I like things that save space. I love my Iphone because I can have all of my apps in one place. I love my Ipad because I can carry around digital versions of my books wherever I go. And I love Interpreting the Pauline Letters by John D. Harvey because in one (small!) book he draws together information that could only be gleaned by several commentaries, books, and homiletic books.
Interpreting the Pauline Letters (the first in a new series by Kregel that seeks to educate pastors in how to do proper exegesis) is impressive in what it sets out to accomplish. Chapter 1 sets out the genre of Paul's Letters. Harvey has specialized for quite a while in oral patterns in Paul's writings. As a result, this is a pretty dense (but important) chapter that sets out some principles on how Paul structures his letters.
Chapter 2 contains the historical background behind Paul's letters. Harvey also includes a brief defense of authorship of the disputed Pauline letters. All of this information is meant to be sufficient but not exhaustive. In other words, for the pastor pressed on time, the information presented is just enough.
Chapter 3 includes the theology of Paul's letters. Obviously, Harvey cannot be exhaustive here but he actually accomplishes far more than I expected. He sets forward the key to understanding Paul's thinking: in Adam/in Christ and extrapolates from there. Further, he goes through each letter and draws out the emphasis of each.
Chapters 4-8 walk the pastor through the stages of sermon preparation from translation to written sermon. It should be noted that you have to know Greek to track with what Harvey says at this point. Seminary students shouldn't have any problems but pastors with little to no knowledge of Greek won't gain nearly as much out of this.
My only complaint here is the complaint I have with MOST expositional sermon books: the amount of work they suggest the pastor should do in preparation for the sermon is immense. Now do not get me wrong: I value pastors who pour their energy into a sermon and I think sermon preparation is absolutely essential. Realistically, however, I do not know how many pastors have time to weigh the importance of each and every textual variant found in the Greek.
That said, I am glad there is a book out there that at least gives pastors an ideal to work towards. Further, it would seem that more and more churches are adopting "teaching pastors" who spend more time studying and researching. I can see this book being a Godsend for them. I also love that Harvey, a Pauline expert, gives a list of recommended resources when studying Paul.
In conclusion, I would strongly recommend this book for pastors and Bible teachers. It is impressive in what it accomplishes and yet the size is incredibly manageable (211 pages including glossary). The price tag is small and for the information you get, it is a steal.
*Thanks to Kregel Publishing for providing a free review copy of this work in exchange for a fair review*
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
"Charts on the Life, Letters, and Theology of Paul" Review
It seems that charts and theology are becoming quite popular again. In the past few years we have seen a wealth of publications containing charts on virtually every area of philosophy and theology...and even on books of the Bible (like Hebrews and Revelation). Now, from Lars Kierspel and Kregel publishing, comes Charts on the Life, Letters, and Theology of Paul. The title of the book says it all. The question is, is it worth your money?
Let me provide a succinct answer and back it up with three points and a caveat: No educated pastor, teacher, lay leader, seminary student or interested Bible student should be without this book. The book is that good. Why?
1) It features 111 charts on virtually every area of Paul's life, letters and thought. It is as comprehensive as you might imagine...and then some. A few highlights include chart 89 which gives the highlights on the "faith of Christ" vs. "faith in Christ" debate; charts 48 and 49 which detail the list of Paul's quotation AND allusions to Old Testament passages; chart 43 which contains every hapax legomena in Paul's letters and charts 1-9 which contain a wealth of information concerning Paul's cultural background.
My only complaint (and I feel ridiculous even complaining about this) is that I wish they had a chart for the key words for every one of Paul's letters. Lars Kierspel provides one for 1 Corinthians and Romans...and I loved it so much I wanted one for every letter.
2) The raw data presented is simply breathtaking. Keep in mind that there are few conclusions the charts themselves draw (you can find that in Lars' commentary on his charts in the last few pages of the book). Instead what is at your fingertips is just pure data. It essentially boils down all of the exegetical information you need and tells you, "Now study and draw conclusions." It is a treasure trove of data that I had to go to multiple sources to find before. I love that it is all in one place now.
