that Kulikovsky takes but fully expect this book to be interesting reading.

Summer for the Gods by Edward J. Larson. This book, recommended by my friend Darryl Buller, covers the history of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. The Scopes trial is very interesting for many reasons (history of fundamentalism, creation debate strategies, etc) and I’m told this is a fair and engaging treatment of the trial.

Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship by David Peterson. I found Peterson’s commentary on Acts to be quite helpful as I taught through the first part of Acts in SS this past year. Also, his theology of sanctification, Possesed by God, has proved to be quite challenging and thought provoking. So, when my friend and former pastor Andrew Henderson suggested that I read Peterson’s book on worship, I had to add it to my list.

I don’t recall how these other two made my list, but the last couple I hope to read in the near future are: The Trials of Theology: Becoming a ‘Proven Worker” in a Dangerous Business, edited by Andrew Cameron and Brian Rosner; and The Unquenchable Flame:Discovering the Heart of the Reformation, by Michael Reeves.

Was Adam an Evolutionary Figure?

2009-12-31T11:13:00.003-05:00

In my previous post, I argued for the historical reality of a literal Adam. I don’t see how one can affirm inerrancy and at the same time allow a non-historical figure in the many genealogies found in Scripture. I also, per Paul’s argument in Romans 5, don’t see how God could justly condemn all mankind for a sin nature inherited from a figurative, symbolic, or mythological person. In support of my position, I quoted from Bruce Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology where he also affirms a literal, historical Adam.

Unfortunately, in that same book, just a few pagers earlier, Waltke states that the best way to harmonize Scripture with science is to believe in theistic evolution. So, while Waltke believes in a literal Adam, he nevertheless also believes that Adam evolved from “the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions – such as the meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs…” Evidently, within the race of humanoid creatures that evolved, God chose one of those creatures and “by direct creation made [him] a spiritual being.” (Waltke, 202-203, throughout the section, Waltke uses the transliteration of the Hebrew, adam, which can mean the man Adam or mankind in general – I perceive an intentional ambiguity on Waltke’s part).

While Waltke’s evolutionary proposal answers the objections to a non-historical Adam, it nevertheless introduces new theological objections. My hunch is that he is simply choosing the better of two evils, given his commitment to reconcile the truth claims of science with the truth claims of Scripture. From where I stand, however, the theological problems with an evolved Adam are just as significant and objectionable as those for a non-historical Adam.

An evolved Adam is not consistent with the Biblical assumption that all mankind descended from Adam. The Bible refers to Adam as the first man (1 Cor 15:45) and so does Waltke but if Adam is simply just selected from the pool of human-like creatures living at the time, then at least two very important problems present themselves very quickly (see the next two points). Evolution works within populations, not individuals, meaning that a selected person within that population will NOT see his descendants mate only among his descendants. There will be intermingling outside his descendants because the whole population is so similar. Evolutionary change takes place slowly within groups of beings. Presumably, Adam would not be the only human to emerge from the population of human-like creatures. Consequently, the people alive in the world after Adam would be descendants from Adam, descendants from those outside Adam, and descendants from a mixture of the two. Where Cain got his wife is actually a very important question.

An evolved Adam does not explain why all humans are sinners and are condemned to death. If mankind is a mixture of descendants and non-descendants of Adam, then from the logic of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, only those strict descendants from Adam would be subject to the condemnation of sin and death. Romans 5:12, however, says that death has passed upon all men, because all men are sinners, and thus (Rom 5:18) all men are condemned. Thus all men must have descended only from Adam.

An evolved Adam does not explain how death entered the world before his sin. Romans 5:12 clearly states that death entered the world due to Adam’s sin. This has to include physical death, not just Spiritual death, because (1) the death Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty of our sin was a physical death; (2) while our souls have been made alive in Christ, we still wait for the redemption of our sinful bodies (Rom 12:23) which Paul refers to a as a “body of this death” (7:24); and (3) the fact of the matter is that all men do die physically. The “and he died” refrain that occurs over and over again in Genesis 5 is a repeated reminder that physical death was indeed part of the judgment on Adam and all his descendants. Physical death is an enemy, not part of God’s creation that he said was very good.

Romans 5:12 says more than that physical death passed to all men because of Adam’s sin. It says that, through that one sin, death itself entered the world. Thus before Adam’s sin, physical death did not exist among men or animals. I am excluding plant and cell life because the Bible highlights men and animals as those who have the breath of life in them. For example, God says in Gen 6:17 that He will “destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.”(ESV) He then says in Gen 6:19 to bring into the ark two “of every living thing of all flesh.” Those living things are distinguished from the food that they are also to bring aboard the ark (Gen 6:21). Finally, after every living thing on earth with the breath of life had died from the flood (Gen 7:22), Noah sent out a dove that eventually comes back with an olive leaf, indicating that plants were now growing on the earth again. Plants and vegetation were not destroy, even though all living things were. Plant life, then, is not the same as animal or human life and in the very, very rare circumstances when the Bible says that plants die, it is clear that plants don’t die in the same sense that animals or humans die (e.g., Job 14:7-12). The death that entered the world refers to the death of animals and people, and of course, an animal died right away as a result of man’s sin (Gen 3:21).

An evolutionary process of biological evolution is not consistent with (1) the truth that death entered the world only after the one sin of Adam in the garden; or (2) the Biblical truth that all men descended from Adam and thus sin, death, and condemnation passed upon all men due to Adam's one sin. So, as I said at the beginning of this post, while Waltke avoids serious theological error in maintaining the historical reality of Adam, he nevertheless runs into just as serious error by advocating an evolving Adam.

Was Adam an Historical Figure?

2009-12-22T20:10:00.005-05:00

Does it matter if Adam was a literal, historical person, or would it be OK theologically to say that Adam was only a mythological or symbolic figure? What doctrines, if any, would be harmed if Adam was not the actual first human and father of the entire human race? I suggest that both the doctrine of inerrancy and the truth of the gospel are at stake.

Inerrancy

Adam plays an important role within many genealogies. In Genesis 5, Adam is listed as the first human and then genealogically linked with several important historical persons, Enoch, and Noah. Through Noah in Genesis 10 and 11, Adam is then linked to Shem, Ham, and Japheth and the entire table of nation, ending most significantly with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. 1 Chronicles begins with Adam as the origination point for the history of the Jewish remnant, connected with all the patriarchs, David, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the returning exiles. Luke also includes Adam as the first historical figure in the line of Christ. All these figures are important historical persons, whose literal human existence is not in question. It would be unthinkable to suggest that these chroniclers thought that some individual in their carefully constructed genealogies where not real historical persons. If Adam was not real, then these passages are either intentionally deceptive or written by someone duped into mythological error. As an aside, in case one were to claim that gaps in genealogies are also evidence of error, it should be noted that the language used does not demand that the begetting father is the immediately preceding father, just that he is a preceding father from whom the named son descended.

In addition to the genealogies, OT writers, NT apostles, and Christ refer to Adam as a real historical figure. Hosea 6:7 says that God’s people violated God’s covenant with them, just like Adam did. Paul says (1 Timothy 2:13-14) that Adam was formed first, then Eve. Eve was deceived, not Adam. Paul used this historical event as the basis for explaining the different roles that men and women have in the NT church. It makes no sense to base roles of real people on the actions of those in a mythological story. Paul obviously believed Adam and Eve and the events in the Garden were real, historical events. Jesus does the same thing in explaining his position on divorce and marriage. He bases what marriage should be today (leaving and cleaving) on the historical creation account of Adam and Eve (Matt 19:4-8; Mark 10:6-8). Jesus specifically says this was how things worked in the beginning. The beginning of marriage and the one-flesh relationship began with Adam and Eve, not their theoretical non-human ancestors. Again, this argument does not work if the basis is only a fictional story or if it was not really the historical, actual beginning.

The Gospel

Most importantly, as Bruce Waltke says on page 250 of his Theology of the Old Testament, “the historicity of both figures [Adam and Jesus Christ] is foundational to Paul’s’ doctrine of human redemption through Christ Jesus.” In other words, the truths of the gospel depend on a literal, historic Adam. This may be seen in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul entire argument is based on the corresponding and complementary positions that all men have in either Adam or Christ. Paul is clear that sin and death entered the world because of one real man’s historical sin. Paul is just as clear that righteousness and life are available because of one real man’s historical righteousness. Romans 5:18-19 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness lead to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” It is not good enough, as some suggest, to observe that all men sin. Paul says much more than that. He is saying that all mankind is condemned from birth, before they do any actual sinning, because they were imputed with the sin of Adam and thus declared condemned sinners. Thus explains the passing of death upon all men, even those who as infants or mentally challenged do not make rebellious sin choices like Adam did (Rom 5:14, “even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam”). Over and over again, in addition to what he says in verse 18-19, Paul refers to the actual sin of the man Adam:

*** Sin came into the world through one man and death spread to all men because of that first sin (Rom 5:12).

*** Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:12, is one historical and the other not?).

*** Many died through one man’s trespass (Rom 5:15).

*** Death reigned because of one man’s trespass but abundant grace, righteousness, and life through one man Jesus Christ (Rom 5:17, are we to assume that one of these men is real but the other not?).

These verses teach the federal headship of both Adam and Christ. We are condemned to death because Adam sinned. He represented all mankind in the garden and when he fell, he took the entire human race with him. We cannot help but sin because we are all sinners due to Adam. We are sinners by nature and by choice. Likewise, we are granted life because of Christ’s righteousness. God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account when who we were in Adam (condemned sinners) were crucified with Christ on the cross (Rom 6:1-6; cf., Rom 7:1-6; Gal 2:20). Paul puts it this way in 1 Cor 15:21-22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul quotes Gen 2:7 as historical fact and then gives the gospel implication of Christ’s role as the second Adam: “the first man became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

How does one inherit a sin nature from a mythological figure? How are we justly condemned and how do we justly die if those things are not based on historical reality. Our salvation depends on the historical reality of Jesus’ perfect life and his literal obedience unto death on the cross. If Adam is figurative, why not Christ? If these men are not real, is God’s plan of redemption even necessary? Are we really condemned? Perhaps death is not the result of a real historical sin? Perhaps we are not really totally depraved and therefore worthy of eternal death in hell. Perhaps we do have some good in us and our good can out-weigh the bad at the judgment, if there is a literal judgment at all. No, none of that will do. God is just and would not condemn men to death and hell on the basis of a myth. If Christ is real then Adam is real. If Adam is not real, then there is no reason to insist that Christ is real. If Adam is not historical, then Paul’s whole argument crumbles and with it the whole mechanics of the gospel.

If you are going to get the answer wrong anyway...

2009-12-10T14:34:00.003-05:00

You might as well have fun while you are at it!

The post, How to Fail a Test with Dignity, at Ivman's Blague is too funny. I highly recommend that you refrain from consuming any beverages while perusing this post. Here is an example of what you will find:

The student in this class is supposed to state a premise, create an equation that represents his premise, and then sovle the equation.

HT: Bethany Lovegrove

Gospel-Driven Separation

2009-10-16T19:43:00.009-04:00

This past week (Oct 15-16) I attended the Mid-America Conference on Preaching, held annually by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. This year’s theme was on the subject of gospel-driven separation. I want in this blog post to summarize what I heard as the main points of the conference. I would welcome clarifications or corrections regarding my summary from anyone else who was there or who may have listened to the messages over the Internet.

1. Not all errors are separation issues

    A. Separation issues are those issues that impact in some way the message or truth of the gospel (thus gospel-driven).

    B. The gospel in this sense should not be narrowly defined as just Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection but also issues that impact the gospel such as the apostolic witness, the person of Christ, future judgment, and certain behaviors.

    C. Issues that do not undercut the gospel are not separation issues but:

        • May still be exposed as error, even significant error
        • May still be contended for, perhaps even vigorously
        • May still impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction

2. If the error warrants gospel-driven separation, then:

    A. Consistent separatists will not fellowship with those who practice this error (i.e., they will always separate) – 1st degree separation

    B. Consistent separatists will also withhold fellowship from those who do not separate over gospel-driven issues – 2nd degree separation

    C. Inconsistent separatists (are these the Bauder/Machen Indifferentists?) do not always (i.e., maybe never, maybe most of the time – there is a spectrum here) practice 2nd degree separation (as defined above) BUT do always practice 1st degree separation

3. It is a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice 2nd degree separation (i.e., to be an inconsistent separatist), thus warranting (3rd degree?) separation but it is not a gospel-impacting wrong to not practice this level of separation. Therefore, lack of (3rd degree?) separation may be:

    A. Cautioned against as an error in judgment/wisdom
    B. May impact areas of cooperation, fellowship, or interaction
    C. The response depends in some measure on the nature of the inconsistency

4. Examples of non-gospel-driven separation errors (although there may be manifestation of each of these errors that do cross the line to undercut the gospel):

    A. Music
    B. Non-Cessationism
    C. Mode of Baptism/Paedobaptism
    D. Non-Young Earth Creationism
    E. KJVOism
    F. Arminianism

I’m not sure I captured point 3 correctly. At the very least, there are probably some terminology issues. If I heard Dave Doran correctly, he said that he would separate from (or not fellowship with) those who do not practice 2nd degree separation but would not separate from those who don’t practice that same level of (3rd degree?) separation. I take that to mean that lack of 2nd degree separation falls into the “gospel-driven separation” category, thus necessitating separation as from a disobedient brother.

The benefits of this method of categorization are that (1) it prevents the absurd notion of nth degree separation – there is a natural, gospel-driven end point; and (2) it allows evaluation without the increasingly irrelevant labeling (due to the fracturing of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism) that historically guided our separation decisions.

Theological Reflections on My Trip to the Philippines

2009-07-28T02:40:00.005-04:00

As a middle-class American driving through the Palawan countryside, I cannot help but be taken aback by the deep poverty of the average Filipino citizen on this island. I have already posted several pictures of the terrible living conditions that these people endure. Many have no electricity; most have no running water. The “bathrooms” that I have encountered on this trip, even in the tourist-friendly locations, often leave much to be desired (to put it mildly).

It is natural to wonder about the eternal state of these people. Scripturally I know that apart from knowing about Christ and the gospel they have no hope. Thankfully, I have seen many missionary endeavors on the island, and even seen tangible fruit from their labors. God’s light has reached this corner of the world but there is no question but that many of these people have yet to be evangelized.

My human response to this fact is to question the fairness of it all. At least those in America or other westernized nations have had the opportunities granted by wealth and development to enjoy their time on this world before they face eternity. These poor people live in squalor and then face the judgment of God. How is that fair, I found myself asking.

As I reflected on that question, I began to wonder if it was not my own materialism that caused me to think as I do. Compared with eternity, what do material things really matter. Is the rich man who builds bigger barns to hold all his stuff really better off? God calls him a fool. Riches often bring about additional cares for the things of this world that rob us from enjoying what we thought we just had to have. Ecclesiastes speaks of the frustrating endeavor to get just a little bit more, an effort that never satisfies (Ecc 4:8). I obviously do not have the right perspective on things.

A passage that God has laid on my heart during this trip is Acts 14:15-17. This is Paul and Barnabas reacting to the crowds in Lystra who thought them to be gods after healing a man:

Acts 14:15-17 (ESV)
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

The people of Palawan, Tokyo, New York City, or Suwanee are all men of like passions. We have the same human, sinful nature and all need the same savior. We all need to repent, to turn from the vanities of this world, whatever our own way is, to the living God – the God who created the world that we all share. The vanities of Lystra may look different from the vanities of Broadway, Atlanta, or Sabang, but they are vain nonetheless because are not satisfying or eternal.

For years God allowed us to go our own way, yet He still gave us revelation about Himself so that we would know what kind of God we were offending when we sinned. The revelation that all men receive, regardless of time or place, is that God is good. He gives us rain, fruitful seasons, and the subsequent ability to be fed and glad. Yes, sometimes God sends famine or sorrow but the typical human experience is rain on the just and the unjust, providing nourishment to the ground for harvest, and the ability to have food, clothes, and shelter. It may be meager; it may be plain; but it is God’s good provision.

The other thing God gives men is gladness. One of the most striking things about my experience here in Palawan has been seeing the good cheer of the residents. They may be poor but they are a happy people. The children run and play. The men and women laugh. They enjoy life. Now, deep down there will be an emptiness in all men who live apart from God. No one experiences the true joy of being right with God unless they know the Savior. Yet, it does appear that God gives happiness and joy in some measure to all men. It gives a glimpse of what all men really desire and that is deep abiding joy. When I see these poor little children living in deplorable conditions I also see a laughter and joy that tells me that God really is good.

One last quick thought comes from a verse in 2 Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 8:9 (ESV)
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.

Honestly, I could not picture myself stooping to live in the conditions in which so many Filipinos find themselves. Yet, Christ must have humbled Himself to a much greater degree when He came to earth and lived as a man so that He could save us from our sins. The depth of His love is unbelievable to me. He became poor – that phrase has a new, more vivid meaning to me now – so that I might gain the unsearchable riches of Christ. I am left speechless at the thought….

Worshiping in the Philippines

2009-07-27T06:40:00.003-04:00

Grace Baptist Church, Puerto Princesa, Palawan

One of the things that struck me as we traveled through Tokyo and Manila on our way to Palawan was that the sun I saw here was the same sun I see when I’m back home in America. Japanese, Filipino, American, or whatever, we all benefit from and enjoy the same sun. This simple fact brought home to me again the truth that one God created that sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, and all that is in them. We all, wherever we may live, owe our existence to the God who is the one and only Creator of the world. This God desires his creatures from every tribe, language, people, and nation to worship him. It was my privilege this past Sunday to worship with a church family on the other side of the world from where I call home. Ironically, the name of the church was the same – Grace Baptist Church.

In some ways, the experience was totally different from what I am used to. There was no air conditioning, just fans, even though it was quite hot and humid outside. The benches were wooden and quite uncomfortable, at least to me. The preaching and Sunday School sessions were spoken in both English and Tagalog (by the same man). These external differences were things I expected. The thing I really wanted to know was, how did this Filipino church – one that was pastored by a Filipino national and that has been in existence for 30+ years – how did they worship in their culture? and how different would it be than mine? The answer is that there really was no difference from what you might see in any average Baptist church in the USA, other than those externals.

They started their worship service with a “meet and greet” time to the song, “There’s a welcome here!” One either likes these times as a way to show friendliness to those around you, or you don’t, thinking it turns a formal time of worship into a circus. I don’t like it any more in the Philippines than I do back home. They sang songs from a PowerPoint display, just like many of our churches do in America. Most of the songs were old-time gospels songs. It was great to sing “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” with church folk on the other side of the world. They also sang a praise chorus called, “I Stand in Awe.” It was a typical, shallow praise chorus that could be about one’s boyfriend. There was no rich doctrinal content or even explicit mention of whose “presence” we wanted to be in or whose “eyes” we wanted to look into. They used a worship team to help with leading the singing. They had a small choir. They had an offertory and a special number (my wife, Daphne, was privileged to minister those). Maybe they learned all this from American missionaries that ministered 40-50 years ago. The faces were different, the seating was different, the heat and humidity were different, but everything else, including typical problem areas, was about the same.

I wonder if I should have been surprised. We both worship the same God. Should we not use the same elements of worship, regardless of culture? I tend to think so.

This is the church that Daphne’s grandmother has attended since it started from another church in the area over 30 years ago. It was started as a church plant from the church that Daphne’s mom went to in another part of Puerto Princesa. Daphne’s mom was led to the Lord through the work of American missionaries, so I think the other church was founded by those same missionaries (the DeVries?). It was wonderful to see the fruit of faithful missionary activity – founding a church, installing a national pastor, and then having that church multiply itself. There were more people at Grace Baptist Church in Puerto Princesa, Palawan this past Sunday than what we normally have at Grace Baptist in Dacula, Georgia – and we have padded seats and air conditioning.

Entering the church

Inside the church

Choir singing Amazing Grace

Daphne singing "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"

Across the street from the church

Group picture after church

More Pictures from the Philippines

2009-07-26T19:46:00.006-04:00

One of the most interesting days for me so far was our trip to the Underground River on the other side of the island near Sabang. We saw incredible scenery and incredible poverty all along the way. I have all the pictures from this trip on my facebook page, accessible here for those without a facebook account:

The road to Sabang was mostly paved -- they are wanting to make this area more accesible to tourists. But the pavement would disappear for no apparent reason every once in a while.

Typical scene along the road to Sabang

Here is a typical shelter-type dwelling that we saw all over the place. My son, JD, said they looked like forts that he would like to build...but not live it.

Here is another

Here is another

Here is our destination, the famed Underground River. It took a 2-hour ride from our Puerta Princesa, then a 3 kilometer (or so) boat ride, and then a very short hike thorough the jungle to get here. We actually saw real wild monkeys in the jungle area.

Here is a boat, similar to what we took.

Scenery during the boat trip, on the way to the Underground River

Daphne and me on the beach near the Underground River

Our Trip to the Philippines – Part 1

2009-07-24T21:50:00.003-04:00

Now that we are on the ground in the Philippines and been here for a few days, I thought I would share some initial reflections.

First, for some reason I never really knew this before, but Daphne’s family is very well connected here on the island of Palawan. Her father’s sister, Dr. Teresita Salva, is the president of the Palawan State University here in Puerto Princesa, Palawan. PSU is a major, 10,000-student university and a very significant presence on this island that is still steeped in third-world poverty. Think of how colleges in America can dominate a small town (Clemson, Penn State, etc) and extend that to dominating an island that is equivalent of a small US state. The university here provides key educational resources necessary to the future development of the entire province. Then, my mother-in-law’s brother, Dave Ponce de Leon, is the Vice Governor of Palawan and former Philippine congressman. He is the equivalent of a lieutenant governor of a state in America. He employs a staff of around 80, I believe. They have facilitated the entire experience so far and have provided wonderful hospitality for our family while we are here. We are staying in university housing that has air conditioning, nice bathrooms, and convenient meals. Everywhere we go, we have official drivers and vans from PSU providing all of our transportation needs. It is great.

When we traveled to Toronto a few months ago, I played a mental game with myself, trying to figure out what would tell me that I was in a different country. Occasionally I would see signs in kilometers, or the radio station would give the weather in Celsius. For the most part, though, there was very little obvious differences between the US and Canada. When we landed in Tokyo, on our way to Mania, the first things I say were rice fields (different) a Sheraton hotel. I didn’t see my first Japanese letters until we got in the terminal. The Manila airport seemed dated but everything was in English (it is the official language of the Philippines), and so there really wasn’t a lot that set it apart from other US airports, other than some of their procedures, etc. Also, it was midnight, so we really couldn’t see outside the airport. Well, when we landed in Puerto Princesa on the island of Palawan, on got outside the small terminal, from that point on, everything screamed, “We’re not in Kansas anymore!”

I was in the back of the van, not able to take pictures like I would have liked, so I missed taking pictures along the road from the airport to the PSU campus. It was instant culture shock – unbelievable hustle and bustle on this small (but important) road, chickens and dogs all over the place, wooden shanty-like storefronts selling food and lumber and whatnot all along the way, and tons of motorcycles, bicycles, very small van/buses, and these tricycle/motorcycle taxi-type contraptions. People walking, squatting on the side of the road, or just hanging out, and children playing. No sidewalks, just dirt, mud, and standing water.

The other thing I noticed were many missionary churches. I saw at least two with Fundamental Baptist as part of the name. Some were simple open-air pavilions and others were very fancy (especially for the area) enclosed “normal-looking” structures. I have no idea who any of these men are or what their works are like, but it was interesting to see a rather significant visible presence of missionary activity on this island. On one of our outings we meet a native boatsman who was a member of a missionary church in Sabang, on the northern coast of Palawan. He was saved through the witness of his missionary pastor, someone named Bowman. It was encouraging for us to meet him and he said it was encouraging for him to meet us. It was neat accidental encounter.

To be continued…

I am posting most of my pictures on Facebook, if you would like to see those send a friend request.

Getting ready for the Philippines

2009-07-12T20:49:00.005-04:00

On the Island of Palawan, where we will be spending most of our time.

Our family will soon be flying out for a two week vacation to the Philippines. We are flying non-stop from Atlanta to Tokyo, then from Tokyo to Manila, and then from Manila to the Island of Palawan, where Daphne’s grandmother lives. Daphne was born in the Philippines and moved to the United States when she was five. This trip will be the first time back for her since she was 10. As for myself, I have never been overseas like this before. The most exotic place I’ve ever been was Toronto a few months ago. I am really looking forward to the trip. It should prove to be quite the adventure.

The kids showing off their new passports.

Kid's Baptism

2009-07-12T19:51:00.003-04:00

J.D. and Jennifer got baptized at church this morning. Here are some pictures.

New Calvinism and Worldliness

2009-06-09T13:29:00.006-04:00

I really don’t know too much about Peter Masters, other than he is the current pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, the famous London church once pastored by Charles H. Spurgeon. Masters is a Calvinist, as was his famous predecessor. I lean that way as well, although I am not a hard-core 5 pointer. Dr. Masters is not pleased, however, with what he sees in the current Calvinist resurgence. He has written a pretty hard-hitting critique of the movement’s general lack of concern with worldliness. I cannot remember an article that resonated so much with my own soul and concerns. I highly commend it to your consideration.

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

UPDATE: I just noticed that both Scott Aniol and SI have linked to this article as well. I'm glad. It deserves a wide reading.

UPDATE 2: And DMD.

HT: Comment #1 by Jonathan Hunt

My Thoughts on the Recent Controversy

2009-05-20T15:50:00.004-04:00

I will always appreciate Pastor Sweatt for his gracious and selfless role he played in the creation of our new church plant. He allowed Andy Henderson to present his vision for a new church in the Hamilton Mill section of the northern Atlanta suburbs and then said that anyone from his church who wanted to go and help Pastor Henderson had his complete blessing and support. We started Grace Baptist Church with a good five or six families from Berean, one of those families being mine. Pastor Sweatt was more interested in building the kingdom of God than his own kingdom and thus serves as an excellent role model for other fundamentalist pastors in this regard.

I am also a fervent supporter of fundamentalism. I believe that churches and individuals ought to be fundamentalist in their outlook and philosophy because I believe that fundamentalism most accurately reflects Scripture’s teaching regarding New Testament Christianity. It grieves me when young men or old men depart from fundamentalism because I believe they are departing from the Scriptural ideal.

I realize, of course, that many so-called expressions of fundamentalism in this country are corrupt caricatures of that ideal. While I identify with fundamentalism, I do not identify or associate with every extreme expression of fundamentalism. In fact, I would encourage people to leave hyper-fundamentalism (e.g., militant KJVOism, Hyles-type ministries, abusive troubled-teen ministries, and those whose theology is so weak or whose legalism is so real that it actually teaches another gospel in the Galatians 1 sense), not to embrace conservative evangelicalism, but to find a more Biblically based fundamentalism.

In no sense do I put Berean Baptist Church into the hyper-fundamentalist category. Berean is a good church and Pastor Sweatt has served there faithfully for many years. They are conservative but in no way extreme.

That said, while I love Pastor Sweatt, there are things that he did in that message that are going to drive people away from “mainstream” fundamentalism because they highlight some of the very serious problems that exist within hyper-fundamentalism. I am not a pastor, but I have spoken enough to know that sometimes you say things that you had no intention to say. Some of these things may have been inadvertent, but some things I have heard him say before.

There is a fine line between supporting a man that God has raised up to serve a generation, and falling into ungodly, man-centered hero worship. We should never be blind followers on one hand or completely dismissive critics on the other. But please, promoting the likes of Jack Hyles and Bob Gray because they were soul winners is inexcusable. These men did not just have small foibles; they were blights on the body of Christ. We have got to distance ourselves (and rebuke if necessary) the idea that soul winning covers a multitude of sins.

Second, and I know this one has been beaten to death, but Calvinism is not our enemy. I am Calvinistic (probably 4 to 4.5 points) but I don’t think Calvinism should be stressed in the teaching ministry of a church. It can easily get unbalanced. Preach the sovereignty passages and the man’s responsibility passages in their Biblical proportion and according to each passage’s emphasis. Don’t try to solve the theological tension by pulling up either one of the stakes. If you have recently been convinced of the doctrines of grace, don’t go around making an irritating fool of yourself or getting all offended if your church is not as Calvinistic as you would like. It is not always easy to co-exist but it can be done with humility and appropriate deference. This plea, however, works both ways. We need non-Calvinistic pastors to realize that the problem with the Pipers and Mahaneys of the conservative evangelical world is NOT their Calvinism. If your people are reading Piper or MacArthur or Mahaney, don’t stress out over it. Most likely they are growing in the Lord. This is a good thing but it can also be a dangerous thing, and that leads me to my last point.

When fundamentalist pastors and teachers rightly say that the Bible is our sole and inerrant authority for faith and practice, your people will listen and believe it. When they read or listen to those who model that belief in their preaching and writing ministries, it thrills them. And when your people get a taste for it, nothing else will ever satisfy. Nothing. So here is the challenge that you must embrace with all your being – preach and teach the Bible as if the very words of it are God-breathed inerrant wisdom. Make sure that your people see that you are making God’s point, using His reasoning, His authority, and advancing His agenda, not yours. Be thankful for the men that God has gifted and given a national or international ministry. Don’t be jealous of them or think that you cannot measure up. Here is the beauty of preaching this way – you don’t have to be unusually gifted, you just have to work hard and be faithful with the text. No doubt there is skill involved but if you have been called to preach, God has given you the grace you need to effectively communicate His Word to the people to whom He has called you to serve. So, roll up your sleeves, pray over your text, and preach it!

On a Motherless Mother’s Day

2009-05-09T19:13:00.006-04:00

This Mother’s Day will be my first without my Mom. She passed away this past Wednesday from ovarian cancer, just weeks short of her allocated three score and ten years. My last real conversation with her occurred back in September, the night before her surgery to that was to remove a tumor that had developed on her ovaries. As I posted before, the doctors didn’t know at the time that it was cancerous or that it had spread to several other organs. Everyone thought it would be a relatively routine surgery. That, of course, turned out not to be the case. A quick hour-long surgery turned into a six hour ordeal that my Mom was not physically able to endure. She suffered a rather debilitating stroke that left her unable to speak, eat, or walk without sustained physical therapy and extraordinary effort on her part. So, while I was able to communicate with my Mom after her initial recovery period, it was never really the same. I often think back to that conversation, wondering what more might have been said . . ., yet very thankful for that time, even though I don’t remember any of the details of the conversation.

My Mom taught for years and years at various Christian elementary schools, eventually becoming principal in her later years. In some ways, it all started when he took a summer to tutor me after a disastrous experience at an LA area grade school. I don’t remember this, and I can’t believe that it is true, but I’m told that I was NOT the most cooperative young man during that time. I think my Mom would say that was putting things mildly. I can only hope that I was not as bad as my kids sometimes were during their first year of homeschool. But I digress. Even though my Mom’s degree was not in education she was an excellent teacher who made a lasting impact on her students. One day, after her surgery, my Dad and I got to my Mom’s ICU room and discovered a strange lady, probably in her 30’s, sitting there with my Mom. When we asked who she was, she said she was a student of my Mom’s back when she was in the 5th grade. I don’t even remember who my 5th grade teacher was.

Random memories…hours playing rook, scrabble, ping pong and other games; the best chocolate chip cookies ever, always preparing yummy lunches and snacks for our family trips; scaring her out of her wits when first learning how to drive; cheerfully waking me each morning as I was growing up; taking care of me when I was sick; road trips together to my cousin’s weddings; and pulling me aside during my trip to California when I first introduced Daphne to my family and saying, “Don’t blow it with this one!”

I am thankful for the time we had back in February when the whole family was able to visit with Mom one last time. Jennifer played her violin and the kids sang to her. My one regret is that she will not be able to see the children grow up completely or see them get married off. And, living across the country has made it difficult for my kids to really get to know their grandparents. Nevertheless, the time they spent with her was special and they all cried when they heard the news of Mom’s passing.

I could go on but I will close with this. Daphne has watched my Dad unselfishly take care of my Mom during her last days and told me that I have a lot to live up to. Well, Mom has set the bar pretty high, too.

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

Carol M. Olsen, 69, went home to be with her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on May 6. For eight years until her retirement in 2007, Carol was principal of San Bernardino Christian School and prior to that taught 14 years in the same school. In all, she spent 32 years in Christian school ministry in schools in California and Washington. She was a member of Heritage Bible Church, Highgrove, CA. She was born May 20, 1939 in Johnson City, NY, moved to Waynesboro, VA as a teenager, and received a BS degree from Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC, in 1961. She met her husband in college and was married December 18, 1961, in Waynesboro, VA.

She is survived by her husband, David Efting, of Colton; son Andrew Efting and his wife Daphne and grandchildren JD, Jennifer, and Anna Grace of Suwanee, GA; son Eric Efting and his wife Kimberly and grandchildren Alina, Tommy, Casey, and Erica of Victorville, CA; son Scott Efting of Sunnyvale, CA; and sister Jeannie Kollarits of Staurts Draft, VA.

The funeral service will be held Monday, May 18, 10:30 o’clock at Faith Bible Church, 2898 North G Street, San Bernardino. There will be a viewing at the same church on Sunday afternoon, May 17, 2:30 – 5:00 o’clock. Interment will be at Desert Lawn Cemetery, Calimesa.

In lieu of flowers, the family suggests donations be made to San Bernardino Christian School, 2898 North G Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405.

Rev. Henry J. Olsen followup

2009-05-03T21:16:00.005-04:00

Since my last post, my Dad did some digging for me an found a relative who sent us a copy of my great-grandfather's Certificate of Ordination. The interesting thing, if you click on the picture to look at it full size, is the signature of Oswald Chambers.

Rev. Olsen was my Mom's grandfather. They will soon be reunited as my Mom is in her final days of fighting ovarian cancer and a stroke. My Mom's other grandfather was also a pastor, the Rev. Arthur E. Blann. It appears that he also signed the ordination certificate. I'll need to ask my Dad about that. At any rate, here is a picture of me as a baby, with my Mom and Dad, my Mom's parents, and my Mom's grandparents, the Blann's. I am most grateful for my godly heritage.

Rev. Henry J. Olsen

2009-04-14T07:49:00.006-04:00

My great-grandfather on my mother’s side, Henry J. Olsen, was a pastor in the Pilgrim Holiness Church. I have a little booklet that he wrote entitled, Christ and Christian Experience in the Tabernacle. In the preface of that booklet, it says that the went to God’s Bible School in Cincinnati, Ohio, and that while there he received “entire sanctification.” This is interesting to me because I just recently finished a class on the History and Theology of the Charasmatic Movement. Historic Pentecostalism developed out of the National Holiness Movement. At any rate, I recently had occasion to look at that booklet again and decided to do an Internet search to see if there was anything out there regarding my great-grandfather. He served as an editor of the Pilgrim Holiness Advocate and I thought I might be able to find some interesting stuff. I didn’t find much but what I did find was fascinating, at least to me and I suspect to some of my family members. I found two historical pictures, one was from around 1905 when he was in college at God’s Bible School and the other, taken somewhere between 1913 and 1918, is a picture of him as a member of The Holiness Singers, a group that sang for a Pilgrim Holiness church in Maryland. Here they are:

Henry Olsen (far left) as a student at God's Bible School

Henry Olsen (#14) as a member of The Holiness Singers

GBC Easter Cantata 2009

2009-04-06T09:11:00.003-04:00

This past Sunday our church put on a special Easter Cantata that included our regular adult choir, children's choir, and orchestra (including a few extras who came down from BJU for the occasion).

This was the first time our church has done anything from the Messiah. I thought the Hallelujah Chorus went quite well. I would love to see us do more of that type of thing.

The combined choirs and orchestra also sang Chris Anderson's My Jesus, Fair. The orchestration for this piece was written by our pastor's daughter, Kaytlynn Wood.

Here are videos from three of the numbers.

New ESV Cambridge Wide-Margin Bibles

2009-03-10T15:20:00.005-04:00

In 1997, when my wife and I got married, I bought us matching Cambridge Wide-Margin KJV Bibles. Dr. Mark Minnick had recommended these Bibles for note-taking during messages and personal times of Bible study. We had our Bible-marking pens, colored pencils, and were ready to go. I spent many years in fruitful study each morning, diligently recording what I learned in the margins of my Bible. It was great.

However, in 2001, Crossway introduced the English Standard Version and I started reading the ESV during my devotions, just to see what it was like. After much evaluation, I moved to using the ESV as my primary Bible at home for reading, studying, and family devotions. The Classic Reference version I used didn’t provide much room for note-taking and I longed for the time when Cambridge would publish an ESV version of their top-of-the-line, wide-margin Bible.

Well, that long awaited time has finally come. So now, in the 12th year of our marriage, we received brand new, his and her, ESV Cambridge wide-margin Bibles with black goatskin leather. They are very nice.

I thought I would document the arrival and opening of our new Bibles. But to begin with, let’s see where we came from.

My old KJV Cambridge Wide-Margin Bible.

I spent most of my early study in the Book of Isaiah. You can see how I used colors to coordinate the text and the associated note.

I then moved to an ESV Classic Reference Bible. As you can see, it has seen its better days. This was the Bible we used to read all the way through in family devotions.

Finally, our new Bibles have arrived!

Opening the box.

His and Her ESV Cambridge Wide-Margin Bibles.

My new ESV Bible as it sits closed on my desk.

My new ESV Bible opened to Isaiah. You can see the generous margins available for note-taking.

This Bible is a Red-letter edition – not my favorite but for some reason it was significantly less expensive than the Black-letter edition on Amazon.

My new ESV with my Micron 005 Bible-marking pen ready to go.

An Update on my Mom

2009-02-19T21:27:00.004-05:00

For those who read my blog and don’t know, my Mom is not doing very well. Back in September she had surgery to remove a tumor on her uterus. That tumor turned out to be cancerous and had spread to the rectum and the bladder. So, what the doctors thought would be a relatively quick one-hour procedure, turned into a very difficult, six-hour surgery. During the surgery, my Mom had a stroke that left her partially disabled. As she recovered from the surgery, we found that she would never be the same again. She could barely move her right arm and had great difficulty speaking and swallowing. I don’t think she ever recognized me the week following her surgery.

Through a long process of therapy, she did recover the ability to talk some, albeit with much difficulty and never able to sustain long sentences. She learned how to swallow liquids and soft foods such as Jell-O and milkshakes. She even regained enough strength to use a walker. That progress allowed her to finally go home after 2 plus months in the hospital and rehab center.

Going home was a great accomplishment but it also marked the peak of her recovery. After getting home, she lost all motivation to continue with the stress, pain, and frustration of rehab. Her frail condition did not allow her to start chemotherapy and it appears that the cancer that the surgeons could not remove has started to grow and attack her body again. All these things have caused my Mom to be basically bed-ridden for several months now. She sleeps nearly all day and of course cannot go to church.

My parents are members at Heritage Bible Church in Riverside, California. HBC is a small congregation. The church has been around for a while but it is essentially equivalent to a church plant. Since my Mom cannot go to church, the church has decided to come to her. Each Sunday after the morning worship service, the entire church comes over to my parent’s house and sings hymns for my Mom. It doesn’t take long. They only sing a few hymns. But the impact and blessing has been tremendous. My family and I flew out to California to see Mom this past week and enjoyed the chance to participate in this ministry. Here is a picture.

Our trip to California marked the first time in many years that the whole family could be together. The highlight was getting Mom out of bed for the first time in weeks for a family picture. We praise the Lord for the blessings of this trip and the wonderful memories it will afford us in the future. Outside of a miracle, this was the last time for my family to be with her this side of glory.

The Theme of the Gospel of Mark

2009-01-13T19:30:00.002-05:00

In my previous post, I presented a short analysis of the material in Mark that led me to conclude that the oft-repeated servant theme is probably not the unique theme of Mark’s gospel. I do have an alternative that I would like to suggest. I can’t go into all the details in a short blog post, but I can state what I think the theme is and then outline my reasons for coming up with that particular theme. I’m sure this could be improved and would welcome any suggestions. Just remember, this is a quick summary, not a complete analysis.

Theme: The revelation of Jesus as the Messianic Son of God enables disciples to respond in faith rather than amazement and fear.

The first part of the theme I get from Mark 1:1.

Mark 1:1 (ESV)
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I take “beginning” here to mean an introduction or a starting point for what Mark is going to talk about, namely the good news (“gospel”) that Jesus is the Messianic Son of God (“Jesus Christ, the Son of God”). Another way of saying this is that Mark is planning to progressively reveal, from the beginning, what makes up the gospel of Jesus Christ – His “life and ministry” or His “person and work.” This revelation of the “life and ministry” or the “person and work” of Jesus will show that He is the Christ and that He is the Son of God.

The second part of the theme I get from the structure of Mark. It is possible to recognize three main geographical sections in Mark’s gospels. Those three geographical areas correspond to the three main people groups to whom Jesus reveals Himself.

Mark 1:14-8:30
Ministry in Galilee
Jesus reveals His person and work to the Crowds

Mark 8:31-10:52
Journey to Jerusalem
Jesus reveals His person and work to His Disciples

Mark 11:1-16:8
Mission in Jerusalem
Jesus reveals His person and work to the Religious Leaders

In these sections, Mark specifically records the responses from the crowds, the disciples, and the religious leaders. In each case, Jesus either commends their faith or rebukes their fear and amazement. Here are some examples from the first section:

Mark 5:17 [Healing the demoniac]
17 And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. [rejection]

Mark 5:20
20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. [surprising, unbelievable – certainly not faith]

Mark 5:40 [Healing Jairus’ daughter]
40 And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. [ridiculed – no faith or trust]

Mark 5:42
42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. [astonished, surprised, element of fear]

Mark 4:40-41 [Calm storm]
40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

This last passage shows that the disciples initially had the same problem as the crowds. But they do make progress. The end of the first section closes with Peter’s famous confession that Jesus is the Christ. The disciples are just beginning to see who Jesus is. In the next section Jesus will reveal more about His mission, three times explaining that He must go and die on the cross. Their responses, however, show that they still have much to learn. They see but not clearly, yet. Because they do not have a complete understanding of Jesus as the Divine Messiah, they still respond in amazement rather than faith.

Mark 8:22-25
22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought. 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. 25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.

There is very little content in Mark that does not occur in the other gospels but this story is unique to Mark. It shows what I believe is going on with the disciples. Their life (and our life) is not designed to work apart from God, and specifically, without a Biblical understanding of Jesus as our Divine Messiah. Unless we are illuminated to see Christ for who He really is, it will be impossible for us to respond in faith rather than fear, amazement, and unbelief!

This, as I see it, is the emphasis of the Book of Mark.

Mark – Portrait of the Servant???