3) It is wonderfully laid out. A book that has a bunch of charts is no good if the charts are confusing. Thankfully, the charts are clear, concise and easy to read. There is a lot of information packed into these charts and the fact that they are still easily understood is a testament to how much thought went into this volume.
A Caveat: While there is an absolute wealth of information provided in this book, this book also simplifies many of the issues. An example of this can be found on chart 88 which attempts to show verses in Paul that highlight God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Lars provides a good (but not great) list. So the chart is not exhaustive but it contains the main ideas. Another example of this is chart 111 which attempts to give an introduction on the "New Perspectives" on Paul. In all honesty, the chart is not very useful unless you are aware of a) the conversation as a whole and b) that the entire NPP is not monolithic. Even then, I found the entire discussion in the chart somewhat confusing. While I am glad that a chart was included, I wish it had been better thought out. This is another example of simplification.
Those are minor quibbles, however, about an otherwise fantastic book. Pick it up today! You will not be disappointed.
*I received this book as a review copy from Kregel Academic in exchange for a fair review.*
Let me provide a succinct answer and back it up with three points and a caveat: No educated pastor, teacher, lay leader, seminary student or interested Bible student should be without this book. The book is that good. Why?
1) It features 111 charts on virtually every area of Paul's life, letters and thought. It is as comprehensive as you might imagine...and then some. A few highlights include chart 89 which gives the highlights on the "faith of Christ" vs. "faith in Christ" debate; charts 48 and 49 which detail the list of Paul's quotation AND allusions to Old Testament passages; chart 43 which contains every hapax legomena in Paul's letters and charts 1-9 which contain a wealth of information concerning Paul's cultural background.
My only complaint (and I feel ridiculous even complaining about this) is that I wish they had a chart for the key words for every one of Paul's letters. Lars Kierspel provides one for 1 Corinthians and Romans...and I loved it so much I wanted one for every letter.
2) The raw data presented is simply breathtaking. Keep in mind that there are few conclusions the charts themselves draw (you can find that in Lars' commentary on his charts in the last few pages of the book). Instead what is at your fingertips is just pure data. It essentially boils down all of the exegetical information you need and tells you, "Now study and draw conclusions." It is a treasure trove of data that I had to go to multiple sources to find before. I love that it is all in one place now.
3) It is wonderfully laid out. A book that has a bunch of charts is no good if the charts are confusing. Thankfully, the charts are clear, concise and easy to read. There is a lot of information packed into these charts and the fact that they are still easily understood is a testament to how much thought went into this volume.
A Caveat: While there is an absolute wealth of information provided in this book, this book also simplifies many of the issues. An example of this can be found on chart 88 which attempts to show verses in Paul that highlight God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Lars provides a good (but not great) list. So the chart is not exhaustive but it contains the main ideas. Another example of this is chart 111 which attempts to give an introduction on the "New Perspectives" on Paul. In all honesty, the chart is not very useful unless you are aware of a) the conversation as a whole and b) that the entire NPP is not monolithic. Even then, I found the entire discussion in the chart somewhat confusing. While I am glad that a chart was included, I wish it had been better thought out. This is another example of simplification.
Those are minor quibbles, however, about an otherwise fantastic book. Pick it up today! You will not be disappointed.
*I received this book as a review copy from Kregel Academic in exchange for a fair review.*
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Review of "The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax and Diagramming."
The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek: Grammar, Syntax, and Diagramming by Douglas Huffman is an extremely helpful little book for second-year Greek students. Though it is not intended to replace grammars such as Wallace, it does serve as a helpful refresher for pastors on the go, teachers who are super busy and seminarians who just want to find a basic grammatical principle quick.
In this book you will find charts, basic grammatical discussions, and even an entire section on how to diagram (complete with an example of 1 Peter 1:3-9)! It is amazing how much is packed into a book of only 106 pages!