2009-01-12T20:25:00.003-05:00

When I taught through the Gospel of Mark several years ago in Sunday School, I began by searching for its theme. Now, I knew that the popular understanding of the theme is that Mark portrays Christ as a servant, or even more specifically, as the Servant of the Lord. That idea fits nicely into the following paradigm:

Matthew – Christ as King
Mark – Christ as Servant
Luke – Christ as Man
John – Christ as God

You can find any number of study Bibles or other aids that promote a similar arraignment. I thought it would be a fairly easy task to quickly confirm that analysis and get on with my study. That turned out not to be the case.

The first idea one comes to, when people try to justify the servant theme, is that Mark is book of action. It shows Christ doing miracles, moving about, working, or in short, serving, just like what you would expect to find a servant doing. Not only that, but the Mark uses “energetic” terminology throughout his narrative. It moves quickly from one story to the other. It is a hard working, action-packed gospel. “OK,” I thought, “that is sort of subtle. Let’s see if we can find something more substantial.” The next thing one reads is that Mark doesn’t include a genealogy, because you just don’t provide genealogies for lowly servants. Not much better, IMO. And next… well, really, there is hardly anything else. It is almost as if the servant theme in Mark is true by dogmatic assertion rather than careful analysis.

In fact, the more analysis you do, the less likely the servant theme becomes. For starters, of the four gospels, Mark uses the term “servant” or “servants” less than any of the others (Matt – 42, Luke – 36, John – 14, Mark – 9, using the ESV as a baseline). Not what you would expect if that was indeed the overriding theme of the book. Next, the quintessential passage that most dramatically depicts Christ as a servant, surprisingly, is not found in Mark at all. The story of Jesus washing the disciple’s feet occurs only in the Gospel of John. Wow! Even more telling is that references to Jesus as the Servant of the Lord, something that is said to be prominent in Mark, are more explicit in other gospels. For example

Isaiah 42:1-4 (ESV)
Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3 a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. 4 He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.

Matthew quotes this passage in 12:18-21. Notice the context:

(1) Matt. 12:1-8 (Disciples pick grain on Sabbath – Jesus is Lord of Sabbath)
(2) Matt. 12:9-14 (Jesus heals man with withered hand)
(3) Matt. 12:15-21 (Jesus withdraws – Matt points out the Servant of the Lord fulfillment)

Now in Mark, the same story is told but Mark does NOT bring out the Servant of the Lord idea:

(1) Mark 2:23-28 (Disciples pick grain on Sabbath - Jesus is Lord of Sabbath)
(2) Mark 3:1-6 (Jesus heals man with withered hand)
(3) Mark 3:7 (Jesus withdraws -- but no mention of the Servant of the Lord fulfillment)

If Mark is supposed to be the portrait of the servant, it is strange that Mark does not point out that identification here. This peculiarity is not the only such aberration. In Luke 22:24-27, for example, we find Christ at the Passover meal and His disciples arguing about who is the greatest. Mark tells the same story but it is Luke, not Mark, who brings out this truth about Christ:

Luke 22:27 (ESV)
For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

Now there is one place in Mark where Christ does say he is a servant:

Mark 10:45 (ESV)
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

But that same statement also occurs in Matthew 20:28. So, it is hardly unique to Mark. I could not find a single servant-themed idea that Mark emphasized more than the other accounts.

Consequently, I came to the conclusion that the servant theme in Mark is more wishful thinking than it is the result of careful analysis of the text, likely proposed to create clever thematic arrangements of the four gospels than anything else . Jesus is the Servant of the Lord, so every gospel will show that aspect of His character but it is quite doubtful that Mark was written to highlight that particular theme.

Can someone explain this to me?

2008-12-27T11:23:00.005-05:00

This "illusion" was on a cereal box that I was looking at this morning and I can't figure it out. It's really bugging me. Both triangles were created with the exact same four shapes. In the first one, all four shapes take up the entire area of the larger triangle. In the second, the shapes are rearranged to create the exact same size larger triangle, but this time there is a one-unit square missing. How is that possible?

(Edit: Actually, I think I figured it out....)

Essential Virtues

2008-12-20T14:06:00.003-05:00

I have been reading through Jim Berg’s new book, Essential Virtues: Marks of the Christ-Centered Life, and came across this compelling quote:

The world system, primarily through the media, desensitizes people – including God’s people – to biblical universals while enticing them to an endless pursuit of particulars. Not only are they desensitized to the universals of truth, goodness, and beauty, but they are also robbed of the very habits of heart and mind necessary to even reflect upon universals. A believer saturating his life with entertainment cannot concentrate on his Bible without feeling great boredom and restlessness. He does not have the humility nor the mental discipline to do so. Consequently, he neglects his Bible and the solid preaching of the Word and fills his life with entertaining distractions made possible by the electronic, connected age in which we live.

This analysis appears to be right on target. If that is the case, then our churches and youth groups are filled with bored believers, all but incapable of sustained concentration on spiritual things. As a father, I need to be careful regarding the habit forming pull of our media-driven culture and the devestating effects that it can have on both me and my children.

The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University

2008-10-06T20:01:00.012-04:00

Rare Manuscript Library at Yale University

This past Sunday (10/5) was Jonathan Edwards’ 305th birthday. In commemoration of that event, Jason Button posted an article on Theosource regarding the launch of WJE Online 2.0 by The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University. Jason's blog highlights the many works of Jonathan Edwards currently available on that site. These works are all fully searchable by keyword, scripture reference, date, or a host of other variables. It is a virtual treasure trove for online research of Edwards’ writings and sermons. Ever wonder what Edwards preached as his text in his farewell sermon at Northampton? Not only can you read the complete sermon but you can also find a picture of his notes!

There are all sorts of interesting things at this site. Perhaps the most interesting to me is the complete online availability of Edwards’ Blank Bible. This Bible consisted of a small King James Version interleaved with much larger blank pieces of paper on which Edward wrote his notes as he read through his Bible. Not only are all 6000+ entries available online, there are also pictures! As you can tell I love the pictures! Click on the photo to examine the picture at full size.

In addition to the sermons and writings, the site hosts biographical and chronological information concerning his life, a sample curriculum for high school teachers interested in presenting the life of Jonathan Edwards to their students, and, something I so wish I had available to me when I was in the Northampton area a few years ago – a tour page with directions to famous Jonathan Edwards sites. I was up there in the dead of winter. It was freezing cold outside (in the single digits!) and it was very hard to explore, especially when I didn’t know where anything was. The best I got was this picture of the intersection in Northampton. The Edwards lived on King Street.

But with this tour page, you can visit all the important sites, from his birth place in Hartford, to his homes in Northampton and Stockbridge, to the location of his famous Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon in Enfield, CT, to the location of his grave in Princeton.

If you are at all interested in Jonathan Edwards, check out this site. You will not be disappointed.

GBC Missions Conference 2008

2008-08-28T20:19:00.004-04:00

This past week we had our first ever missions conference at Grace Baptist Church. I’ve been looking forward to this time all summer and it did not disappoint. We had three missionaries speak. The first, Chris Seawright, was one of our first ever missionaries (of course, all of our current missionaries fall into that category, but that is beside the point), back from his first term in Cambodia. The last time Chris was at our church we were meeting in a rented modular building. He was a brand new missionary, just starting out, not knowing the language and not knowing what his first term would bring forth. It was a real blessing to see the progress made in that very difficult field and his obvious love for the Cambodian people.

Through Chris’s recommendation, we met our second missionary speaker, Michael Carlyle. Michael and his family are on deputation to Brazil. He did not start out as a missions or Bible major; instead, God called him out of secular employment to go to seminary (Central Seminary in Virginia Beach) and the mission field. He has a sweet family with four children – all girls. They ministered to us in music, both playing the piano and hand bells. My kids really enjoyed learning how to play those bells when they came over for lunch one day. Michael preached on the importance of missions in bringing glory to God from Revelation 4 and 5. It was one of the best messages I’ve heard on that subject in a long time. It was a real joy to hear his testimony and get to know him.

Our last missionary, David Rozelle, is a current member of our church. David is a veteran missionary, having served many years in Austria, Luxemburg, and Scotland, before coming home to work at various mission agencies stateside. He is now the Director of Advancement for Biblical Missions Worldwide. David possesses a wealth of missions knowledge and always brings a thoughtful, unique perspective to whatever topic he addresses.

We had a great mix of guys for our conference, a veteran missionary, a first term missionary, and a missionary on deputation. The last night we held a forum with those men to discuss various topics on the subject of missions. I think it is very helpful and necessary for local churches to think through what we are doing in regard to missions. We really just scratched the surface in our forum and could have easily gone on all night, but alas we had to break and get to our ice cream social.

It is really nice to have missionaries at church for an extended period of time. It helps the church get to know the men and their families. We were able to form a bond between their families and ours that too often doesn’t exist when all you know about a missionary is their picture on a wall. We all hated to see the conference end and have to part ways. I hope this is the beginning of many good missions conferences to come.

Speaking the Truth in Love

2008-05-31T07:05:00.004-04:00

I have been very busy the past couple of months, with very little time for blogging or other diversions. I have managed to read some, however, during my lunch hour and when I get snippets of time at home. The two books I am currently, but slowly, making my way through are Pierced for our Transgressions and Jonathan Aitken’s new biography of John Newton.

In my reading I came across a quote by John Newton that I wanted to share with my readers. The quote comes from his first message to his parishioners after he moved from Olney to London. In this message, in which he intended to set forth the foundation of his new ministry, Newton explained his philosophy of speaking the truth in love from Ephesians 4:15. Here is the quote regarding speaking the truth:

The Bible is the grand repository of the truths that it will be the business and the pleasure of my life to set before you. It is the complete system of divine truth to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken with impunity. Every attempt to disguise or soften any branch of this truth in order to accommodate it to the prevailing taste around us either to avoid the displeasure or court the favor of our fellow mortals must be an affront to the majesty of God and an act of treachery to men. My conscience bears me witness that I mean to speak the truth among you.

This was a helpful reminder for me as I begin the day finishing up my lesson for SS tomorrow.

A Memorial to Jonathan Edwards

2008-03-22T13:12:00.004-04:00

Jonathan Edwards died on this date in 1758, exactly 250 years ago. Both Jonathan and his wife Sarah displayed remarkable trust in God’s goodness in response to this tragic event. See my short article posted on Theosource.

Edwards Gravestone at Princeton Cemetery

Family Bible Reading

2008-03-18T20:30:00.005-04:00

Today our family reached a major milestone in our family Bible reading. We have finished reading through the entire Old Testament. In addition, we are very close, perhaps a month and a half at most, to completing the entire Bible. More on that in just a bit.

Back sometime in 2003 I began reading a chapter from the Psalms each night with the family at the dinner table before we ate. This reading was the beginning of a second time through the Book of Psalms. The first time we used the New American Standard Bible and we read through Psalms and the Book of Proverbs. We started again, this time, with the English Standard Version. My original idea was to get a feel for how these versions read and compare them by reading them out loud to my family.

After we completed Psalms and Proverbs, I decided we ought to read through the book of Genesis. With those three books under our belt, I got the idea that we could read through the entire Bible. So, we continued reading a chapter from the Bible (or a portion of a chapter if the chapters were too long) before dinner each night. I wanted variety and thought it would be really hard to read the Pentateuch straight through or the major and minor prophets, so I tried to bounce around between the Old and New Testament, between long books and short ones. My one confession is that I summarized the content of some chapters rather than reading each name and line of a genealogy or every detail of a very repetitive section (e.g., descriptions of the tabernacle in Exodus 26-31). For the most part, though, we really did read everything.

I did not keep track of how long it took to finish the Book of Psalms or Proverbs, but I kept pretty detailed records for all the other books. There were several single chapter books that only took one night of reading to finish. Other books, of course, were much longer and took more time. Isaiah, for example, took us 79 days to complete, longer than any other book on our record. We finished the OT today by reading the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles (sometimes I would read an extra chapter just to finish off a book). We have only Romans and Revelation left to read from the New Testament and so I anticipate finishing the whole project sometime in May.

Reading extended passages out loud is a great way to discover the literary quality of a translation. Some places the ESV just flows so beautifully and other places it’s a real dog. Part of it, I’m sure, is due to the fact that it is just plain difficult to create fine prose while translating as literally as possible. My one major regret is that I didn’t keep track of those places where the translation stood out as either exceptional or poor. Overall, though, my impression is that the ESV reads very well, better than either the KJV or the NASB.

My guess is that reading the Bible like this has been more profitable for me than my wife and kids. Normally, they did not follow along with their own Bibles. We just didn’t have enough ESV’s to go around. Besides, when we started the kids didn’t know how to read. They were only 1, 3, and 5 at the time. So, they just listened to daddy as he read the passage. I suspect that the reading, therefore, was more meaningful for me than them. I would try to offer an occasional comment and bit of instruction to highlight the point of the passage. I wanted the kids to learn respect for Bible reading and to learn how to pay attention. It’s been four and a half years now through this project. Their comprehension has definitely increased as they grew older.

I’m not sure what we are going to do when we finish in a couple of months. I doubt we will read through the whole Bible again like we’ve been doing. I like the idea of reading the Bible but I might stick to easier sections, maybe work through specific chapters that deal directly with issues that our children or family are struggling with. On the other hand, I’ve been wondering about the Holman Christian Standard Bible…

Precious in the Sight of the Lord

2008-03-08T09:31:00.002-05:00

This past Friday (3/7) a member of my adult Sunday School class went home to be with the Lord. Very few outside of our church would probably know much about him but his faithfulness to church and to his Lord was always an encouragement to me.

Jim Gibby was a frail, thin man who looked older than his 58 years would warrant. For the past several years he had to carry around a portable oxygen tank to help him with his breathing. Sometimes in church or in SS you could hear the low hum and regular clicking of the mechanism that fed the oxygen to him. To some, I suppose, it could be distracting but for me it was just a constant reminder of his faithfulness. In a day when so many people let the littlest things keep them from church, Jim’s faithfulness, in spite of his physical hardship, serves as a well-needed rebuke.

In addition to that, Jim got me to do something at church one year that I normally would never have done. Those who know me know that singing is not one of my fortes. I love good music but I cannot produce it save my life. I’m rather self-conscious about it and I can’t wait for heaven where I am fully expecting brand-new glorified vocal cords. At any rate, on Father’s Day our music director often asks all the men of the church to participate in an all-male special music ensemble. I usually decline because, well, that’s just not my gift and I don’t want to embarrass myself up there. I normally get a lot of kidding about not participating but I can be pretty stubborn. So, I was sitting there, watching the men begin to practice, when lo and behold up marches Jim Gibby, oxygen tank and all. Well, I think to myself, if Jim Gibby can get up there and sing, then I suppose I can, too. So, up I went. I’m not sure the group was better for it, but I probably was.

Jim also had a way of handing out compliments. This past year we broke up our one big adult SS class held in the auditorium into several smaller adult classes. Jim came to my class and half way through our first series he said, “you know when I first came to your class I thought it was going to be pretty boring but instead it turned out to be not so bad.” Thanks, Jim, I think.

As our Pastor said in an e-mail to our church family, “Jim is now beholding the glory of the Lord and breathing in celestial air. No more struggle.” I will miss him and our church will miss him.

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. Psalm 116:15

The Benefit of Bible Difficulties

2008-03-01T12:27:00.002-05:00

This past week or so I came across the following quote by B. F. Westcott. It comes from a book of his entitled, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches, published in 1896.

And if it is, as we devoutly believe, the very source and measure of our religious faith, it seems impossible to insist too earnestly on the supreme importance of patience, candor and truthfulness in investigating every problem which it involves. The first steps towards the solution of a difficulty are the recognition of its existence and the determination of its extent. And, unless all past experience is worthless, the difficulties of the Bible are the most fruitful guides to its divine depths. It was said long since that "God was pleased to leave difficulties upon the surface of Scripture, that men might be forced to look below the surface."

In studying and teaching the Bible, I sometimes get frustrated with interpretational difficulties. Why couldn’t everything just be plain and simple? It would make life so much easier.

Yet, I have to agree with Westcott when he says that the difficulties lead us to the great depths of the Scriptures. They force us to compare Scripture with Scripture. They force to seek the Lord for His help in understanding His Word. As we dig for understanding like the treasure that it is, we begin to understand the fear of the Lord and find the great riches of the knowledge of God (Prov 2:3-5).

The good stuff is rarely on the surface. True treasures are reserved for those who dig and the difficulties of the Bible show us where.

Does Isaiah 14:12 refer to Satan?

2008-02-24T18:42:00.005-05:00

We have taken up this question in our adult SS class to some profit, I think. In previous weeks we have invested time to work through all the preliminary issues, including the meaning of sheol in the OT and the overall Biblical teaching on Satan. With this background material established we can at least answer the question with a proper understanding of the context that exists in Isaiah 14. I’m thankful that we hold this class first thing Sunday morning when everyone is fresh. It has taken some effort to make it through all these issues.

I’ve already tipped my hand in class that I don’t believe the passage is speaking of Satan but I have not yet presented all my reasons. I’m not sure anyone in my class even knows that I have a blog, so I think it’s safe to explain my reasons here without spoiling next week. So, what are my reasons?

First, the context clearly depicts the death of a human monarch. The previous earthly kings greet him as he unexpectantly enters the grave (sheol) in verse nine. They notice that the one who previously made them weak (14:12) has now become weak like themselves (14:10). He has left the pomp and glory of his reign behind and is now covered with worms and maggots in the grave (14:11). He is a man (14:16) who ends up disgraced (14:15), without a proper burial (14:18-20) and without a legacy (14:20-22).

Second, the fall of Satan described in Luke 10:18 begins his reign of terror on the earth, while the fall of the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 depicts the end of his rule and reign. Edward Young makes this point succinctly when he writes,

“Tertullian, Gregory the Great, and others have referred this verse to the fall of Satan, described in Luke 10:18. But the present passage pictures the end of a tyrannical reign. The Babylonian king had desired to be above God, and so fell from heaven. He falls to Sheol, and his power is done away. Not so Satan. His fall was against God, but he continues yet his tyrannical acts against God’s people. ‘His doom is sure,’ for Christ has died, but not until the final judgment will he be confined to the lake of fire. Inasmuch, then, as this passage describes a king’s downfall and removal from the scene, it cannot apply to Satan.” (Young, Vol. 1, p. 441)

Third, the language used of “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12-15 is often used of other human leaders or peoples. It is not, as I have often heard, exalted language that could only refer to Satan. So, for example, the Bible uses similar language in regard to the Anti-Christ in Daniel 8:9-10 (“[the little horn] waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground”) and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (“who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” David can say in Psalm 139:8, “If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in sheol, behold thou art there.” The very first Babylonians used similar language in Genesis 11:3-4 when they said, “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make a name…”

The real kicker, though, comes in Luke 10:15, where Jesus refers to the city of Capernaum with these words, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell (hades).” This is the exact terminology used regarding the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. The city of Capernaum was made up of regular people, not demons. Now, they both may have been aligned with Satan but that is not the same thing as actually being Satan or representing Satan. If Christ can use this language to refer to regular people, then Isaiah can, too. There is nothing in the wording of Isaiah 14 that forces us to conclude that Lucifer is Satan.

So, why is this so important? First, I think it is always good to interpret the Bible properly and to help people learn how to interpret the Bible properly. Second, the KJV twice uses the word “hell” when it translates sheol in this passage and I think some people get the erroneous idea from this that when Satan fell, he became the ruler of Hell. Nothing could be further from the truth. Third, when we speak of the pride of this king, I don’t think it hits home to us as effectively as it should when we view this person as Satan. Of course Satan is full of pride; he is the epitome of wickedness. The hard truth is that we can exhibit pride in the exact same way. We can exalt ourselves in our minds to a position equal with and above God. I don’t think it is uncommon at all but we dull the force of this passage if we say that it uses exalted language that cannot apply to regular people. Fourth, and finally, the point of the passage is that Judah should trust in the LORD rather than the king of the most glorious nation on earth (cf., Isaiah 13:19). The fact of the matter is that no matter how glorious, intimidating, or fearful this man may be, he is just a man. He will go to his grave just like every other man. In fact, his death will actually be an ignoble death. He cannot do his will on earth forever. So, trust in the Lord, who alone can swear as He does in Isaiah 14:24, “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.” When the LORD of hosts purposes something, no one can annul it! (14:27)

Happy Birthday Handel

2008-02-23T08:46:00.003-05:00

My favorite composer, G. F. Handel, was born on this date 323 years ago in 1685. Check out my guest post in commemoration of that event over at Theosource.

Biblica – The Bible Atlas

2008-02-08T15:29:00.000-05:00

Absolutely stunning is the only way to describe Biblica, a new Bible Atlas compiled by Dr. Barry Beitzel, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Language at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Beitzel was the chief consultant for this project that included over 25 different contributors. It is not a traditional atlas in that maps are not the primary focus. Rather, as the subtitle says, it presents a “social and historical journey through the lands of the Bible.” It does this with maps, of course, but also with breathtaking, full-color paintings, photographs, and drawings, along with engaging narrative. Its shear size (13.3 x 10.3 x 2.2 inches and over 9.5 pounds!) contributes to its impressive presentation of the material.