I really wish I had had this helpful tool when I was taking Greek. It is realistic (it understands pastors do not have a ton of time) yet it also encourages pastors to not quit. Any book that helps make Greek accessible to busy students/pastors everywhere. I wholeheartedly recommend this handy book!
*Thanks to Kregel Academic for providing a free review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
In this book you will find charts, basic grammatical discussions, and even an entire section on how to diagram (complete with an example of 1 Peter 1:3-9)! It is amazing how much is packed into a book of only 106 pages!
I really wish I had had this helpful tool when I was taking Greek. It is realistic (it understands pastors do not have a ton of time) yet it also encourages pastors to not quit. Any book that helps make Greek accessible to busy students/pastors everywhere. I wholeheartedly recommend this handy book!
*Thanks to Kregel Academic for providing a free review copy of this book in exchange for a fair review*
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The Beauty of God's Absolute Sovereignty (Or More Reasons To Not Be an Open Theist)
As I was working through different thinking experiments concerning God's sovereignty (as I recommend anyone studying theology should do), I realized the absolute bankrupt theology of Open Theism. God's absolute sovereignty in salvation and in this earth has been constantly reaffirmed. However some people, I think, are worried about me. Apparently they haven't read what I wrote carefully.
So let me say again, CLEARLY, that I am a Calvinist. I affirm ABSOLUTE ORTHODOXY CONCERNING GOD, THE BIBLE ETC. Me and Johnny Calvin could hang out and not have any difference in our theology. Just because I was interested in a particular theology and entertained the idea does not mean I actually taught or believed it. I leaned toward it (meaning that I saw their view and acknowledged its strengths). However, at no point did I say "Ok, I am an open theist." If anything I toyed with a more neutral "traditional baptist" position which was more like 3 point Calvinism. However, I realized the ultimate failure of this position to square with Scripture too. So for those reading my blog, let me say clearly, I am REFORMED in my theology. I WAS RESEARCHING AND TOYING WITH THESE OTHER POSITIONS BUT NEVER ACCEPTED THEM.
Hopefully, that helps. If someone is still tweaked, then read this story and then come talk to me.
One of the problems with open theism is how we approach tragedy. Last week I lost a student in a motorcycle wreck. It was sudden, unexpected and heartbreaking. Let's look at how this breaks down.
Open Theism would say that God did not know (although could probably predict to a certain extent) the death of my student. It would say that God is heartbroken and but could not have prevented it due to his desire for mankind to have absolute freedom. Some OT would say that Satan perhaps was behind his death but God allowed it because he has given Satan freedom as well.
While I understand that open theism attempts to get God off the hook, I just don't see how it actually does that. God still limits his sovereignty to some extent. And at the end of the day, God is still to "blame." That is just the truth.
I think the more biblical idea is to own that God does predestine stuff and ordain stuff (even tragedy) for his glory. It just is like that. The Bible provides ample witness to that. So it is our duty, not to get God off the hook, but to humble ourselves under His almighty hand.
The family who lost their son found comfort in the fact that God not only knew, but permitted this tragedy. They found it beautiful that God could use something horrible to elevate His glory. Several people were saved through this tragedy. Perhaps more awesome was that the family said, "We know God is good and in control."
You see, the god of open theism is in control...but in a radically different way. He is reactive at times and proactive at other times. He will is thwarted and he doesn't always get what he wants. In other words, God may have wanted to prevent the accident, but simply was unable to or (because he loves human autonomy) UNABLE to prevent it from happening.
Now technically, this does maintain God's sovereignty because OT states that God sovereignly allows himself to be limited.
But no matter which way you slice it, God is still responsible and limited.
That isn't God. Sorry.
God is both responsible and limitless. He ordains things for his good pleasure. And while we may not understand, we don't need to. Why? Because God is God. Who are we that God should be held responsible to us?
In other words, when we attempt to get God off the hook, we elevate ourselves. God doesn't need that though.
In tragedy, we don't need to elevated. We need God to be elevated.