The atlas is divided into 10 major sections: an (1) Introduction that deals with the history, spread, and archeology of the Bible, followed in the next section with an overview of the (2) Geography and History of the Bible Lands. Next comes chapters covering the historical context for each major division of the Bible, (3) Genesis and the Patriarchal Period, (4) the Judges, (5) the Kings, (6) the Prophets and the Righteous, (7) the Conquest of the Kingdoms, (8) the Life of Jesus of Nazareth, and (9) Spreading the Word. Lastly, there is a (10) Bible Reference section that contains several helpful charts, Biblical family trees, Scripture reference index, a gazetteer (index of places and names), and a more general index.

The narratives are not always conservative. There is a boxed text that advocates a late date for some of Daniel’s prophecies based on historical-critical scholarship. The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is of a young woman, not a virgin. The section on the crossing of the Red Sea gives room for non-miraculous explanations (“Some people prefer to speak of this event – the parting of the sea—as the consequences of perfectly natural causes.”) I have not read all 575 pages but I suspect that you would find similar types of problems scattered throughout the book. It is not reliable as far as consistently presenting conservative positions on the subject matter, but the narrative is engaging and helpful as far as it goes, and it does give insights into the socio-political context of the Biblical narrative.

More than anything else, though, it is just a pure pleasure to browse through this work and soak in the stunning artwork so prominently displayed throughout its pages. Other reviews claim that is contains over 650 color pictures. Some are ancient paintings or reproductions from old Bibles; some are more modern photographs. Even though not as prominent, the maps are equally as engaging and very well-presented. One caution however – there are a few not so modest painting or sculptures and there are some that depict the Biblical history in rather graphic detail (e.g., Isaiah getting sawn in two – not exactly how I pictured that event, BTW) --nothing that you probably wouldn’t find in a standard encyclopedia, though.

So, if are looking for a grand coffee table book, or something just to flip through when you have some extra time on your hands, or to show your kids when they are learning about various Bible stories, this might be just the thing.

My Comments on Bitzer was a Banker

2008-01-21T18:58:00.000-05:00

Where pastors can no longer articulate and defend doctrine by a reasonable and careful appeal to the original meaning of Biblical texts, they will tend to become close-minded traditionalists who clutch their inherited ideas, or open-ended pluralists who don't put much stock in doctrinal formulations.

This quote by John Piper in his book, Brothers, We are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry, has been weighing on my mind ever since I read it last week on Jason Button’s blog post, Brothers, Bitzer was a Banker. The context was a plea for pastors to learn and use Greek and Hebrew. If Bitzer, who was just a banker, found it valuable, how much more should it be for full-time ministers of the gospel? The quote cited above is just one of several that Piper makes to support his argument.

I think it is an overstatement to say that unless one becomes proficient in the Biblical languages, you will tend towards one of these two extremes. Surely, several counterexamples could be found. Nevertheless, I think his point is well-taken, that a habitual disregard of careful exegesis (that includes a study of the text beyond one’s favorite English translation) will reduce one’s ministry to regurgitating traditional positions and interpretations that may or may not be faithful to the Scriptures or to the text under consideration (i.e., the right doctrine from the wrong text syndrome).
When that happens, people under your ministry who study the text for themselves may begin to lose trust in your commitment to the authority of Scripture or your competence to rightly divide it. Worst case scenario is that they begin to lose confidence in the Scriptures themselves and go down the road of religious pluralism mentioned by Piper. After all, if you can get anything out of a passage, regardless of the details of the text, then why limit yourself to conservative interpretations?

Those who don’t bother to study the text for themselves will find that their convictions, as learned from their pastor’s non-exegetical approach, are based on an limp, bruised reed and if they lean upon it, they will pierce themselves through when confronted with challenges to their doctrine or practice. I believe this second scenario is exactly what has happened in some segments of fundamentalism over the past several decades. Right doctrines and practices were preached from an authoritative pulpit, where the authority came from the dominance of the man’s personality, following, or influence, but not from the careful exposition of God’s Word. Now, when those doctrines and practices are challenged, there is no Scriptural foundation from which the people of God can withstand such an attack. I contend this is true for all sorts of issues that people tend to dismiss today, such as music, separation, dress, entertainment choices, social drinking, etc. This can happen with more doctrinal matters as well. How many people in our churches could give a sound refutation of easy believism, no-repentance gospels, or the compromises to the doctrine of justification associated with the recent Evangelicals and Catholics Together declarations? Or do they just believe that Catholic doctrine is wrong because their pastor says so?

We say we believe in the inerrant, verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible but we ignore the details of the very words that God breathed out, or how those words form inerrant thoughts, or how those thoughts logically express God’s viewpoint on things. We pass over these details, relying only on the tradition of an English translation or an overall concept that we embrace and we fail to think God’s thoughts after Him or learn why He says what He does in the way that He does. In the end we stagnate because we never go beyond the traditions that we already know. I’m going to use the title of my blog again and say that we fail to discover more of the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Ephesians 3:7-8
Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess

2008-01-18T20:59:00.000-05:00

The death of Bobby Fischer on Thursday reminded me of the only chess book I ever read. I was just out of grad school and working in the DoD as a cryptologic mathematician. The NSA employed scores of us geeks and many of us had an interest in chess. We often played speed chess during our lunch breaks. Those matches became quite intense as we desperately longed for our opponent's flag to fall, even as we willed our chess clock flag to miraculously stay up. We even drew crowds! Unbelievable, I know, but you have to understand the subculture you are dealing with. At any rate, chess had always been something I was good at and enjoyed, but now it was getting serious. A friend of mine lent me his copy of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and my play instantly improved as I incorporated moves and strategies that I learned from Bobby Fischer.

With that success, I made my way to a local bookstore fully intending to start a library of chess books. I wanted to learn the openings and ways to exploit the mistakes of opponents who didn’t know the openings as well as I. I wanted to develop sophisticated strategies for the development of my pieces, learn how to force my opponents into weak positions, and identify fool-proof end-game maneuvers. I was going to become a grand master, or at least come close.

But as I looked at those books and contemplated the time and commitment involved in reaching the pinnacle of chess playing, I began to wonder what I wanted to give my life to. I was single, didn’t have any family obligations. I could have invested the time and money to become really good. As I was thinking on these things the Lord began to convict me regarding the overall goals of my life. I realized that being great at chess is an OK accomplishment but there is so much more to life than chess. I really felt that the Lord wanted me to give my life over to learning about Him rather than learning about chess.

Today, I have hundreds of books about God and the Bible and not one about chess. I think about Bobby Fischer and what he gave his life to and how his life ended. He was the greatest in the world. And now what? That day in a bookstore in Columbia, MD, I made a decision by God’s grace that I wouldn’t go down that road and I am so thankful. I still enjoy playing chess when I get the chance but I enjoy learning about Christ and His unsearchable riches so much more.

The Chuck Dunn Report

2008-01-17T15:07:00.001-05:00

For those of you interested in presidential politics, I recommend reading The Chuck Dunn Report.

Dr. Dunn was my College and Career SS teacher at University Baptist Church while I was at Clemson working on my Master's degree. He worked chapter by chapter through the Pentateuch during those years and always had a well-prepared, thoughful lesson. He was a model of faithfulness in that regard that I have tried to emulate now that I am teaching Sunday School on a regular basis.

Wicked Men Be Not Apt to Be Sensible

2008-01-06T17:34:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Edwards really had a way with words. Most of us are familiar with the word pictures he painted in his famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. I came across another passage nearly as striking in a sermon entitled, Wicked Men Be Not Apt to Be Sensible. It is about how the unsaved rarely think beyond the realities of this present age, much less about their certain impending physical death.
Here is Edwards on death:

They are not wont to dwell in their thoughts upon death, the sinking of nature under the oppressing weight of dying pains, the gradual creeping of cold death upon them, their breaths becoming shorter and shorter, the increasing of the oppression of their vitals together with the decay of strength, till they can fetch their breath no longer, the struggling for life under the last agonies, till nature is even forced to yield, and the lungs cease to perform their office, the pulse of the heart ceases, and the blood stops and no longer continues to circulate, and the frame of the body dissolves, and the union between body and soul is broken and the soul leaves its old habitation, as being no longer fit for its residence and takes its flight into the unseen world of spirits, while pale ghostly death sits upon the face of their corpse and they are laid in the dark and silent grave, and begin to corrupt, and the worms begin to take them till they turn to dust and rise not again till the heavens be no more.

That’s one sentence!

He goes on to say,

And how that after this the places that have known them shall know them no more. Their faces shall no more be seen, their voice no more heard, and the face of the earth shall be forever clear of them.
They don’t consider those things. Though they are so certain and so near, they hardly ever think those things over. They think of other things that have neither the truth part of the certainty nor importance, with a great deal of fixedness, the thoughts of them made impression on their minds, and they are setting their hearts upon those things and plotting and contriving and going about them as if they thought there never was to be an end put to them. Their inward thought is that their houses shall continue forever (Ps. 49:11).

Mary’s Magnificat and the Book of Isaiah

2007-12-31T15:57:00.000-05:00

These past two Sundays, in my adult SS class, I taught from Luke 1:46-55 on Mary’s Magnificat. I had just finished my series on Guarding the Gospel and these lessons were designed to be a short Christmas SS series, filling the gap until I could start my next series on the Book of Isaiah in January. Remarkably, it dawned on me (literally, as I was waking last Sunday) how closely the Magnificat parallels the general structure of Isaiah.

Isaiah begins in chapters 1-12 detailing the sin-sick condition of God’s people and ends up with several chapters regarding the promised Messiah. Chapters 13-39 present God conquering all the surrounding nations, showing God’s trustworthiness to His people. Chapters 40-66 show Israel’s ultimate salvation through the work of God’s servant. That is just a very rough 3-part outline but it matches up surprisingly well with Mary’s Magnificat:

Isaiah 1-12: Lowly condition of the people and the promised Messiah
Luke 1:46-49: Mary’s lowly condition and the great blessing of giving birth to the Messiah

Isaiah 13-39: God conquering all the surrounding nations
Luke 1:50-53: God’s mighty acts of mercy and judgment

Isaiah 40-66: Salvation through the work of God’s Servant
Luke 1:54-55: God helps His servant Israel in remembrance of His promises

This was a real blessing to me because for the longest time I didn’t know what I was supposed to teach on in January. I finally came to think that God was leading me to start back up with a series in Isaiah that I began shortly after our church first started. When I had a couple weeks to fill before I commenced with Isaiah, the Lord led me to the Magnificat and low and behold it provides the perfect introduction to our longer study in Isaiah.

It is just amazing how the Lord works these things sometimes.

A Fundamentalist answers the Touchstone questions

2007-12-24T10:38:00.000-05:00

Don Johnson asks how a fundamentalist would answer the questions asked to evangelical leaders in a recent Touchstone article. Here are my answers:

1.How do you define “Fundamentalist” in a way that distinguishes Fundamentalists from other believing Christians? And has this definition changed over the last several years?

I would say that both Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree on the core doctrines of Christianity. However, Fundamentalists distinguish themselves by their consistent, Biblical response to (1) liberalism and other expressions of false gospels and unbelief; (2) persistently disobedient brethren; and (3) worldliness, defined briefly as the influence of Satan, our flesh, and world’s apart-from-God wisdom upon our lives. Ultimately, that Biblical response often involves separation, always following the right steps, implementing it at the right time, and to the proper degree.

2.Has Fundamentalism matured since the 1950s, and if so in what ways?

Primarily, I think we have understood that militancy means that we must engage the battle when necessary, much like when Nehemiah would blow the trumpet to gather the workers to the particular point of attack, but that it is the Lord’s battle and so we must use spiritual means to fight it, not fleshly ones. I think we have out-grown the carnal mind set that said pugnaciousness is a virtue.

Secondly, I think we have also grown in our handling of the Word, emphasizing expository preaching through of the whole counsel of God, rather than riding limited hobby horses.

Thirdly, I think we have shed some of the Finnyism that has plagued much of our movement’s history.

Of course, not every wing of fundamentalism has matured in these areas, unfortunately.

3.Has Fundamentalism lost anything in the process of maturing (if it did)?

I think Fundamentalism has become more worldly. Because of past abuses, overemphasis on externals, and the lack of true Biblical training in this area, churches today are very hesitant to deal with personal holiness issues. Legalism is the major taboo today.

4.Are there any fundamental differences within the Fundamentalist movement today, and do you think they will deepen into permanent divisions, or even have already? How might they be healed?

One major divide exists over KJVonlyism. I see this issue going away as more and more churches deal decisively with the issue, leaving only the fringe-wing of Fundamentalism (if we can still call it that) embracing that position.

I think another area in which we may see a divide within traditional Fundamental circles is in the area of music. From my standpoint, I see a distressing amount of accommodation to and acceptance of groups like Casting Crowns and MercyMe and the whole CCM genre. It may be that those of us who cannot abide this development will find it harder and harder to find a local church they can fully embrace.

5.What does your movement, speaking generally, fail to see that it ought to see?

I think we fail to see the compromises to the gospel that occur within our own movement. Easy-believism, no-repentance gospels, shoddy expositional preaching, KJVonlyism, and increasing worldliness all compromise the gospel to some degree or another.

6.What would you say to a Fundamentalist tempted to become Catholic or Orthodox?

I would say read the book of Hebrews. “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall way from the living God.” (Heb. 3:12)

7.What has Fundamentalist to offer the wider world that it will find nowhere else?

Fundamentalism is simply obedient Christianity. It is following a Biblical philosophy of Christian living, guarding the gospel in faith and practice. That is why I am a Fundamentalist – because I believe that it is a life that most glorifies God. We should be offering the world what the church displays to the heavenly angels – the manifold wisdom of God.

8.What else would you like to say?

I’ve probably said too much already. :)

GBC Christmas Concert

2007-12-16T17:58:00.000-05:00

This past Saturday and Sunday our church put on its annual Christmas concert. Daphne put in many hours practicing for the accompaniment. I’ve uploaded three of the songs on YouTube. My camera is not doing so well right now but at least you can get a flavor of the program.

Ding Dong Merrily On High

Once in Royal David's City

O Come Little Children

Whooping Cough at BJU

2007-12-10T08:37:00.000-05:00

Book Review: Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

2007-12-06T20:03:00.000-05:00

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

I have long been interested in the New Testament’s use of Old Testament texts and prophecies. I believe that each use is both legitimate and instructive, even if it is not always clear how or why a NT author alludes to or quotes the OT text. I enjoy studying Messianic references in the OT and seeing how the NT authors treat those prophecies and their related texts. This present volume, edited by Drs Beale and Carson is a virtual goldmine for those of us interested in studying this subject and especially individual passages.

This work actually claims to be exhaustive in that it goes from Matthew through Revelation and provides comments on every quotation and allusion to the Old Testament. Obviously, there is some subjectivity involved because not every allusion is universally recognized as such but the intent is to cover everything. You can think of this book as a one-volume commentary on the New Testament with the unique feature that it only comments on verses or passages that are based on OT Scripture. It turns out that there are a very large number of OT allusions in the NT and it really goes to show how critical it is to understand the OT if we are to properly understand the New.

The actual commentary for each NT book is supplied by one of seventeen or so authors, most of whom have written whole commentaries on their particular book. We have, for example, Craig Bloomberg on Matthew, Andreas Kostenberger on John, Moises Silva on Galatians and Philippians, Philip Towner on the Pastoral Epistles, George Guthrie on Hebrews, D. A. Carson on the General Epistles, and G.K. Beale on Revelation. These guys are generally conservative but not always as conservative as I would like. Bloomberg, for example, does not take Isaiah 7:14 as referring exclusively to a virgin birth (although he does note that some “very conservative” scholars do). I have not had the time to do anything but briefly skim through their comments but my familiarity with many of the individual contributors leads me to expect much helpful content.

Indexes do not normally get me very excited but in this case the index for this volume is of immense value. The index of OT verses provides a near exhaustive list of which OT passages show up in NT Scripture. You can even see at a glance which OT passages get the most “play” over in the NT. These passages would seem to be very important for understanding NT doctrine and the passage at hand. Conversely, when you get to the index of NT verses, you can tell immediately which passages depend most heavily on OT authority. I found it fascinating just browsing through the index and looking up the occasional, oft-used verse.

I look forward to using this reference book as I study and prepare lessons in the future.

Changes in the ESV

2007-07-21T15:43:00.000-04:00

In 2007, Crossway started publishing a slightly modified version of the English Standard Version (ESV). This does not seem to be a much publicized event as I have not been able to find anything official from Crossway (not that I have looked that hard). Nevertheless an update has occurred. If you have Bibleworks, the changes have already been incorporated into the software through their regular update process.

So, what are these changes? There is no official list but Rick Mansfield, on his blog, This Lamp, has listed all the modifications in seven separate blog entries, each corresponding to a different section of Scripture:

Genesis - Deuteronomy
Joshua - Esther
Job - Song of Solomon
Isaiah - Malachi
Matthew - Acts
Romans - Philemon
Hebrews - Revelation

Most of these changes are very trivial but some are both interesting and significant. One of the more interesting changes occurs at Micah 5:2. In this famous messianic passage, the ESV had followed the RSV with, “…from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.” While it is possible to construct an orthodox interpretation of this wording, I was disappointed that the ESV translation committee did not change the wording found in the RSV, especially since this verse was highlighted in the 1953 BibSac article that originally criticized the RSV’s liberal bias.

The new version of the ESV reads, “…from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” This translation choice is more literal (cf., 2 Kings 10:27 for the only other usage) and preserves a deliberate play on words based on the idea of “bringing forth” (as seen in the KJV below):

"yet out of thee shall he come forth) (5:2)
"whose goings forth have been from of old" (5:2)
"until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth" (5:3)

It’s still not perfect, though, because I believe the Hebrew indicates that the “comings” or “goings” are plural (referring to His repeated Theophanies that have occurred since ancient days), rather than singular as it now stands in the ESV. The singular forces an interpretation along the lines of the Messiah’s earthly descent from the family of David, much like, or exactly like, the use of “origin” did in the original wording. My guess is that they changed "origin” because it was too offensive (indicating to some a non-eternal origin of Christ) but in a way that preserved the orthodox interpretation that they preferred.

I still beleive that the best of rending of the underlying Hebrew word is "goings forth" as translated by the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB.

The Cradle of Christianity

2007-07-14T17:33:00.000-04:00

This past week I visited an exhibit called The Cradle of Christianity on display until October 16, 2007 at the Michael C. Carlos Museum on the campus of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. The exhibit is not huge, in my estimation, but there are several interesting artifacts in the collection organized by the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

First there are the three ossuaries baring the names of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. Yes, those ossuaries. To their credit, however, both the Museum and the audio provided by Emory professors make very clear that these ossuaries did not belong to the Mary, Joseph, and Jesus of the Bible. Those names were very common in that region and in that time period and there is no evidence to suggest that these boxes ever contained the bones of those individuals. There is a fourth ossuary on display, however, that does have Biblical significance and that is an ossuary with the name Caiaphas inscribed on it. The exhibit does claim that this ossuary held the bones of the Caiaphas of Biblical fame.

Other items of interest include water vessels similar to what Jesus would have had the servants fill with water when He turned the water into wine, tableware from that time period such as what might have been used at the Last Supper, a stone slab with Pontius Pilate's name inscribed on it, a portion of a temple block with wording that prohibited entry by Gentiles, a stone baptismal font for full immersion baptism, a jar that held the dead sea scrolls, and a segment of the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. Unfortunately, this last item contained writing concerning the building of the temple, rather than a portion of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, it was amazing to see how clear and sharp the Hebrew writing was even after so many years.

The exhibit was very well done and I thought rather respectful to those who believe the Bible to be true. I suppose it would not be in their self-interest to downplay the significance of these items but nevertheless I appreciated the many references to the Bible and the overall tone of the presentation. The $16 dollar price might be a bit steep for what seemed to me to be a rather limited exhibition, though.

Related links:

Article in the Emory Report

Information about the exhibit by the Carlos Museum

My Life's Purpose

2007-06-23T20:50:00.000-04:00

This evening, while thumbing through an old Bible that my parents gave me for Christmas in 1984, I came across this quote by C. H. Spurgeon. I had written it on one of the inside blank cover pages, probably shortly after I graduated from college. It comes from the Feb 15 AM reading in Morning and Evening in regard to 2 Peter 3:18, "...to Him be glory both now and forever."

“Lord, help me to glorify thee; I am poor, help me to glorify thee by contentment; I am sick, help me to give thee honour by patience; I have talents, help me to extol thee by spending them for thee; I have time, Lord, help me to redeem it, that I may serve thee; I have a heart to feel, Lord, let that heart feel no love but thine, and glow with no flame but affection for thee; I have a head to think, Lord, help me to think of thee and for thee; thou hast put me in this world for something, Lord, show me what that is, and help me to work out my life-purpose: I cannot do much, but as the widow put in her two mites, which were all her living, so, Lord, I cast my time and eternity too into thy treasury; I am all thine; take me, and enable me to glorify thee now, in all that I say, in all that I do, and with all that I have.”

I needed to see that again tonight.

Book Review: The New England Theology

2007-05-24T18:45:00.001-04:00

For those interested in the history of American theology, particularly the time period from Jonathan Edwards to the Civil War, you may want to check out a new book by Baker Academic entitled The New England Theology. The book chronicles the development of theological thought during that time period by presenting excerpts from the actual writings of the major theologians of that day. I found the book to be very interesting, expecially the connection between Jonathan Edwards and Charles Finney.

You can read my complete review over on SharperIron.

Bloggers getting together – Canadian Style

2007-05-13T14:46:00.000-04:00

This week I had the privilege to meet the ubiquitous blogger, Don Johnson, when he visited Grace Baptist last Sunday. (See Don's blog for a picture.) Over the past several months, we have gotten to know his son, Duncan, who has been coming down on weekends to serve and gain ministry experience at our church. He actually brings several BJ students with him each Sunday. They make the 2-hour trip to work with our nursery, children’s ministries, choir, and wherever else we need help (like keeping an eye on the three rambunctious Efting children while Daddy is in deacon’s meetings and Mommy is playing for choir practice). It has been a blessing to minister with him and his former fiancé (now wife), Meg. It was Duncan and Meg’s wedding that brought Don and his family out East.

There were several unusual elements to that wedding that are worth mentioning. For starters, it was the first bilingual wedding I have ever been to. After Duncan and Meg said their vows, they repeated them in French. They are both MK’s from Canada and I guess this was the equivalent to the singing of O Canada after the National Anthem when baseball teams play the Toronto Blue Jays. The other French element of the ceremony was the wonderful singing of 1 Corinthians 13 (Si Je N’ Ai Pas La Charite – to the tune of Danny Boy) by Nathan Gentilhomme. While he sang this song, Duncan and Meg signed their marriage certificate. I have never seen this done before but it is evidently quite common in Canadian weddings.

Don did a great job officiating the wedding at the War Memorial Chapel in Greenville. It was great to meet him and his fine family. We are especially happy to have Duncan and Meg as part of our church family as he finishes up his M.Div over the next few years.

“They need to read my Kids4Truth book!”

2007-04-30T19:52:00.000-04:00

This past Saturday we had a Jehovah’s Witness come to our door. I was right in the middle of something and really had no time to engage the man at all. I simply told him that I had serious theological differences with his religion and sent him on his way.

After I closed the door, my son JD, who just turned 8 the week before, asked me who that was. I told him he was someone from a bad church that taught false things about the Bible and how to get to Heaven. He asked, “What kind of false things?” and I explained how JW’s don’t believe, for example, that Jesus is God. At that he ran up stairs and came down with his Kids4Truth book.

“Dad,” he exclaimed, “They need to read my Kids4Truth book!” “We just learned that Jesus is God. It says so in Hebrews 1:8 – ‘But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne O God is for ever and ever.’” “See, Dad, God the Father calls Jesus God!” “I have to go show them my book!”

If I had let him, he would have chased the man down the street with his Kids4Truth book.

Whitefield on Physical Infirmities

2007-04-20T12:32:00.000-04:00

George Whitfield maintained a grueling preaching schedule, often speaking outdoors to multiple thousands of people every day. He had an unusual combination of devout personal piety and remarkable oratory skills that put his preaching in high demand wherever he went. It is likely that his constant travel and rigorous schedule contributed to the many physical infirmities that he suffered from throughout his life.

You would think that those infirmities would discourage him as they often hindered what was normally a very effective ministry. Not so with George Whitefield. He felt that those things that “weakened” his preaching or hindered it altogether were designed by God for his own good. Here is an excerpt from his journal entry for May 1, 1740:

I preached in the evening at New York to as large a congregation as ever; but my spirits being exhausted, I preached, as I thought, but heavily. But I have been too apt to build on my frames, and think I do no good, or do not please God, only because I do not please myself; for I have often found, that my seemingly less powerful discourses have been much owned by God. I find it absolutely necessary, that Gospel ministers should meet with such thorns in the flesh, that both ministers and hearers may know themselves to be but men. Lord, show that Thou dost love me, by humbling and keeping me humble as long as I live! The means I leave to Thee. I am Thy clay, Thou art the Potter; mould me as it seemeth good to Thy sovereign goodwill and pleasure! Amen and Amen.

Ministry Update: New Modular

2007-04-05T13:13:00.000-04:00

For those who have been following the progress of our facilities at Grace Baptist Church, here is a photo of our latest addition. We had someone donate the funds for a new modular, so the church only had to pay for the permits, sidewalk, electrical, and the ramp/deck construction. The modular will allow us to move a children's SS class out of a baptistry changing room and give us much needed space for additional adult SS classes. As an added bonus, the Lord provided, through the generosity of a local businessman, new sod for that side of the church. We are looking forward to the expanded ministry opportunites that this modular and the new grass will provide.

Did the church "receive" a perfectly preserved text?

2007-03-27T18:07:00.000-04:00

Recently, I received an e-mail from Kent Brandenburg regarding my post on SharperIron questioning the reality of a “received” text in church history. I asked and got permission from him to post his e-mail and reply to it on my blog. Kent’s e-mail to me, where he argues for the reality of a “received” text is shown below in the blockquotes. My response appears below each of his various points in italics. Please keep all comments respectful to both sides.

The people who called the traditional text of Scripture had a reason. They did not pull textus receptus out of a hat. The name or label came from Scripture. They gave it that name because they too believed that God preserved His Words, not actual papyrus or ink, but the Words. You see this truth in these texts, among others: You see this truth in these texts, among others:

John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

When the Elzevir brothers printed in their preface that their text was the one received by all, I highly doubt that they had these passages in mind. But regardless of that, it is clear that “received” in the passages you list does not mean that they gave their official approval to the texts or translations under consideration. It means they embraced God’s Word with a desire to hear and do what God said to them through those Scriptures. These passages say nothing about churches validating certain text types.

Those who believe in providential, Divine preservation of God's Words, a doctrine we read in the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, believe that God would fulfill His promises of preservation.

You talk about the "best preserved manuscript evidence." What evidence was there from 1500-1800, 300 years, of the critical text? If we believe in the availability of every Word of God, based on God's promises (presuppositional apologetics), then we believe His Words were and are available. The best evidence that these were God's Words are that churches guided by the Holy Spirit accepted them as God's Words for hundreds of years.

I don’t believe that God promised the availability of every Word of God. I think there is Biblical warrant to say that God inspired His Word so that it would be preserved to some degree but I don’t see any Biblical justification for insisting on the general availability of every jot and title of the entirety of the Old and New Testaments. The verses I use to teach an expectation of providential preservation are not the same (in most cases) as what you would use to prove verbal/plenary preservation. I think you are misreading and misinterpreting those verses.

The text received by the churches is the text they used. There is no magisterium, as you write. Neither is there a magisterium that is the basis of canonicity. We acknowledge the books that the churches copied and used. We take our basis for that from God's Word too.

OK, this really gets to the heart of my question. This is what I want to talk about.

The church was given special apostolic-era spiritual gifts to validate the canon as it was being produced. I don’t see anything in the Bible regarding a similar use of those gifts or continuing use of those gifts for a so-called canonization of words.

Indeed, there is no comparison between the church’s universal acceptance of the canon and your new idea regarding canonization of words. If there were such a thing, you would see the same level of acceptance of the words as you do the books. In Bible believing churches today you do not find any variation in what people believe regarding our 66-book canon. Anyone who rejects a book or suggests a different book would be regarded as unorthodox. That is simply not the case with the variants. Was Tyndale unorthodox because he added “And he said unto his disciples” to the first part of John 14:1? Of course not. But that was the text “received” by the church from Tyndale in 1526 until it was changed by the Geneva in 1587.

When you say “the text received by the churches is the text they used,” isn’t that begging the question? They used what they had. You take tribes in Africa, or any other third-world country and Christians use what is available. Rarely is it the complete Bible and rarely is it even a decent translation. Those in England in the 1300’s might have had access to an English translation based on the Vulgate, if anything at all. Those in the 1500’s used what they had available and today, we use what we have available to use. Christians and churches tend to want to use the best available text and translations. Churches today, for the most part, use versions based on the critical text because that text is an improvement on what was available back in the 1500’s. The church today is “receiving” the critical text if they are “receiving” anything today.

You actually do not have any evidence that they did not use the text received by the churches. Manuscripts wore out, were discarded, other copies were made, and we don't know based on "manuscript evidence" what they used. We have a tremendous number of copies of the TR today.

Neither of us knows for sure what anyone used back then. You have assertions and we have assertions. At the very least, though, we have evidence that what we say they read and used was actually in existence back then. Your position does not.

On your side are theories. Wescott and Hort's rules of textual criticism. The counting of manuscripts by the "majority text" people. The eclectic people who pick and choose based on any number of reasons what words are in the Bible. Those don't fit what we read about preservation in Scripture. They are all positions of "reasonable doubt" and less than 100 % assurance.

My understanding of your position leaves you with “reasonable doubt” as well. You have to do textual criticism with the TR family of manuscripts. No position has 100% assurance of every word. The only way for your position to receive 100% assurance is if you adopt the KJV/Scrivener text as your standard, but that basically reduces to an English translation dictating the reading of the Greek and Hebrew. And even then you have differences among the various KJV versions (Cambridge vs Oxford, etc). So, really, is it even accurate to say you have 100% assurance?

I contend, Kent, that your position and my position, in the end, amounts to the same thing, except in regard to the manuscript evidence that we allow ourselves to consider when evaluating variants. We both have to evaluate variants. I see no Biblical or historical reason to reject out-of-hand non-TR manuscripts.

Does Richard Dawkins Exist?

2007-03-13T08:01:00.001-04:00

I thought this was pretty funny. Enjoy!

HT: William Dembski

You can find a transcript HERE.

May the Lord Find Us Faithful

2007-02-24T17:37:00.000-05:00

In 1 Corinthians 4:2, the Bible says that stewards are to be found faithful. All Christians have received something from the manifold grace of God (1 Pet 4:10) and we need to faithfully exercise those gifts. The interesting thing about faith, though, is that you don’t exercise faith in regard to what you see but in what you don’t see. Otherwise it wouldn’t be faith. That is the point of Romans 8:24, “who hopes for what he already sees?” So, faithfulness requires us to do what God has for us to do, to exercise our spiritual gifts, even when we don’t see the happy results. Those results are the hope that is still unseen.

So, why stay faithful when you don’t see the results that you think you should? Why stay faithful when things seem to be getting worse rather than better? Why stay faithful when it is hard to believe? The simple answer is found in 2 Timothy 2:13, “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.” Ultimately, it is Christ’s faithfulness that grounds, establishes, and legitimatizes our faithfulness. We know that He cannot deny Himself, and so we can stay faithful, even when things seem to be falling apart all around us. We may not be able to see the results of our faithfulness, but with the eye of faith, and knowing the faithfulness of Christ, we can stay true to what God has called us to do.

William Tyndale is someone who had to display faith in the exercise of his spiritual gifts and calling. Tyndale, as many of you know, was the first to translate the Bible from the original Greek into English. In his life, he translated the entire New Testament and half of the Old Testament before he was viciously betrayed and eventually burned at the stake. As David Daniell says in his book, The Bible in English, “Every one of the thousands of English version round the world goes back to Tyndale’s fundamental work in Worms and Antwerp.” Now, you might think that someone, whose work was so successful in bringing the English Bible to the masses, and so influential in serving as the foundation for every new English translation, could die with the satisfaction of seeing something of that achievement, but that is evidently not how it happened. Again, let me quote Professor Daniell:

Tyndale had given the English people two New Testaments and a Pentateuch in pocket-sized English books. He had left in manuscript in the English House in Antwerp his English translation of the fourteen Old Testament historical books, printed after his death. He had heard seven years before that most of his 1526 New Testament volumes had been burned and denounced by Erasmus’s friend, Cuthbert Tunstall. The new Bishop of London, John Stokesley, was far harsher, and had restarted the policy of burning heretics, not just their books.

Even before his arrest he would not have had any guarantee that his work was getting through. A heavy curtain hung before him, through which he could see little or nothing. English-speaking Christians look back with rejoicing at the miracle of the English Bible. Every one of the thousands of English version round the world goes back to Tyndale’s fundamental work in Worms and Antwerp. His was a dazzling achievement. Of its success he knew nothing. He worked in faith, the existential faith which is the business of get up and doing it. As he noted in the Prologue to The Obedience of a Christian Man, faith in the God of the Bible is huge in its effects.

We may never know the extent of what we accomplish on Earth for the Lord. Rarely is that for us to know. And though most of us will not achieve the influence of a Tyndale, that is not the point. The point is to stay faithful because we know that God is faithful. It will be worth it all when we see Him. So, come what may in this life, may the Lord find us faithful.

My Son's Sunday School Rant

2007-02-18T21:15:00.000-05:00

At the dinner table after church today, my seven year old son, JD, went off on a rant about his Sunday School class:

"Dad, why doesn’t my SS class ever teach me about the Song of Solomon?"

"We never have lessons on it. We never have sword drills on it. They never ask us to look up a verse in Song of Solomon. Why don’t they ever say anything about the Song of Solomon!"

"Dad, what is the Song of Solomon about anyway?"

How would you answer that question? :)

I said, “Love.”

BTW, props to my son for wanting the whole counsel of God taught in church!

How have we despised your name?

2007-02-17T21:53:00.000-05:00

In Fundamentalism today, those who hold to a strict non-CCM standard within their churches are becoming more and more rare. Indeed, it is quite common for self-proclaimed Fundamentalist to openly embrace many of the popular CCM artists and groups of our day. It doesn’t take long surfing through Fundamentalist blogdom to find positive references to Casting Crowns, Third Day, Chris Tomlin, etc. Even among those in our ranks who oppose CCM, the trend is to treat this development as not a big deal. These contemporary worship styles are just different “varieties of ice cream” -- nothing to get worked up over and certainly nothing to separate over. We are talking about preferences here and there are lots of good Christians who worship differently than we do, or so they say.

I will admit that some differences in worship style are really no more significant than one’s favorite flavor of ice cream. And while it may not always be easy to tell when a particular group or song has crossed the line, I think we need to be careful not to dismiss this subject area by trivializing the issues involved. I think we will find, if we study it out, that God takes deviant worship very seriously. Recently, I took a quick look at what God had to say about polluted offerings in the book of Malachi. Here’s what I found:

Primarily, God’s wants worshipers to give Him the honor and fear that His name deserves. The priests were despising God’s name by offering polluted sacrifices and He asks, “Where is my honor?…where is my fear?” (1:6-7) It wasn’t there and in case anyone thinks this is not a big deal to God, consider His reaction -- it is stunning. Verse 1:10 says that (1) God has no pleasure in such worshipers; (2) God will not accept such worship; and (3) it would be better to bar the door and shut down the worship service! That certainly sounds like separation to me.

Some may say, however, that Malachi is Old Testament and with the coming of Christ New Testament believers are free to worship God without such OT worries. While it is true that Christ has made us free from the law and these OT ceremonial worship patterns, it is not true that these OT warnings no longer apply in any way to our worship today. In fact, after the author of the book of Hebrews spends almost his entire time explaining the superiority of Christ and how His coming does away with the ineffectual old covenant and its sacrificial system, he nevertheless says that NT believers do have an altar and we do have sacrifices to perform (Heb. 13: 10, 15). How can that be?

Well, the conclusion of the author’s argument is that our inheritance (which we need to faithfully strive after) includes or consummates in a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Thus we need to be grateful and offer to God acceptable worship with reverence and awe (Heb 12:28). That word “worship” is used in Hebrews to describe the service of the priests under the old covenant sacrificial system. Old Testament priests were to worship/serve God with honor and fear (Mal 1:6) and so are New Testament believer priests (Heb 12:28).

It is interesting to observe the parallels between the opening chapters of Malachi and the closing verses of Hebrews. In both books the primary issue is the honor of God’s name (cf., Mal. 1:6, 11; Heb. 13:15). Besides polluted worship, Malachi will go on to identify several other issues that also appear in Hebrews, namely improper instruction (cf., Mal. 2:1-9; Heb. 13:7), impure worshipers (cf., Mal. 2:13-16; Heb. 13:4), and lovers of money (cf., Mal. 3:6-12; Heb. 13:5). Hebrews refers to God as a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29), while Malachi refers to the day when the Lord that will set the arrogant and evildoers ablaze (Mal. 4:1). It is almost as if the author of Hebrews had Malachi in mind as he was finishing his exhortation.

So, when the author of Hebrews says that we need to worship God with reverence and awe (12:28), when he says that we should offer a sacrifice of praise to God to acknowledge His name (13:15, using the technical term for an OT sacrifice), I think it would behoove us to consider, from the OT in general and Malachi in particular, what that means and how not to despise God’s great name. And if deviant worship resulted in God separating from the worshipers in Malachi’s day, what would be His reaction be to deviant worship today? It seems to me that we in Fundamentalism ought to be much more concerned about the ramifications of polluted offerings in our churches today.

Children and the Internet

2007-02-12T20:24:00.000-05:00

I mentioned in my last post that I was in San Francisco last week for the RSA Security Conference. Organizers estimate that there were over 15,000 security professionals in attendance. For those who don’t know, RSA stands for Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman, the three MIT mathematicians who in 1977 invented what is known as the RSA public-key encryption algorithm. Unless you have an interest in mathematical cryptography, that fact probably doesn’t mean much to you, but for those interested in network security, those guys are legends in their field and it is very interesting to listen to them and others of the same caliber talk security.

While most of my readers could probably care less about cryptography, they should be very interested in one of the general sessions that took place at this year’s conference. On the second day, they had a panel discussion called, Pandora's Box: Youth and the Internet. During that session, the moderator and panelist revealed several startling statistics. Perhaps you have seen stats like this before, but I think you will agree they bear repeating:

The number of children between the ages of 10 and 17 who have received an unwanted sexual solicitation over the Internet is 1 in 7. Think about that ratio in conjunction with the number of children at your church or school.

The percentage of those children who report that solicitation to their parents is only 27%. So, just because they are not saying anything about this does not mean nothing bad has happened.

The average age a child first sees pornography on the Internet is age 11.

This last one is hard to believe but the moderator claimed that research says that children are the largest audience for pornography on the Internet.

As someone who has a seven year old boy, these are shocking and sobering statistics. My son can already open a browser and type in www.lego.com – all on his own. He can surf the site and find the Bionicle section without any problem. If we were to let him play on the computer without restraint, I’m sure he could accidentally surf to any number of inappropriate web sites. We would all do well as parents to closely supervise our children’s Internet usage.

When kids get older, new online communities present additional hazards. One of the panelists talked about how registered sex offenders use MySpace.com to target young children and teens. Parents, you need to know who your children’s MySpace friends are and what sort of pictures they are posting.

Also, according to the panel, teens tend to let their guard down and are often much less reserved on the Internet. It is not uncommon for straight-laced, honor students to be downright sleazy in their online persona. Remember, these are not uptight fundamentalists talking; these are the observations of secular professionals who have studied the phenomenon. If pastors and church leaders fall in this area, and they do, how much more concerned should we be with our children?

First English Bibles in America

2007-02-09T11:23:00.000-05:00

If you had asked me a month ago, when and where did the first English Bible make its way to America, I would have guessed on the Mayflower in 1620, or perhaps on an earlier expedition to Jamestown (1607) or with Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 when he landed on the coast of North Carolina. It turns out, however, that I may not have even guessed the right coast correctly. David Daniell in his book, The Bible in English, suggests that the correct answer is 1579 by Sir Francis Drake on his famous around-the-world voyage. Drake was looking for a North-West passage back to England but Canada got in his way. He turned back south and found a port, perhaps in San Francisco Bay, to overhaul his ship in preparation for his return journey. Drakes tells of his men reading from their Bibles and singing Psalms in response to the pagan worship ceremonies performed by the native Indians. The Geneva Bible was published in 1560 and it very well could have been that Bible that those sailors had in their possession on that famous voyage.

Now here is the interesting thing. I am currently in California for the RSA Security Conference and this trip has given me the opportunity to do a lot of reading in David Daniell's book. I just read the chapter about English Bibles in America on this trip. Here's the kicker: I am staying in downtown San Francisco at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel!

The Preservation of God's Word in English

2007-01-18T19:13:00.000-05:00

I have long been familiar with the fact that copies of extant Greek Biblical manuscripts far exceed those of secular Greek works from comparable time periods. So, for example, while we have over 5000 manuscripts from the Greek New Testament, we only have 643 for Homer’s Iliad and far fewer for other important works (http://www.biblestudy.org/). It turns out that this same phenomenon occurs with copies of handwritten English Bibles as well.

Consider the number of extant copies of the Wycliffe Bible. These handwritten Bibles, translated from the Latin Vulgate in the 1380’s, were systematically destroyed beginning in the early 1400’s. Nevertheless, over 250 manuscripts still exist, in whole or in part. This number is remarkable when compared to other important medieval works. Nobody was trying to eradicate all of Chaucer’s works and yet the famous Canterbury Tales exists in only 64 remaining copies.

The inescapable conclusion is that God has providentially preserved His word in both Greek and English, but that is not the full story.

It turns out that there is not just one version of the Wycliffe Bible. Like all hand-copied texts, differences exist between the extant manuscripts. But not all of these variations are due to copyist mistakes. When these manuscripts are studied, it becomes apparent that some retranslation and revision has occurred. In fact, scholars have been able to identify at least two distinct “families” of Wycliffe Bible texts. According to David Daniell, one version is more literal, while the other more idiomatic – perhaps similar in some ways to the difference between the KJV and the NIV.

This is fascinating to me because this means that even back in the 1380’s, you had various versions of the English Bible available. Professor Daniell even claims, based on the number of surviving copies, that one version must have been more popular than the other. The point, though, is that the providential preservation of God’s Word in English never meant perfect preservation. Even at the very beginning, there was never one definitive English translation.