And that is, again, why I affirm Calvinism and orthodoxy.
So let me say again, CLEARLY, that I am a Calvinist. I affirm ABSOLUTE ORTHODOXY CONCERNING GOD, THE BIBLE ETC. Me and Johnny Calvin could hang out and not have any difference in our theology. Just because I was interested in a particular theology and entertained the idea does not mean I actually taught or believed it. I leaned toward it (meaning that I saw their view and acknowledged its strengths). However, at no point did I say "Ok, I am an open theist." If anything I toyed with a more neutral "traditional baptist" position which was more like 3 point Calvinism. However, I realized the ultimate failure of this position to square with Scripture too. So for those reading my blog, let me say clearly, I am REFORMED in my theology. I WAS RESEARCHING AND TOYING WITH THESE OTHER POSITIONS BUT NEVER ACCEPTED THEM.
Hopefully, that helps. If someone is still tweaked, then read this story and then come talk to me.
One of the problems with open theism is how we approach tragedy. Last week I lost a student in a motorcycle wreck. It was sudden, unexpected and heartbreaking. Let's look at how this breaks down.
Open Theism would say that God did not know (although could probably predict to a certain extent) the death of my student. It would say that God is heartbroken and but could not have prevented it due to his desire for mankind to have absolute freedom. Some OT would say that Satan perhaps was behind his death but God allowed it because he has given Satan freedom as well.
While I understand that open theism attempts to get God off the hook, I just don't see how it actually does that. God still limits his sovereignty to some extent. And at the end of the day, God is still to "blame." That is just the truth.
I think the more biblical idea is to own that God does predestine stuff and ordain stuff (even tragedy) for his glory. It just is like that. The Bible provides ample witness to that. So it is our duty, not to get God off the hook, but to humble ourselves under His almighty hand.
The family who lost their son found comfort in the fact that God not only knew, but permitted this tragedy. They found it beautiful that God could use something horrible to elevate His glory. Several people were saved through this tragedy. Perhaps more awesome was that the family said, "We know God is good and in control."
You see, the god of open theism is in control...but in a radically different way. He is reactive at times and proactive at other times. He will is thwarted and he doesn't always get what he wants. In other words, God may have wanted to prevent the accident, but simply was unable to or (because he loves human autonomy) UNABLE to prevent it from happening.
Now technically, this does maintain God's sovereignty because OT states that God sovereignly allows himself to be limited.
But no matter which way you slice it, God is still responsible and limited.
That isn't God. Sorry.
God is both responsible and limitless. He ordains things for his good pleasure. And while we may not understand, we don't need to. Why? Because God is God. Who are we that God should be held responsible to us?
In other words, when we attempt to get God off the hook, we elevate ourselves. God doesn't need that though.
In tragedy, we don't need to elevated. We need God to be elevated.
And that is, again, why I affirm Calvinism and orthodoxy.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Chaos, Open Theism, Calvinism and a Big Piece of Humble Pie
There aren't many times when I recant what I previously wrote. I normally stick by stuff I have said and continue to do so. However, I wrote a piece a few months ago on why I wasn't a Calvinist. Though I denied open theism, I told you that I found the idea attractive but instead clung to a largely Arminian perspective on soteriology. In fact, I signed what was called the "Traditional Baptist" document, affirming man's freedom in salvation.
For those of you who are Calvinist who I dialogued with (more harshly and brashly than you deserved I might add), allow me to offer a humble recantation of my stance and explain why.
I had a dialogue with a friend about a month ago in Chili's about open theism. I told him that I essentially didn't want to think about the issue because it seemed attractive but I knew it was really, really wrong. However, I after the conversation I realized that this wasn't intellectually honest. So, I went back and started reading through virtually every single article I could find on open theism. What had (at one time) particularly impressed concept of open theism with a theory called "chaos theory."
Greg Boyd has long championed this idea that the chaos theory shows that we live in an indeterminate universe. In the past, I rested on Boyd's opinion and interpretation of this and thought, "Even science backs up open theism!"