Source: David Daniell. The Bible in English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Image: First page of John's Gospel in the Wycliffe Bible

The Bible as Oratorio

2007-01-11T13:25:00.000-05:00

Here is another interesting quote, this time by Kevin Vanhoozer in The Drama of Doctrine :

The canonical presentation of the gospel takes several forms, most notably kerygma (proclamation), marturia (witness), and didaskalia (teaching). These three forms comprise a canonical oratorio: the first, kerygma, serves as a recitative of God’s saving work; the second, as the chorus that gives the participants’ perspective on the action; and the third, as a profound aria that deepens our appreciation of the drama’s highlights. (p. 147)

Thus the “canon … shows us how to go on following Jesus Christ primarily by telling, showing, and teaching us who he is and what he has done.” (p. 149) In addition to reflecting on how the Bible incorporates those three elements, it is intriguing to think about how the church has performed those same functions in a corporate setting by creeds/doctrinal statements (proclamation/telling), singing (witness/showing), and preaching (teaching). To the second point, in addition to singing, we could add the idea of living out the gospel in our daily lives, or to use Elizabethan terminology that fits very well in this context, our conversation.

No reason to be ashamed

2007-01-09T09:57:00.000-05:00

I’ve been privileged this Christmas season to get a copy of George Whitefield’s journals. A year or so ago I read Arnold Dallimore’s two-volume biography of this remarkable man and have wanted to read his journals ever since. So, now is my opportunity.

The journal entries pick up in December, 1737, as Whitefield is preparing to sail across the Atlantic to minister in Savannah, Georgia. The three ships that will be making the voyage are anchored off the port city of Deal and Whitefield spends much of December and January traveling between his ship and shore as the sailors make their final preparations for the journey. I found the entry for January 10th, where he recounts one of those trips ashore, to be somewhat amusing and convicting:

After evening prayers and visiting the sick, went ashore with Mr. Habersham to Deal, and were so delighted with a prospect of the Downs, that we expressed our thankfulness in signing of psalms all the way. The boatmen, I believe, wondered at it at first; but they were not ashamed to blaspheme, and I thought I had no reason to be ashamed to praise God. I had the satisfaction before we got to Deal, to hear one of them join seriously with us; and perceived a surprising alteration in their behavior always after. Blessed be God!

The Mark of a Great Teacher

2007-01-07T07:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was listening to an interview between Mark Dever and RC Sproul, when Dr. Sproul made a statement that really hit on the essence of great teaching. He said,

"The great theologians of history are ones who were able to take their message into the culture, into the street. To simplify without distortion is the highest task of a scholar."

Standing Firm in Christ

2007-01-03T14:45:00.000-05:00

Standing Firm in Christ is the subtitle to the commentary on Hebrews that Daphne gave me for Christmas. She bought it for me because I have been teaching through Hebrews in our adult SS class at church. Unfortunately, I finished the series on December 31 and so I only got to use the commentary for one day of class! It's too bad because I think Richard Phillips' new commentary in the Reformed Expository Commentary series would have been quite helpful. As it was, the only thing I got from it in time for my last lesson was his pithy theme statement for the book. I like it because it deftly combines the subject of the book’s primary exhortation (standing firm, faithfully enduring) with the basis for those exhortations (person and work of Christ).

Hebrews is well-known as a difficult book. There are five major warning passages that create theological conundrums for some in the area of eternal security. There are many references to the Old Testament and its priestly, ceremonial system of sacrifices. Those portions of our Bible tend to be a neglected and mysterious place for us and that makes understanding Hebrews all the more complicated. Add to that, if we are “dull of hearing,” the author himself says it will be hard to communicate his message properly (Heb 5:11). But hard, complicated, and difficult is not the same thing as impossible and I found the study of the Letter to the Hebrews to be fascinating, rewarding, and quite helpful.

I began the first Sunday in April and finished 34 lessons later on the last day in December. Normally, I prepare 7-10 pages of notes for each lesson and teach for about 45 minutes, or about 15 minutes less than I need to cover everything I have prepared. :) Sometimes I rush through my notes so that I can squeeze everything in; other times I just cover selected points in less detail. In any event, I try hard to finish a complete lesson in a single session, though, because I like to think of each lesson as a complete and independent message.

It was amazing how these lessons would come together each week. On Mondays, I would usually take the day off from doing any preparation, other than perhaps reading the next week’s passage in my devotions. On Tuesday and Wednesday, I would continue to read the passage and decide on what constitutes the next “unit” in the text. My goal was to work through a chapter in 2 to 3 weeks. That became more difficult as I went along because the chapters in Hebrews get longer towards the end of the book. During this time, I would take preliminary notes concerning the passage and identify key terms and phrases for later study. On Thursday and Friday I would do word studies on the terms identified earlier (with BibleWorks and other helps) and read in my commentaries. The most helpful commentaries on Hebrews for me were William Lane (Word) and Philip Hughes. John Brown (Geneva), although less technical, often had helpful discussions but not always. Ellingworth (NIGTC) was very technical but rarely helpful, albeit with some occasional gems. I found Bruce (NICNT) and Newell to be of very little assistance. Saturday mornings I would try to pull everything together into a detailed outline. On Sunday mornings I would get up early and read through my entire lesson, marking important points, adding additional clarifications, and praying that the Lord would be with me when I teach the material. My Monday through Saturday routine did not always go as planned, but I ALWAYS made sure to take time on Sunday mornings to pray through my lesson.

I now get to enjoy a much needed break as I hand the adult SS teaching duties off to another man for the next few months.

Handel's Messiah

2006-12-25T19:20:00.000-05:00

One of the Christmas traditions I used to have when I lived in Baltimore was to go to the annual performance of Handel’s Messiah at the Meyerhoff. The conductor, Edward Polochick, would always do a spectacular and fresh job with his interpretation. I will never forget the thrill the first time I heard him present For unto us a Son is Given and the joyous shout of “wonderful” by the choir, or the hushed and somber singing of “and He laid on Him the iniquity of us all” after the frolicking “all we like sheep have gone astray,” or the exhilaration of the final Amen chorus. I have great memories of those concerts.

A few years ago, after moving to the Atlanta area, we went to hear a “Christmas portion” performance by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and chorus, conducted by the great Robert Shaw. He was in his eighties and actually died a few weeks later. I think it was his last performance in Atlanta. I always feel ripped off when they don’t do the whole thing, and to be honest, it wasn’t so great. But it was the Messiah and it was better than nothing.

I have three complete recordings of the Messiah on CD and two on DVD. My favorite, by far, is John Eliot Gardiner’s version with the Monteverdi Choir and the English Baroque Solosts. I prefer period instruments and smaller, more articulate choirs.

For those of you who also enjoy the Messiah, I would like to direct you to the interview Hugh Hewitt did with David Allen White about Messiah. Dr. White teaches at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, another location where I have heard the Messiah performed. I think you will find it fascinating, as I did. You can access the interview here:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

HT: CurrentChristian.com

Paul's Philosophy of Missions Applied Today

2006-12-05T10:11:00.000-05:00

Based on last week's post concerning Paul's missionary philosphy found in the Book of Romans, there are several general principles that ought to guide the philosophy of missions in our churches today. Here are a few that are worth noting:

1. The prospective missionary must be called by God. We should note that the Holy Spirit calls those whom He has equipped and prepared. In Paul's case, the Holy Spirit called an established and faithful teacher for the task of performing pioneering missions work (Acts 13:1-2). Training for missionary work involves more than just schooling (although academic work is very important); it should include practical ministry experience in an established church as well.

2. The prospective missionary must be qualified for the task. While we do not have missionaries today who hold the office of an apostle, we do have "sent ones" that function as pastor-teachers in their church planting duties. As such, we should expect missionary candidates to meet the requirements for a pastor found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. They must also possess the inward heart attitude of a servant, following the lead of the Paul (Romans 1:1; cf., Phil. 3:17) and, of course, Christ (Phil. 2:5-7).

3. The prospective missionary must have goals for his ministry that are aligned with the goals of the local church. There are many good works out there but not all of them qualify as cross-cultural church planting ministries. To fulfill the Great Commission, we must do more than just win souls to Christ. As important as that is, our task is not complete until we have made disciples of all the nations and taught them all that God has commanded (Matt. 28:19). Since God in this age has ordained the local church to build up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13), missionaries must be involved in some aspect of church planting.

4. The prospective missionary must have an effective strategy for
evangelizing an entire region. Paul's method was to plant churches in several strategic cities, allowing nationals to take over each work and evangelize the surrounding area. Missionaries can utilize this same strategy today to efficiently evangelize large portions of the world.

5. The prospective missionary must be grounded in theology. It is
common today for many to suggest that missionaries do not need theological training. Paul did not have that mindset. He made a point of presenting his doctrinal positions and theological understanding to the church at Rome. Missionaries must be skilled enough in theology to train nationals for the position of pastor. They must have a solid working knowledge of soteriology since their mission directly involves the evangelism of lost souls.

6. The prospective missionary must spend time at potential supporting churches so that the church can properly evaluate the candidate. It is unlikely that a single service is enough time for a church to gain mutual edification from a prospective missionary's visit, let alone properly enjoy his company (15:24, 29) or see fruit from his labors. Ministry takes time and a prospective missionary ought to approach his visit to a potential supporting church with the idea of ministering to that church's spiritual needs. Churches, on the other hand, need to commit to praying for the prospective missionary and see that he gets sufficient rest during his visit (15:30, 32).

Paul’s Missionary Philosophy in Romans

2006-11-30T20:37:00.000-05:00

While there were, not doubt, several reasons for Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, at least one of those reasons was to solicit support for his proposed missionary journey to Spain (Romans 15:24). If that is the case, and I believe that it is, then this book may suggest several ideas for both evaluating missionary candidates and developing general themes for a Biblical philosophy of missions. Since Paul represents the ideal missionary candidate, we should take careful note of how he presents himself to the church at Rome and look for statements concerning his personal philosophy of missions. These elements occur in both his opening remarks (Romans 1) and conclusion (Romans 15-16).

In this article, I will examine how Paul introduces himself to a prospective supporting church, why he chose to go to Spain, and what he plans to do during his visit to Rome. As we learn about Paul’s missionary methodology in the 1st century, we can develop principles to guide us in conducting missionary programs in the 21st century. I plan to post these principles in my next blog entry.

I. Paul’s Introduction to the Roman Church (Romans 1:1-12; 15:15-18)

The call to missionary service must be very important since Paul mentions it several times throughout the book of Romans (1:1, 5; 15: 15-16). The Holy Spirit called Paul into missionary service after Paul had already established himself in the teaching ministry at the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1-2). While it is obvious from the list of acquaintances found in chapter 16 that several members of the church at Rome knew Paul and his calling, it was still appropriate for Paul to remind them of that fact and to state that He was “set apart for the gospel of God” (1:1). He notes that he is qualified for his calling because God has equipped him for the position (1:5; cf., 15:15-16).

Paul based his ministry on the truths found in God’s Word and focused his teaching on the person of the Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord (1:2-4). This affirmation not only assured the Romans of his orthodoxy but also indicated the ultimate foundation for his success and the underlying authority of his message. Paul says, for example, in Romans 16:25-26, that it is his preaching of Christ that establishes (or strengthens) Christians and leads them to the obedience of faith [1]. Furthermore, the message Paul preaches, the one revealed by the Scriptures of the prophets, has been authorized by commandment from the eternal God. It is worth noting that the entire epistle is a grand presentation of the gospel of Christ and its implications for the life of the believer.

Paul also notes that his ministry goals match those of the church at Rome. The focus of Paul’s ministry concerns the evangelism of all Gentiles (1:5). Notice how his purpose aligns itself nicely with the practice of the church at Rome to proclaim their faith throughout the whole known world (1:8). While Paul may be referring to their reputation in this verse, he uses a term (kataggello) that often signifies the proclamation of gospel truth rather than just the testimony of one’s faith (cf., Acts 13:5; Acts 17:23; 1 Cor. 2:1; Col. 1:28). It appears then, that the church at Rome was serious about fulfilling the great commission by going into the entire world to preach the gospel.

II. Paul’s Reasons for Going to Spain (Romans 15:19-23)

In this section, Paul tells how he has preached the gospel from Jerusalem, throughout Asia Minor, and unto the Balkan Peninsula (15:19) [2]. He did more than just preach the gospel, though. He fully preached the gospel, indicating completeness to his ministry. We know from the book of Acts that Paul planted churches in several important cities throughout this region. By planting churches in these strategic cities, Paul could depend on those churches to reach their surrounding areas with the gospel and thus ensure the complete distribution of the gospel throughout a wide geographic area. For example, in Pisidian Antioch the Gentiles spread the Word of the Lord throughout the whole region even though the city officials ran Paul and Barnabas out of town (Acts 13:48-51). The Thessalonian church so evangelized the area of Macedonia and Achaia that Paul could say “in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything” (1 Thes. 1:7-8). It appears that Paul’s missionary team coordinated some of these efforts through converted national pastors such as Epaphus, who worked in the Lycus Valley out of the church of Ephesus (cf., Col. 1:7-8; 2:1; 4:12-13). Since Paul had effectively finished his work in this area, he set his sights towards points west, namely, Spain.

The reason for going to Spain, and not some other place, is Paul’s desire to plant churches in new regions, where the people had not yet heard the gospel. God gave Paul a ministry of foundation laying; others, such as Apollos, build upon that foundation (1 Corinthians 3:5-10). Consequently, Paul will not go and build on another man’s foundation (15:20). He will only go to places where Christ is not named. This is the heart of missionary work – planting churches where there are no churches, training others (preferably nationals) to take over the work once a foundation has been laid, and moving on to the next area. Since Paul geared his ministry towards unchurched, frontier, or pioneer-type mission fields, there was no further place for him in those regions just named (15:23). God has directed him to Spain and Paul needs the church at Rome to help him on his way (15:24).

III. Paul’s Plans for his Visit to Rome (Romans 15:24, 28-29)

Paul states in Romans 15:24 that he hopes, on his way to Spain, “to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while.” This verse establishes for us one of the reasons for Paul’s letter to the church at Rome. He wants to raise support for his missionary trip to Spain and, in modern terminology, set up a meeting for his presentation. We have in the church at Rome what is known today as a supporting church. The church at Antioch was Paul’s sending church. In these verses, we get a glimpse into what amounts to 1st century missionary deputation.

The verb translated “to be helped on my way” in the NAS is the Greek word propempo. While this term may simply mean to escort or to accompany (Acts 20:38; Acts 21:5), it is often used to denote more substantial assistance for a journey (Acts 15:3; 1 Cor. 16:6, 11; 2 Cor. 1:16, Titus 3:13). In 3 John 6-7, we see the term used in reference to supporting strangers (i.e., itinerant missionaries who were unknown to Gaius beforehand [3]) in their work for the Name (i.e., Jesus Christ). John adds that supporting [4] such missionary endeavors is both the duty (“we ought to support . . .”) and privilege (“so that we may be fellow workers . . .”) of the New Testament church (3 John 8). The usage in Romans 15:24 is similar to that in 3 John and indicates that this term is the “regular technical term for missionary support.” [5]

Before Paul can expect the church at Rome to support his trip to Spain, he must spend some time with them in ministry (15:24b). We know from chapter one that Paul planned to impart unto them a spiritual gift (1:11), enjoy mutual encouragement in the ministry (1:12), and preach the gospel (1:15). While there is no doubt that Paul’s ministry in Rome included certain official apostolic duties, it is also true that his stay was meant to qualify himself for missionary service in the sight of the Romans. Paul does not expect the church at Rome to support him sight unseen. He first sends an introductory letter that explains his doctrinal position (i.e., the book of Romans) and then he plans a visit so that the Roman church can see him in action. Paul does not plan to stay long but long enough so that he (and they) can see fruit from his labors (1:13).

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

1. Paul mentions this goal three times in this epistle (1:5; 15:18; 16:26). Faith that saves demonstrates itself initially with one’s obedience to the gospel (cf., 2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17; Rom. 10:16) and throughout one’s Christian life by obedience to his Lord (cf., James 2:14-26). “Viewed in this light, the phrase captures the full dimension of Paul’s apostolic task, a task that was not confined to initial evangelization but that included also the building up and firm establishment of churches.” – Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), pg. 53.

2. Illyricum sits on the eastern edge of the Adriatic Sea in modern day Albania or Yugoslavia.

3. D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistles of John (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1991), pg. 330.

4. The reading of the NAS, reflecting the reading of earlier manuscripts (hupolambanein, “to support”), includes the idea of receiving such men (KJV: apollambanein, “to receive”) but also adds the concept of support and protection. See Hiebert, pg. 333-334.

5. Moo, pg. 901. Hiebert calls it “something of a technical term in regard to the missionary activities of the early church.” See Hiebert, pg. 331).

The Many Faces of Anna Grace

2006-09-04T17:30:00.000-04:00

We had some fun today taking pictures of Anna Grace in a dress that Daphne wore when she was a little girl.

Here is a musical slideshow of her many faces. It's about 20MB, so you'll want to Right-Click and download it to your computer first.

Tag, I’m It

2006-08-08T19:33:00.000-04:00

Chris Anderson has “tagged” me and I’m it. Well, this was fun:

1. One book that changed your life

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by B. B. Warfield. This was one of the first books I read after my grad school days at Clemson. Through this book, Warfield instilled in me a love for the Bible and a love for theology all at the same time. It was just thrilling to read and discover the rich doctrine of the Scriptures. I have enjoyed teaching others many of the things found in this book.

2. One book that you’ve read more than once

The Disciplined Life by Richard Taylor. I think I picked this little book up at the Wilds several years ago. I found it to be very challenging, helpful, and worth reading every once in a while. In fact, I probably need to give it another read sometime soon.

The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges is another book worthy of multiple reads but I have only read it once.

3. One book you’d want on a deserted island

Let’s face it, I would not last one month on a deserted island. But given some way to sustain myself for long periods of time, I think I would pick the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit by C. H. Spurgeon.

4. One book that made you laugh

Eccentric Preachers by C. H. Spurgeon. Most of the books I read are not what you would call “knee slappers” but I do remember this book being pretty entertaining.

5. One book that made you cry

Introduction to Topology by Gramelin and Greene. Yikes! What ever possessed me to take Topology my senior year at BJU? Sure, I was a math major but what was I thinking!?! I still have nightmares about this class and, wow, what a book. Don’t be fooled by the cartoon on the cover!

6. One book that you wish had been written

A decent exegetical commentary on the Psalms. The Psalms are so rich theologically and messianically but I haven’t seen any work that treats them in any detail. The closest probably are the three volumes in the Word series but even that set just skims the surface.

Maybe even better would be any commentary by Mark Minnick. Surely there is a Phil Johnson type running around Mt. Calvary or the BJU Seminary that could take on the task to edit one of Minnick’s book series. Romans, Ephesians, Revelation, John – take your pick!

7. One book that you wish had never been written

I know Chris already mentioned Grace Awakening, so I guess this is cheating, but I can’t think of another book that fits so well in this category. Selecting What Love is this? is such a boring softball pick that it hardly needs mentioning.

8. One book you are currently reading

The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer. I just recently blogged about this book. See below.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. I don’t read a lot of fiction but I have heard good things about this book, especially as it relates to spiritual things. This book is on my bookshelf just asking to be read. Besides, it's a classic.

I would also like to read the 2 volume biography of Hudson Taylor by Howard and Mrs. Taylor. This biography comes highly recommended by both my previous pastor and Dr. Minnick.

10. Tag someone, or five, take your pick

I'll tag Brian McCrorie.

Pastoral Transition Sunday

2006-08-07T18:25:00.000-04:00

On July 23, 2006 Grace Baptist Church formally handed over the responsibility of senior pastor to David Wood. In the morning service, Pastor Henderson preached his final message as our pastor from 2 Peter 1. After his message we voted in the Wood family as members – it is always good for the pastor and his family to actually be members. Correction, two of the Wood girls stayed behind in Illinois for a couple weeks to help out with their old church’s VBS program – at least, that is their story. I think they were just trying to get out of painting. :)

That evening we had a testimony time so that our church family could reflect upon and praise the Lord for 6 years of faithful ministry by the Henderson’s. I’ve never seen so many grown men cry in all my life. After the testimony time, our choir presented a sacred concert that included a special song, Complete In Thee, that Bob Grass, our music director, composed specifically for this service. At the conclusion of the concert, Pastor Henderson came up to the pulpit to say some parting words and officially welcome David Wood as our new pastor. At this point, just about everyone in congregation was crying.

This was a special time for our young church, both sad and exciting at the same time. Pastoral transitions are not all that rare but, normally, unless the senior pastor is retiring and has groomed someone to take his place, you don’t have the incoming and outgoing pastor sharing the service in this way. Earlier that week, they were both in the pastor’s office, one unpacking books and the other packing, all at the same time. I joked with Pastor Wood that the reason Pastor Henderson looked so happy then was that he was using that opportunity to surreptitiously add to his library. :)

Getting back to the service, after Pastor Wood took the pulpit, he asked the Henderson’s to come back up on the platform so that we could officially send them out as church planters from our church to Tampa. We laid our hands on them and prayed that the Lord would bless them and their new ministry in Florida. I believe the Henderson’s are still on track to hold their first service in Tampa on August 13th. The Lord has supplied a good core group for them to start with but they will definitely need our prayers as they are starting all over from scratch in an area that is probably more difficult and certainly more expensive.

Here are some pictures from during and after the service:

The GBC choir sings during the sacred concert

Here I am reading Scripture between songs

Laying hands on Pastor Henderson and Melinda

GBC teens, including the two most recent, Katylynn and Whitney Wood

JD hanging out after church

Are you a theologian?