False.
So false.
So so so false.
I decided to investigate the chaos theory for myself this time (in order to effectively brush off any Calvinists). So I started reading the book Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain by leading neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga. In the book he argues that our lives are essentially determined by our brains. However, he argues that things are indeterminate (as far as being able to be measured) because of the chaos theory.
Chaos Theory
Newton assumed that if we had completely accurate measurements of everything we could determine the course of the world. That is largely true according to most scientists today. However, the problem comes in with chaos theory. Chaos theory says that when three more bodies (that could be planets, people, cities etc.) come into contact, we can not completely compute (or measure) accurately enough anything (on the biological and molecular level) to know what will happen. Small variables, over time and space, can create what seems to be random occurrences in our lives.
But here is the catch: what chaos theory says is that things are indeterminate because we currently don't have the ability to measure those things and likely never will accurately enough. This statement essentially undermines what open theists have been saying and let me explain why.
1) Open theists say that God possesses exhaustive divine knowledge of all present things.
2) However, if God possesses exhaustive divine knowledge of all present things, that means he is not hindered by scientists' current inability to measure accurately down to extremely small decimal places.
3) What this means is that God could, by nature of just pure mathematical ability not just "predict" the future but literally know every single action based upon his ability to a) compute and b) apply that knowledge to the future.
What I am saying is that for God, if he even possesses just exhaustive knowledge of the present, can know the future. But then that means God would possess foreknowledge. Back to that in a bit...
Why Our Brains Betray Us (and it is a good thing)
Most scientists now assume we live in a deterministic world. While the theory of evolution plays a large part in this, current research on the brain also leads them to conclude this as well. I will simply cite one example.
Recent experiments have shown that our brain begins to cue up energy for us to move our hand a few milliseconds before we are even conscious of the thought, "I am going to move my hand." Some experiments have shown that this process happens as early as ten seconds before we become conscious of our desire to perform an action. That is staggeringly cool!But it also, in my mind, deals a death blow to open theism. If God possesses exhaustive knowledge of the present, that means that even on the smallest molecular levels, God could accurately know what we could and would do as early as ten seconds before we actually do it. That might not seem like much to us but to a God who is infinitely resourceful that is a game changer. Further, it also means that regardless of what we want to say, God possesses divine foreknowledge to some extent. I find this to be absolutely awesome! Our brains literally betray us and simply opens up the possibility that God does possess foreknowledge.
Speech Acts and Kevin J. Vanhoozer
I was incredibly blessed to have some personal dialogue with Kevin J. Vanhoozer through email. While what he said to me was personal (and encouraging), he dialogued with me about open theism and why he rejects it. I bought his book Remythologizing Theology and so far, it is beginning to shape the way I view some of those tough passages that we typically have called anthropomorphisms. The philosophy behind speech acts argues that words do more than simply convey information--they can actually illicit a change within someone. If I hold that God's Word is inerrant (which I do) and that God wanted was written said for a reason, then this leads to some interesting possibilities about those notoriously tricky passages about God changing his mind.
I can either take them hyper-literally or I can under them to be speech acts that were designed to illicit a response within me. If I take them to be speech acts that Moses wrote (by God's divine power) then that means they are meant to convey to me that God is truly relational, though he possesses exhaustive definite knowledge. While my literalness in hermeneutics wants to come up here, I think that speech acts have made these verses more understandable actually.
But Why Calvinism?
At this point, I haven't said anything that particularly lends itself to Calvinism. I have simply been arguing for classical theism. However, let's put together the entire scope of what I have been saying...
1) God, as creator, made the rules of what is now largely considered a determined universe by scientists. Even areas where we say something is indetermined simply means that we don't possess the tools to accurately measure variables. However, God does. Nothing then is indeterminate to God. Since God, before creation, made the rules of physics that our world would operate by, that means that God, by virtue of being God, not only knows the future but meticulously designed how it would come about through physics.
2) God knows what our brains are going to do before we even are conscious of it. If anything, this simply nullifies the idea of free will.
3) God's on its most basic reading backs up everything that science is already discovering.
4) Passages that seem to offer contingencies (or choices) can simply be understood as speech acts to illicit response from us.
Anyway, I realize that half of my readers are going to see this and think, "I am disappointed in Daniel from turning away from his previous belief," while the other half is going to think, "Good for you, Daniel."
While, I recognize this was not the most usual path to take to come to this point in my theology, it is a path that nevertheless has astounded me and has left me in total awe of God. Never before have I felt so excited in my walk with God (even the first time I thought Calvinism was true!). Being older and wiser I realize I was wrong about what I said earlier. I think even the 3 point Calvinism I had leaned toward before wasn't even that strong.
So...there is a big piece of humble pie for me to eat!
For those of you who are Calvinist who I dialogued with (more harshly and brashly than you deserved I might add), allow me to offer a humble recantation of my stance and explain why.
I had a dialogue with a friend about a month ago in Chili's about open theism. I told him that I essentially didn't want to think about the issue because it seemed attractive but I knew it was really, really wrong. However, I after the conversation I realized that this wasn't intellectually honest. So, I went back and started reading through virtually every single article I could find on open theism. What had (at one time) particularly impressed concept of open theism with a theory called "chaos theory."
Greg Boyd has long championed this idea that the chaos theory shows that we live in an indeterminate universe. In the past, I rested on Boyd's opinion and interpretation of this and thought, "Even science backs up open theism!"
False.
So false.
So so so false.
I decided to investigate the chaos theory for myself this time (in order to effectively brush off any Calvinists). So I started reading the book Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain by leading neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga. In the book he argues that our lives are essentially determined by our brains. However, he argues that things are indeterminate (as far as being able to be measured) because of the chaos theory.
Chaos Theory
Newton assumed that if we had completely accurate measurements of everything we could determine the course of the world. That is largely true according to most scientists today. However, the problem comes in with chaos theory. Chaos theory says that when three more bodies (that could be planets, people, cities etc.) come into contact, we can not completely compute (or measure) accurately enough anything (on the biological and molecular level) to know what will happen. Small variables, over time and space, can create what seems to be random occurrences in our lives.
But here is the catch: what chaos theory says is that things are indeterminate because we currently don't have the ability to measure those things and likely never will accurately enough. This statement essentially undermines what open theists have been saying and let me explain why.
1) Open theists say that God possesses exhaustive divine knowledge of all present things.
2) However, if God possesses exhaustive divine knowledge of all present things, that means he is not hindered by scientists' current inability to measure accurately down to extremely small decimal places.
3) What this means is that God could, by nature of just pure mathematical ability not just "predict" the future but literally know every single action based upon his ability to a) compute and b) apply that knowledge to the future.
What I am saying is that for God, if he even possesses just exhaustive knowledge of the present, can know the future. But then that means God would possess foreknowledge. Back to that in a bit...
Why Our Brains Betray Us (and it is a good thing)
Most scientists now assume we live in a deterministic world. While the theory of evolution plays a large part in this, current research on the brain also leads them to conclude this as well. I will simply cite one example.
Recent experiments have shown that our brain begins to cue up energy for us to move our hand a few milliseconds before we are even conscious of the thought, "I am going to move my hand." Some experiments have shown that this process happens as early as ten seconds before we become conscious of our desire to perform an action. That is staggeringly cool!But it also, in my mind, deals a death blow to open theism. If God possesses exhaustive knowledge of the present, that means that even on the smallest molecular levels, God could accurately know what we could and would do as early as ten seconds before we actually do it. That might not seem like much to us but to a God who is infinitely resourceful that is a game changer. Further, it also means that regardless of what we want to say, God possesses divine foreknowledge to some extent. I find this to be absolutely awesome! Our brains literally betray us and simply opens up the possibility that God does possess foreknowledge.