2006-07-30T14:41:00.000-04:00

I have been pretty busy lately and have not been able to do as much reading as I would like in my new book by Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine. Yesterday, though, I came across a quote that I would like to share concerning the role of a theologian.

The primary role of the theologian is to bear witness, in word and deed, to the meaning and significance of God’s communicative action in Jesus Christ, in order to enable others to understand and participate in it too. (Vanhoozer, p. 58)

I like this definition because it turns everyone into a theologian. We are not all called to write systematic theologies, but we are all called to “bare witness in word and deed” to what God has revealed to us through the person, work, and words of Christ. And if that is the case, what Vanhoozer says on the very next page becomes very relevant:

This gives rise to yet another dimension to the drama of doctrine: Will we speak and act according to the Scriptures and contribute to the development of the theo-dramatic plot, or will we follow some other, more culturally fashionable story lines?(Vanhoozer, p. 59)

Don’t worry if you don’t know what he means by “theo-dramatic.” The force of what he is saying is clear enough. We are either going to follow the way of Scripture or some other way that ruffles less feathers. There is a choice here but there is also an issue of know-how. Vanhoozer puts it this way, “Theological competence is ultimately a matter of being able to make judgments that display the mind of Christ (p. 2).” Such ability, according to Hebrews 5:13-14, is only for those skilled in the word of righteousness, for those who have had their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

We should not settle for what amounts to immaturity in the Christian life (Heb. 5:13). Instead, we should strive to be the best theologians possible, not so that we can write a book but so that we can live a life that is to the praise of His glory.

Does Hebrews 6 teach that you can lose your salvation?

2006-07-20T09:38:00.000-04:00

I got an e-mail from someone recently asking me about eternal securty and Hebrews 6:6. The timing of the e-mail was interesting since I had just taught on Hebrews 6 in our adult Sunday School class the previous Sunday. It was helpful for me to put my thoughts about the passage in writing. Here is what I said:

First, the apostasy spoken of in Hebrews 6 does appear to be irrevocable. They have treated the blessings of salvation with contempt and turned their back on Christ who is their only means of salvation. The illustration in verses 7-8 confirms this view – the thorns and bristles are burned, not given a second chance. The fact of the matter is that these people are described as making a final decision to forever reject Christ with their eyes wide open – they have been enlightened, experienced the good things of God that accompany salvation, and even shared in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. They have soaked up the rain but that rain did not produce the blessing of salvation in their lives. So, it is impossible, as the text says, to be renewed to repentance if one falls way in this manner.

That said, it is possible to deny Christ without committing apostasy. Both Judas and Peter denied Christ, but only Judas apostatized. A righteous man will fall and get up again (Prov 24:16). So, if you repent then obviously you have not apostatized.

Eternal security is part of an overall subject that includes the concepts of perseverance and assurance. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that eternal security is true for all those to whom it applies (Rom 8:30 among others). I don’t think you can have assurance of eternal security, though, unless you are preserving in the faith. The point of Hebrews 6 is to encourage the Hebrews to persevere so that they can have assurance.

Hebrews 6:11-12
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

So, does Hebrews 6 teach that one can lose their salvation? Obviously not, since the Bible teaches otherwise in numerous places. It is possible, though, for people to “lose” the salvation they thought they had. For example, Matthew 7:21-23 says, “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” The “works of power” in verse 22 correspond to the “powers of the age to come” that the apostates experienced in Hebrews 6:5. Clearly there is a connection between these people.

Having said that, though, I believe that this passage in Hebrews was written to believers. True believers who are currently neglecting God’s word (cf., Heb 2:1-4, 3:12; 5:11-6:3) will heed this warning and see this as a motivation to not be sluggish in their faith and to earnestly endure in their Christian life. I think it is a mistake to think, "I trusted in Christ many years ago and it doesn't matter how I live my life now as I am eternally secure."

How many ballparks have you been to?

2006-07-07T20:40:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to my brother, Scott, for finishing his tour of major league ballparks. This past week he visited Dolphins Stadium and Tropicana Field -- the last two parks on his list. To commemorate the event, all three of us brothers went to his last park to watch the Devil Rays game against the Boston Red Sox (7/3). The D-Rays won, much to the chagrin of most of the fans, who, ironically, were wearing Red Sox paraphernalia.

I have been to only 13 stadiums, many of which have now been torn down:

1. Atlanta’s Fulton County Stadium
2. Atlanta’s Turner Field
3. Baltimore’s Memorial Stadium
4. Baltimore’s Camden Yards
5. LA’s Dodger Stadium
6. Oakland Coliseum (now McAfee Coliseum, I think)
7. Detroit’s Tiger Stadium
8. Philadelphia’s Veteran’s Stadium
9. Seattle’s Kingdom
10. Washington’s RFK Stadium (for an exhibition game before the Expos’s moved to DC)
11. San Fransisco’s AT&T Park (or whatever it is named these days)
12. Anaheim’s Angel’s Stadium (I refuse to call them the LA Angels)
13. Tropicana Field

2006-06-27T12:41:00.000-04:00

Is Single-A Baseball that important????

Joe Mikulik, the manager of the single-A Asheville Tourists, completely loses it -- over a "safe" call on a pick-off play at second base. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as ridiculous as this outburst.

More on Van Til's Apologetic

2006-06-19T21:39:00.000-04:00

Since my last post on this subject, there has been a lively discussion concerning presuppositional apologetics over on SharperIron. I honestly don’t understand the antagonism directed toward Van Til and his apologetic. Many who are arguing against the presuppositional method would do well to read Bahnsen’s book. I think they would find that either (1) they don’t understand the method, or (2) their objections have already been sufficiently addressed.

As I mentioned in my previous posting, I would like to provide several more quotes from Bahnsen’s book. Some of these will be Bahnsen himself; others will be Bahnsen quoting Van Til:

“After all I am only asking you to see what is involved in the Christian conception of God. If the God of Christianity exists, the evidence for His existence is abundant and plain so that it is both unscientific and sinful not to believe in Him.” (Bahnsen, p. 128)

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

“Take now the four points I have mentioned – creation, providence, prophecy, and miracle. Together they represent the whole of Christian theism. Together they include what is involved in the idea of God and what He has done round about and for us. Many times over and in many ways the evidence for all these has been presented. But you have an always available and effective answer at hand.¹²⁷”

¹²⁷ “Proofs of God and evidences for Christianity can always be countered by the unbeliever’s controlling presuppositions or worldview. That is why the presuppositional approach to apologetics teaches us to be prepared to argue with and refute the underlying philosophy that the unbeliever used to evade the force of the evidences and proofs.” (Bahnsen, p. 136).

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

“The narrative of the fall of many may illustrate this point. Adam and Eve were true theists at the first. They took God’s interpretation of themselves and of the animals for granted as the true interpretation. Then came the tempter. He presented to Eve another, that is an antitheistic theory of reality, and asked her to be the judge as to which was the more reasonable for her to accept. And the acceptance of this position of judge constituted the fall of man. That acceptance put the mind of man on an equality with the mind of God. That acceptance also put the mind of the devil on an equality with God. Before Eve could listen to the tempter, she had to take for granted that the devil as perhaps a person who knew as much about reality as God knew about it. Before Eve could listen to the tempter, she had to take it for granted that she herself might be such an one as to make it reasonable for her to make a final decision between claims and counter-claims that involved the entire future of her existence. That is, Eve was obliged to postulate an ultimate epistemological pluralism and contingency before she could even proceed to consider the proposition made to her by the devil. Or, otherwise expressed, Eve was compelled to assume the equal ultimacy of the minds of God, of the devil, and of herself.” (Bahnsen, p. 152)

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

“If he is asked to use his reason as the judge of the credibility of the Christian revelation without at the same time being asked to renounce his view of himself as ultimate, then he is virtually asked to believe and to disbelieve in his own ultimacy at the same time and in the same sense.” (Bahnsen, p. 156)

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

If all things must be seen “in God” to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is. If I must look through a telescope to see a distant star, I cannot look first at the star to se whether there is a telescope through which alone I could see it. If I must look through a microscope to see a germ, I cannot first look at the germ with the naked eye to see if there is a microscope through which alone I can see it. If it were a question of seeing something with the naked eye and seeing the same object more clearly through a telescope or a microscope, the matter would be different. We may see a landscape dimly with the naked eye and then turn to look at it through a telescope and see it more clearly. But such is not the case with the Christian position. According to it, nothing at all can be known truly of any fact unless it be known through and by way of man’s knowledge of God.” (Bahnsen, p. 170-171)

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

“Seeking to suppress his knowledge of the truth about God, the unbeliever’s professed wisdom is reduced to vain reasoning and foolishness (vv. 21-22). When men deny having this knowledge, their thinking and attempts to gain knowledge can be reduced to absurdity. This biblical insight is at the heart of Van Til’s presuppositional defense of the faith.” (Bahnsen, p. 182).

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

“Therefore also, on its authority alone do we believe what the Scripture says about itself. ¹¹²”

¹¹²”The alternative to this is theologically and epistemologically unacceptable. The teaching of Scripture about itself is the source and authority for our doctrine of Scripture, just as much as it is for any other doctrine. Anybody who advocates the inerrancy of Scripture must recognize this, since nobody can corroborate each and every claim made in the Bible. If Scripture is not presented as self-attesting in some apologetical methods, then the unbeliever has every right to hold that the other doctrines of Christianity need not be accepted on Scripture’s say-so.” (Bahnsen, p. 212.)

Apologetics to the Glory of God

2006-05-29T20:36:00.000-04:00

“ ‘Contentious disputes arise,’ wrote John Calvin, ‘from the fact that many think less honorably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity.’ Calvin was commenting upon 1 Peter 3:15, a verse that has long been take as the biblical charter for Christian apologetic. His words were not directed, however, at the ‘profane audacity’ of the unbeliever who challenges the existence of God or the veracity of His word, but rather at those Christian apologists who fall short of recognizing and submitting ot the superiority of God’s wisdom as revealed in the pages of Scripture.”

Thus begins Greg Bahnsen’s explanation of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional method of apologetics in Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. I don’t know where I’ve been all my life, but I first became aware of the existence of presuppositional apologetics by reading Dr. McCune’s Promise Unfulfilled. In his book on the failure of New Evangelicalism, McCune devotes an entire chapter to apologetics. That chapter peeked my interest and I knew that I needed to read up on an area that I had never given much consideration to before. Bahnsen’s book is not for beginners. I suspect there are better introductions to presuppositional apologetics but it was good for me to plod through this treatment. I would have to say that Van Til’s Apologetic is easily one of the most significant books that I have read in quite a while.

The format of the book consists of Bahnsen explaining the key points of Van Til’s apologetic and then following each explanation with several corresponding “readings” from Van Til himself. This process allowed me, as a novice, to process the information multiple time for each point – very helpful, even if it made the book quite lengthy. I found both Bahnsen and Van Til to be extremely insightful. Time after time I found myself thinking that they were exactly right about something and why didn’t I ever recognize that in Scripture before?

Those insights may be old news to many but I would like to highlight some of them to give the reader a feel for what I'm talking about:

“The Christian’s final standard, the inspired word of God, teaches us that ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Prov. 1:7). If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God’s wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God’s wisdom – namely, the supposed wisdom of one’s intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard. The situation is pictured will by C.S. Lewis: ‘The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. Fro the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock…The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God is in the Dock.’” (Bahnsen, p. 3).

-----

“[Van Til] insists (as does Scripture) that the way in which we use our minds—the way in which we reason, how we evaluate claims to the truth, the standards we adopt for knowing, etc. – is itself an ethical matter. This part of human behavior call ‘reasoning’ is as much subject to moral obligations and assessments as anything else we do in the world. The ‘greatest’ commandment teaches us to love the Lord our God with all our minds, too (Matt. 22:37) – to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).” (Bahnsen, p. 90).

-----

“The non-Christian’s opposition to the truth about God or the gospel does not arise from legitimate intellectual problems with the faith, but from a rebellious and rationalizing heart.” (Bahnsen, p. 91).

-----

“Thus, the very thing that most unbelievers demand – a neutral and autonomous investigation of the facts to see whether God’s word can be recognized as true and authoritative – already precludes the kind of God of which the Scripture speaks. Apologists need to come to grips with this, lest their method of defending the faith betray the object of their faith.” (Bahnsen, p. 97).

-----

“So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. An similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God’s existence, I hold is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time.” (Bahnsen, p. 122.)

Those are enough quotes for now. I will probably follow up this post with further quotations as I have time to post them.

Finding a new pastor in 95 days

2006-05-22T09:31:00.000-04:00

Some of you may have noticed a rather long delay between my last two posts. In fact, the few readers I did have doubtless grew tired of coming here and not finding anything new. My last post was “More ways to waste time on the Internet” and I probably should have added “Checking my blog for updates” to that list. While I will never be an everyday blogger, I do feel like I had a pretty good excuse for my three month delay between posts.

On February 11, Pastor Henderson called the deacons together for a special meeting. He had one item on his agenda and that was his announcement that he would be leaving our church to start a new church in the Tampa, FL area. Most of you know that we in the middle of our 6th year as a church plant and have recently moved into our first new building. We expected Pastor Henderson to remain our pastor for many, many years. Consequently, it came as quite the shock to hear how the Lord had been working on his heart, really from the first day we moved into our new building, to start all over again somewhere else.

The reality of his decision did not really hit me until the next day, the day he would announce to the church his intentions to leave the ministry here at Grace. At our church the deacons serve as the pulpit committee and the weight of that responsibility started to weigh very heavily on my heart. It was tense that Sunday, for me at least, knowing that the pastor was going to drop a bomb shell on the congregation latter on that day. Pastor Henderson asked me, as one of the deacons, to say a few words that evening after he made his accouncement. At that point, I had no idea where we would find candidates or how we would go about the selection process. The only thing I could think to say was that we knew that the Lord was in this, that He is the head of His church, and that He can move people around as He sees fit. I said at the time,that even though we love and appreciate Pastor Henderson, that I could not imagine the Lord moving him on unless he had someone “better” in mind for our church, someone who could bring different strengths to the table as we transition from a church plant to more of an established church with a real ministry in the area.

The next three months proved to be one of the most stressful times in my life as a deacon. The stakes are pretty high when you are talking about finding a new pastor. Decisions that are made can affect not only your own life but the lives of your entire church family. What if we make a mistake and half the church leaves? How we will pay the mortgage for our new building if things don’t work out? What if there isn’t unity among the congregation, or even worse, among those on the board? Everyone has their own ideals for what makes a perfect pastor. How do we show deference to each other while still holding true to your own principles? I don’t know about the other men on the pulpit committee but these were some of the things that I struggled with internally during that time.

Besides the internal pressures, there were also lots of things to do. We had to create an application, solicit names from various contacts that we had, prepare and mail packages to potential candidates, create an objective and subjective list of requirements, read the applications and doctrinal statements as they came in, construct an itinerary for when the man and his family would come to candidate, create lists of follow-up questions for the top candidates, create a new compensation package, schedule times to meet as a committee, interview the candidates, and come to a final decision on who we would call. All this took time and everything required gaining a consensus among the members of the pulpit committee. Honestly, I don’t know how we would have done this without e-mail. We had many regular Saturday morning meetings but we probably generated a good hundred e-mails as well. Serving on a pulpit committee is hard work and time consuming work.

To top it all off, none of us were experts in this search committee process. We had some resources to consult but, basically, we were making things up as we went. Sometimes we made decisions that, latter on, turned out to not be so wise. We had to stay flexible when those things happened, while at the same time not revisiting every little decision. I am thankful for the good and godly men that served with me on this committee. None of us got “our way” on everything and it was great to see understanding, forgiveness, and deference through the whole process.

In the end, the Lord led us to recommend Pastor David Wood from Shannon Baptist Church to be our new pastor. Pastor Wood has had a wonderful ministry there in Shannon, Illinois for the past 16 years. He has an obvious love for his people and a heart for doing the work of the ministry. He will help our church were I think we have weaknesses and we all look forward to seeing what the Lord has in store for our church in the upcoming years. He got a 100% approval vote from the congregation and accepted the call on May 17th, 95 days from when the whole process started on Feb. 11th. He will start sometime in late July.

Along with Pastor Wood, we also get his family. His wife and four girls were a joy to get to know. The girls all play string instruments and sing. When they were here they picked a rather fitting song for special music, My God is Good. The lyrics really captured the sentiments of the moment. They, of course, blubbered through the whole song, but that just reflected how everyone else in the congregation was feeling as well.

Though I may never understand,
I'll trust with all my heart.
And from the course that you have planned,
I never want to part.
In searching for your way and wisdom,
teach me if you would,
That for all time, In every place
My God is good.

A Call to Paleofundamentalism?

2006-05-12T08:55:00.000-04:00

I have been meaning to read Robert Gundry’s Jesus the Word according to John the Sectarian for some time now. Gundry’s book, written in 2002, is one of several on the market now that express some level of distress over the present state of evangelicalism. It is particularly interesting to see Gundry entry this fray, especially considering that he himself was expelled back in the 1980’s from the Evangelical Theological Society for promoting redaction criticism and other anti-inerrancy views in his commentary on Matthew.

Gundry’s book consists of three chapters. The first, Jesus the Word according to John, is an exegetical tour de force that highlights the word/verbal Christology presented in the Book of John. I found this section to be quite interesting as I had never noticed before how John emphasizes the “Word” theme throughout his gospel. The second chapter, The Sectarian, attempts to show that John was a separatist, especially in regard to the believer and the world. The last chapter, and the one with the most interesting title, represents Gundry’s application of his exegesis and purpose for his book. He calls it a Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelism, especially its Elites, in North America.

To see where he is going with this, I would like to quote Gundry’s conclusion and then make a few comments on it:

But the question is a serious one: Do our present circumstances call for John’s Word-Christology, for North American evangelicalism to take a sectarian turn, a return mutatis mutandis, to the fundamentalism of The Fundamentals and their authors at the very start of the twentieth century? Like that early fundamentalism and unlike the fundamentalism which evolved in the 20s-40s, this new old fundamentalism, comparable in its neopleoism to the new old commandment in 1 John 2:7-11; 3:11, would be culturally engaged with the world enough to be critical rather than so culturally secluded as to be mute, morally separate from the world but no spatially cloistered from it, and unashamedly expressive of historic Christian essentials but not quarrelsome over nonessentials. Such a renewed fundamentalism would take direction not only from fundamentalism at the very start of the twentieth century but also, and more importantly, from the paleofundamentalism of John the sectarian, whose Christology of the Word has Jesus come into the world (there is the engagement with it), sanctify himself (there is the separation from it), and exegete God (there is the message to it).

There is much here to commend and I appreciate his call to a Biblical separation from the world. I don’t know how culturally engaged we need to be or what he means by nonessentials, but overall I think it is a much needed message for today’s evangelicalism. His conclusion, though, also demonstrates a significant and common weakness in that these men who see the problems in evangelicalism will not, it appears, submit to the complete Biblical instruction in this area.

It is apparent that Gundry still views the emergence of New Evanglelicalism out of the “fundamentalism that evolved in the 20s-40s” as a good thing. In a footnote he specifically likens the “original neoevangelicals (Carl F. H. Henry, Edward J. Carnell, …)” to the original fundamentalists who wrote The Fundamentals. His call to paleofundamentalism seems to be nothing more than a call to a more careful New Evangelicalism. How is that an improvement?

I find it very interesting, though, that Gundry does seem to see the dangers of non-separation. Earlier he writes,

Penetration replaced separation. Evangelical biblical and theological scholars began holding their meetings in conjunction with those of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, both of these societies populated with heretics, non-Christians of other religious persuasion, agnostics, and outright atheists as well as with true Christian believers. And in droves evangelicals (including me) started joining these societies and participating in their activities. Would John approve? I do not know and maybe it does not matter whether or not he would; but noncanonically he is said to have fled from a public bath on perceiving that the heretic Cerinthus was there.

The result, he says, is that “the sense of embattlement with the world is rapidly evaporating among many evangelicals, especially evangelical elites….”

Well, of course, so why return to a reasoned new evangelicalism when that strategy produced the very problems that concern him?

More ways to waste time on the Internet

2006-02-09T08:30:00.000-05:00

I haven't blogged anything in a while, so I thought I'd share a couple web sites that are good to waste time on if you aren't wasting enough time on the Internet already.

The first is Escapa!. I haven't been able to do better than about 12 seconds. Can anyone beat that?

The second is 20q.net. This remarkable site plays 20 Questions with you. Give it a try. Most of the time, I don't understand how the sequence of questions narrows it down, but more often than not, the site comes up with the right answer. Amazing!

Good King Caractacus

2006-01-10T10:15:00.000-05:00

When I was growing up, one of my favorite records (yes that means I’m getting old) from my parent’s collection was one that contained several comedy-type folk songs. I don’t remember who recorded the album but it contained such hits as I’m my own Grandpa and The Court of King Caractacus. Today, we have a video from the Wilds where they perform their own version of the Caractacus song – it’s a riot! The background for the song comes from the Roman custom of parading the spoils of war, including the conquered king, through the streets of Rome. The song pokes fun of all the things that accompanied King Caractacus as he passed by the jeering crowds. It ends with the famous, “Now if you want to take some pictures of the fascinating witches who put the scintillating stiches in the britches of the boys who put the powder on the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Catactacus...YOU’RE TOO LATE…because he just passed by!” So, even though now I would prefer to listen to Handel, Bach, or even Gilbert & Sullivan for comic relief, I can still appreciate a well-performed King Caractacus.

I was reminded of this ditty by an observation made by Thomas Schreiner in his Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ on 2 Corinthians 2:14. In the KJV, the verse reads as follows: Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. Unfortunately, this translation probably does not reflect the underlying language very well, being unduly influenced, according to Dr. Schreiner, by Calvin’s misunderstanding of the verse. The “triumph” of this verse actually refers to the Roman triumphant procession of conquered enemies but the phrasing in the KJV makes it appear as if Paul shares in that triumph. Calvin didn’t understand how Paul could be the object of that type of procession, and yet the grammar of the passage, according to Dr. Schreiner, does not permit any other option. A better understanding of that passage would be something like But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession...(ESV) or But thanks be to God, who always puts us on display [i.e., in triumphant procession] in Christ...(HCSB) The idea is that Paul has been put on display, like a conquered king in a Roman procession of triumph.

The typical Roman triumphal procession would normally end with the execution of the conquered king. It is interesting that Paul switches metaphors mid-verse to being a sweet-smelling savor. In this part of the verse, Paul pictures himself as a sacrifice that produces a pleasing aroma to God and that aroma also spreads the knowledge of God “everywhere.” Consequently, Paul pictures himself as a former enemy who is now a trophy of God’s conquering work of redemption. His service, which is on display in the form of suffering that leads to death (cf., 1 Cor 4:9-13), was designed by God as the means by which His knowledge would be spread abroad. It is an amazing picture.

Here is what all this means to me. I am used to the idea that I am supposed to be a servant, even a bond-slave, for Christ, but I tend to think of that in terms of being a middle-class American living in relative comfort, if not out-right luxury. I don’t picture myself as a conquered and bound slave paraded before the world. I don’t like the idea of suffering and I especially don’t like the idea of dying. Instead of thanking God for being in that position (as the Apostle Paul did with his, “But thanks be to God…”), I tend to resist it and do whatever I can to reduce my chances of suffering for Christ. For me, this an area in my life where I have to repeat with the disciples – Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.

Whitefield's journey to America

2005-12-25T22:30:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I blogged about our family trip to Savannah and our outing to Bethesda to see the orphanage that George Whitefield founded back in the 1740’s. In this post, I’d like to back up some and tell about Whitefield’s initial trip to America in 1738. I found it quite fascinating.

Ironically, Whitefield left England for Georgia from the port city of Deal just as Jonathan Wesley was returning from Georgia through the same port. Wesley, whose goal was to convert the American Indians as a missionary, came back from Georgia as a failure and actually counseled Whitefield not to go. Wesley though, however outwardly pious he may have seemed, was not saved. He wrote in his journal about his experience, “What have I learned? Why, what I the least of all suspected, that I who went to America to convert others, was never myself converted to God.” Obviously, Wesley’s spiritual state had much to do with his failures and Whitefield was not to be deterred. He, along with about 120 others (mostly soldiers), boarded the Whitaker and set sail for America. Two other vessels, the Amy and the Lightfoot, accompanied them on their way to Gibraltar and then across the Atlantic to Georgia.

Whitefield desired to preach the gospel to those on his ship but he was met, initially, with severe opposition. The soldiers considered him “an imposter” and disrespected him by swearing and card playing, even on the Lord’s Day. Despite these challenges, Whitefield began to visit the sick, befriend the crew, and say public prayers. He determined to work the gospel into his daily conversions. Eventually, he started catechism classes and soon won the favor of the ship’s captain. Quoting Dallimore:

"The next step was taken by Captain Whiting. Affected by the work of the Gospel on his own heart, and concerned now for the spiritual welfare of his men, he ordered that chairs be set out on the deck and planks placed across them for the soldiers and passengers to sit on during the services. Thus the deck of the Whitaker became a sort of floating chapel and, since Whitefield says that he ‘arranged to meet with any soldiers who could sing by note, to join in Divine Psalmody every day’, we can but wonder whether he intended to supply it with a male choir.”

After spending two weeks in port at Gibraltar, the three ships commenced their journey across the Atlantic Ocean. The gospel influence that began on the first leg of the voyage really began to take hold on the second leg. Quoting Dallimore again:

“As the journey continued the effects of the Gospel became increasingly evident.

By this time the Captains made it their practice to stand, one on each side of Whitefield as he preached, and Captain Mackay ordered a drum to beat, calling the soldiers to Divine service every morning. Moreover, there were occasions when the other vessels heard him, too, ‘for being in the trade winds, the other two ship’s companies drew near and joined in the worship of God.’

What a sight this must have been! The calm sea, the three vessels clustered together, the crowded decks ablaze with the red coats of the soldiers, and one deck serving as an open-air chapel, replete with make-shift benches and, possibly, a male choir. Before them stands the young chaplain, a Captain on each side and officers round about. In a voice which can be clearly heard on each of the three vessels, he leads a service which includes the singing of Psalms and the prayers of the Church of England liturgy. Many who recently cursed God now join in the words of petition and praise."

What a sight indeed!

Christmas 2005

2005-12-24T12:22:00.000-05:00

Because Christmas falls on Sunday this year, we decided to open presents on Christmas Eve. Here are some pictures that we took of the children, along with a video of JD explaining the true meaning of Christmas.

Jennifer is four years old.

Anna Grace, who just turned three on the 23rd.

JD is six years old.

Click here to hear JD tell the Christmas Story (33.6 MB)

Bethesda

2005-11-29T21:26:00.000-05:00

In January of 1740, a twenty-five year-old George Whitefield examined a piece of land 10 miles outside of Savannah, GA, that would become the location of Bethesda, the “House of Mercy” orphanage that he planned to establish in the new world. While none of the original buildings exist today, the institution does, and we made Bethesda our first stop during our quick trip through Savannah on our way to Florida. Here is a picture of our family on the grounds of the orphanage. I toyed with the idea that this tree could have been planted by Whitefield, but as old as it is, I doubt that it is anywhere near 265 years old.

Unfortunately, there is not much about Whitefield to be seen at Bethesda today. They do have a small museum but it was closed for renovations when we were there. About the only thing of note is a small chapel constructed in his honor.

The fundraising for Bethesda was something in which even Benjamin Franklin participated, albeit reluctantly. Here is the humorous account, in Franklin’s own words (as found in Arnold Dallimore’s wonderful biography on Whitefield):

Mr. Whitefield … preached up this charity, and made large collections, for his eloquence had a wonderful power over the hearts and purses of his hearers, of which I myself was an instance.

I did not disapprove of the design, but as Georgia was then destitute of materials and workmen, and it was proposed to send them from Philadelphia at a great expense, I thought it would have been better to have built the house here, and brought the children to it. This I advised; but he was resolute in his first project, rejected my counsel, and I therefore refused to contribute.

I happened, soon after, to attend one of his sermons, in the course of which I perceived he intended to finish with a collection, and I silently resolved he should get nothing from me. I had in my pocket a handful of copper money, three or four silver dollars, and five pistoles in gold. As he proceeded I began to soften, and concluded to give the coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me ashamed of that, and determined me to give the silver; and he finished so admirably that I emptied my pocket wholly into the collector’s dish, gold and all.

How the other half lives

2005-11-29T10:34:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite things to do in Ft. Lauderdale is to take a boat ride through the New River and Inter-Coastal Waterway sections of the area. It is especially nice at night, when the weather is cooler, and I can enjoy the time alone with my wife while the kids are at home with their grandparents. The outing has become a much anticipated part of our annual Thanksgiving trip to South Florida.

Several outfits run mini-cruises through these Ft. Lauderdale waterways. Probably the most famous is the Jungle Queen Riverboat cruise that includes dinner and a cheesy, Vaudeville-type show at their “jungle” destination. I prefer the cruises that simply work their way through the canals, pointing out interesting tidbits as they go. This past year, we got a discount fare of $11 per adult for a 90 minute cruise – not bad.

Besides the unique, sometimes jungle-like foliage along the banks of the rivers, the most interesting thing about these cruises is seeing all the mansions and the yachts “parked” out front. I have never seen such wealth on display as I have on these cruises. The homes are just unbelievable! One family had to buy a new home with a hundred foot dock because the dock at their old home was too small for the new yacht that they had just purchased for their daughter’s birthday. Oh, the sacrifices we make for our children….

At any rate, when cruising through these multi-million dollar neighborhoods at night, it is often possible to actually see into the homes as you float by. The lights are all on and many of the homes have large picture windows that are left uncovered. Many times you can actually see the owners inside. Sometimes they will even wave to you. Do you know what most of these millionaire owners were doing as we infringed upon their evening? Watching TV or eating. All these millions of dollars and they spend their time, for the most part, doing the same thing that most everyone else in Ft. Lauderdale does. The only difference would be the cost of the TV and room in which it was watched. Sad, really.

Jennifer likes raw oysters!

2005-11-24T11:39:00.000-05:00

We are on vacation right now. We spent a couple days in Savannah, GA before heading south to visit with Daphne's family for Thanksgiving in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. I'm planning to blog more on this trip after we get home, but something happened yesterday that deserved its own post. We drove up to the Port Saint Lucie area for the day and had lunch at a seafood restaurant situated on the coast with a nice view of the water. My brother-in-law, Robert, ordered several appetizers, including raw oysters. Much to everyone's surprise, Jennifer wanted to try one. She ate one and then pointed to the last three and said that she wanted those, too! She is definitely her mother's daughter, as I am well-known for NOT being an adventurous eater. And, no, I did not try one. :)

Keep Yourselves in the Love of God

2005-11-05T17:01:00.000-05:00

In verse 21, near the end of the book of Jude, we come to an interesting imperative – keep yourselves in the love of God. It is a command to guard or preserve our position in God’s love. That’s interesting because normally we don’t think about it in those terms. Our focus tends to center on the biblical promise that nothing is able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:38-39) or that no one is able to snatch us out of our Father’s hand (John 10:28-29). While those promises are certainly true, what are we to make of this command by Jude? What would it look like to be obedient in this area of responsibility?

My second question helps answer the first. We have a responsibility to be active rather than passive in maintaining our relationship to God and His love. There are several verses that speak to this issue but perhaps the most well known is Philippians 2:12-13:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (ESV)

We have a responsibility to work out our salvation even though we know (or because we know) everything we do results from God producing the will and the power in our lives to do it. The popular expression, “Let go and let God” is profoundly unbiblical. God expects us to be engaged in the process.

There are three participial phrases in Jude 1:20-21 that show us what it means to keep ourselves in the love of God. We are to (1) build ourselves up in the most holy faith, (2) pray in the Holy Spirit, and (3) wait for the mercy our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. Consequently, a person with a desire to persevere in the love of God will actively work on these three areas of the Christian life. He will make an effort to grow in his knowledge and understanding of the teachings and doctrines that constitute the faith (cf., Jude 1:3; Eph 4:11-16). He will develop an active and consistent prayer life (cf., Eph 6:18). Lastly, he will wait longingly (often used in an eschatological sense, cf., Mark 15:43; Luke 2:25, 38; Titus 2:13) for the Lord’s return when he will receive the benefits of God’s mercy.

These three things should be the everyday desire of the believer. Our relationship to the Lord cannot remain strong without them. It is no wonder that the early church faithfully devoted themselves to all three:

Acts 2:42 (ESV)
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread [which has an important “until He comes” component] and the prayers.

We have a winner!

2005-10-27T06:54:00.000-04:00

For those interested, Pastor Frank Sansone solved the 12-ball challenge problem that I posted back in August. I don't have the great prizes that they are giving away over at Unknowing, so Frank will just have to settle for the satisfaction of a puzzle well solved.

Thirty Sayings?

2005-10-21T10:08:00.000-04:00

Even though I am fond of the English Standard Version, there are places where they deviate from their "essentially literal" translation philosophy and produce less than ideal results. One such example occurs in Proverbs 22:20-21.

The KJV reads as follows:

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and
knowledge, 21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

The ESV reads:

Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge, 21 to make you know what is right and true, that you may give a true answer to those who sent you?

The ESV follows the latest scholarly research in rendering the Hebrew
as "thirty sayings" rather than the traditional "excellent things"
because this section in Proverbs is said to be influenced by the
Egyptian writings of one Amenemope. Because of this assumed
relationship, the MT has been emended to correspond to Amememope
despite the fact that there is no Hebrew or LXX evidence to justify
such a change. I understand that the Hebrew is difficult here and I
believe the KJV actually follows the qere reading, but I am very
hesitant to assume a secular source for sacred Scripture.

In verse 21, the Hebrew specifically says "words of truth" or
maybe "faithful sayings" (emer emeth) twice in that sentence. I don't
think "right and true" or "true answer" is as literal as the reading
in the KJV. The distinction, by way of application, means that we
ought to do more than give a "true answer" to those who come to us
for counsel; we should try to say things the same way God does, to
think God's thoughts after Him. Is it too much of a stretch to
assume that we will be most effective when we use Biblical logic and
Biblical terminology when we deal with people?

In addition, this passage teaches something about Scripture itself.
The words (and I don't know if the Hebrew means actual words or just
the sayings) are certain – they are both faithful and true. Thus we
learn that Scripture is inerrant. Since the Bible is always true, we
can depend upon it as a faithful guide. I think the ESV does itself a
disservice by not being as literal in this verse as it claims to be.

I hate to be critical of the ESV because, for the most part, I believe it is significantly superior to the KJV and more readable than the NASB. I'm just pointing out places where I would make changes if asked by the translation committee. :)

All Appearance of Evil

2005-10-17T21:29:00.000-04:00

I am participating in an exercise on SharperIron in which several of us have volunteered to exegete a key passage on Biblical separation. The goal is to come to better and more unified understanding of Scripture's teaching on the subject. The passage assigned to me was 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22. You can read my analysis HERE. For those who don't want to wade through the entire thing, I offer the following interpretive paraphrase. To capture the thought of the immediate context, I have included verses 19 and 20 as well:

19 Do not extinguish the work of the Holy Spirit 20 by ignoring or rejecting the proclamation of God’s Word, whatever form it takes. 21 Instead, evaluate every prophecy (as you should all things), and embrace it if is found to be genuinely from God. 22 Otherwise, steadfastly resist and avoid evil in whatever way it manifests itself, whether in so-called prophecy or not.

I'm sure this submission will be critiqued as part of the SharperIron exercise. Consider it a work in progress.

24 hours at the Wilds

2005-09-20T08:53:00.000-04:00

At approximately 5:30 pm on a Friday afternoon, we arrived; at the same time Saturday, we packed up the van and headed home. During the ensuing 24 hours, we packed about as much activity as possible into the Father/Son Campout weekend at the Wilds.

I, along with two men from my church, brought our six-year old boys. While it was a new experience for J.D.’s two friends, he himself had been to the Wilds three previous times. He was already a veteran of the land trolley, the super slide, and the waterfall hikes. J.D. enjoyed doing these things again, as well as discovering the archery, slingshot, and rifle range. He even managed to hit a few of the targets at the rifle range – a feat that thrilled him to no end.

The Father/Son Campout provides a great opportunity for fathers to spend time with their sons. At the Wilds, there is, of course, the added benefit of doing this within the context of a God-glorifying atmosphere that emphasizes the public preaching of God’s Word and the private “God and I Time” meditation on that Word. I appreciated the chance to spend time in the Bible and in prayer with my son. We all wondered how John Bott, the camp speaker for that weekend, would deal with the wide range of age levels, but he did a great job and kept everyone engaged, including our young ones. His message on a divided heart was particularly penetrating.

For those interested, here are some pictures from our trip:

Here are the three of us with our sons. From left to right it is J.D. and me, Pastor Henderson with his son Drew, and David Szweda with his son Hudson.

J.D. on his way to the top of the land trolly. If you have Quicktime on your system, you can watch a movie of his trip down the land trolley HERE.

J.D. at the archery range

J.D. with his friend Drew at the 2nd falls

J.D. about ready to head down the superslide

Thoughts on Katrina

2005-09-04T16:02:00.000-04:00

A few years ago I attended a network security conference held at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans. It was my first and last trip to the so-called “Big Easy.” One of the most striking aspects of the hurricane coverage, for me, was seeing the damage to the very hotel that I stayed at during my trip. Here are some before and after pictures:

My memories of New Orleans are not good. One afternoon I took a hotel shuttle to the French Quarter to see what the area was like and to find a good place to eat. For some reason I thought I would find New Orleans to be somewhat similar to San Francisco – a place known for the sin of its inhabitants but in other respects, just an interesting and relatively harmless place for a Christian to visit. After all, I had been to New Orleans Square at Disneyland. How bad could it be? Answer: Pretty bad.

The first thing I noticed was the smell. I don’t know if it was aroma of the Mississippi River or the dirty streets soiled with beer and who knows what else from countless nights of partying and bar hopping, but the place stunk to high heaven. Besides the smell, one could not help but notice the voodoo, the transvestites, the bars, and the overall red-light-nature of the place. I did not hear any music but that was probably due to the fact that I was not there at night and things were not really “happening” during the time I was there. The most incongruous thing that I noticed were the families with young children strolling through the area like it really was Disneyland. Why anyone would take a child into a place like that is beyond me.

At any rate, the city of New Orleans probably ranks right up there in most Christian minds as one of the most ungodly places in our nation. If God were to use a natural disaster to judge a city, surely New Orleans would be one of the most likely targets. We, of course, do not have direct revelation concerning all of God’s purposes in sending hurricane Katrina to the gulf regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, but we do have some Scripture that I think does apply whenever disaster strikes a community.

The first thing to acknowledge is that God is in direct control of sending hurricanes and other “natural” disasters. Amos 3:6 asks rhetorically, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” In Isaiah 45:7, the Lord Himself says, “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.” While we may not understand God’s purposes in sending calamity on the just and the unjust, we must nevertheless trust in the revelation that God is both great and good.

The goodness of God in calamity can be clearly seen in one of the primary reasons that God sends disasters. Returning to the book of Amos, we see in 4:6-12 that God sent several calamities to the nation of Israel for the express purpose of seeing Israel repent from their wickedness and return to Jehovah. This section concludes with the famous warning in Amos to “prepare to meet thy God!” That God would do anything to convince a sinful nation to turn to God is an act of mercy and grace. Yes there is judgment involved but in God’s mercy He did not wipe out all of the inhabitants of New Orleans or the gulf coast. Those who survived ought to be motivated to prepare to meet their God, a God who can wipe out entire cities with just a whisper of His breath (cf., Job 26, especially verse 14).

Rationalizing Away Pauline Theology

2005-09-03T10:16:00.000-04:00

The more things change the more things stay the same. Apparently, this maxim is no less applicable to theology than it is to other more mundane subjects. A case in point comes from John Eadie’s preface to his commentary on the Letter to the Colossians. Dr, Eadie’s comments were written in 1855 but they sound as if they could have been written today.

I believe that the writings of the apostle, whatever their immediate occasion and primary purpose, were intended to be of permanent and universal utility; and that the purity and prosperity of the church of Christ are intimately bound up with an accurate knowledge of, and a solid faith in, the Pauline theology. I dare not, therefore, in the spirit of modern rationalism, say in one breath what the apostle means, and then say, in another breath, that such an acknowledged meaning, though fitted for the meridian of the first century, is not equally fitted for that of the nineteenth; but must be modified and softened down, according to each one’s predilections and views. The privilege of individual deduction from the inspired statement is not questioned – the attempt to glean and gather general principles from counsels and descriptions of a temporary and special phasis is not disallowed; but this procedure it totally different from that ingenious rationalism which contrives to explain away those distinctive truths which an honest interpretation of the apostle’s language admits, that he actually loved and taught.

Marriage to a Difficult Man

2005-08-28T16:05:00.000-04:00

Although I have no doubt that it may be true, the title of this blog entry does not refer to my wife’s situation but to the “uncommon union” of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. It is actually the title of Elisabeth Dodds’ biography of Jonathan Edwards. She tells the story of Jonathan Edwards through the perspective of his dear wife, Sarah. As Dodds writes, “A genius is seldom an easy husband.” While it certainly was not easy for Sarah, their relationship was, by all accounts, a model of Christ-like love and affection.

The previously confirmed bachelor, George Whitefield, was so impressed with the Edwards family (“A sweeter couple I have not seen”), and Sarah in particular, that he could write,

Mrs. Edwards is adorned with a meek and quiet spirit; she talked solidly of the things of God, and seemed to be such a helpmeet for her husband, that she caused me to renew those prayers, which for some months, I have put up to God, that he would be pleased to send me daughter of Abraham to be my wife.

Sarah was indeed a remarkable lady.

One of the most touching aspects of their marriage transpired on the occasion of her husband’s untimely death. While Jonathan lay on his death bed, his last words were directed towards his wife,

Give my kindest love to my dear wife, and tell her that the uncommon union which has so long subsisted between us, has been of such a nature, as I trust is spiritual, and therefore will continue forever: and I hope she will be supported under so great a trial, and submit cheerfully to the will of God.

Sarah responded in kind, with a letter to her daughter Esther:

Oh My Very Dear Child,

What shall I say? A holy and good God has covered us with a dark cloud. Oh that we may kiss the rod, and lay our hands on our mouths! The Lord has done it. He has made me adore his goodness, that we had him so long. But my God lives; and he has my heart. Oh what a legacy my husband, and your father, has left us! We are all given to God: and there I am, and love to be.

It is touching that they obviously both loved each other deeply, yet both held their earthly loves in palms open to their heavenly Father to do with as He seemed best.