Speech Acts and Kevin J. Vanhoozer
I was incredibly blessed to have some personal dialogue with Kevin J. Vanhoozer through email. While what he said to me was personal (and encouraging), he dialogued with me about open theism and why he rejects it. I bought his book Remythologizing Theology and so far, it is beginning to shape the way I view some of those tough passages that we typically have called anthropomorphisms. The philosophy behind speech acts argues that words do more than simply convey information--they can actually illicit a change within someone. If I hold that God's Word is inerrant (which I do) and that God wanted was written said for a reason, then this leads to some interesting possibilities about those notoriously tricky passages about God changing his mind.
I can either take them hyper-literally or I can under them to be speech acts that were designed to illicit a response within me. If I take them to be speech acts that Moses wrote (by God's divine power) then that means they are meant to convey to me that God is truly relational, though he possesses exhaustive definite knowledge. While my literalness in hermeneutics wants to come up here, I think that speech acts have made these verses more understandable actually.
But Why Calvinism?
At this point, I haven't said anything that particularly lends itself to Calvinism. I have simply been arguing for classical theism. However, let's put together the entire scope of what I have been saying...
1) God, as creator, made the rules of what is now largely considered a determined universe by scientists. Even areas where we say something is indetermined simply means that we don't possess the tools to accurately measure variables. However, God does. Nothing then is indeterminate to God. Since God, before creation, made the rules of physics that our world would operate by, that means that God, by virtue of being God, not only knows the future but meticulously designed how it would come about through physics.
2) God knows what our brains are going to do before we even are conscious of it. If anything, this simply nullifies the idea of free will.
3) God's on its most basic reading backs up everything that science is already discovering.
4) Passages that seem to offer contingencies (or choices) can simply be understood as speech acts to illicit response from us.
Anyway, I realize that half of my readers are going to see this and think, "I am disappointed in Daniel from turning away from his previous belief," while the other half is going to think, "Good for you, Daniel."
While, I recognize this was not the most usual path to take to come to this point in my theology, it is a path that nevertheless has astounded me and has left me in total awe of God. Never before have I felt so excited in my walk with God (even the first time I thought Calvinism was true!). Being older and wiser I realize I was wrong about what I said earlier. I think even the 3 point Calvinism I had leaned toward before wasn't even that strong.
So...there is a big piece of humble pie for me to eat!
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Diamond of Salvation
I am currently reading (and almost finished with) Alister McGrath's Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. I am reading about modern developments (since the 1700's) in theology as they relate to salvation. McGrath mentions that salvation has been conceived of many different ways in theological thought since 1700 and lists them. Here is his list:
What is fascinating about this list is that there is a great deal of confusion about salvation, the effects of salvation, and the future of salvation. Essentially, most of the items on this list either make salvation consist of the effects of salvation or make salvation based upon the future of salvation.
For example, moral perfection is something we look forward to eschatologically but not in the present. Consciousness of God is an excellent thing we possess when we are saved and, in my opinion, is one of the most prominent changes that takes place when someone is saved. However, being MORE conscious (or even predominately conscious of God) does not constitute salvation. Rather, it is an effect. Political liberation, while something we should be striving for now (since as believers we are called to work for the oppressed and needy) and is something we will be looking forward to in the future (the eschatological dimension), it absolutely does not constitute salvation.
It is so easy to neglect the beautiful simplicity of what salvation means. Salvation means we are rescued from death, sin and the wrath of God. This isn't popular to talk about among some people. However, I treasure the beauty of salvation and that my salvation is not dependent upon my external change or my inward shift toward God. If so, I would be in serious trouble. But praise be to God who set forth His Son to rescue someone like me.
Thank you Jesus!
- Deification
- Righteousness before God
- Union with Christ
- Moral perfection
- Consciousness of God
- Genuine Humanity
- Political Liberation
What is fascinating about this list is that there is a great deal of confusion about salvation, the effects of salvation, and the future of salvation. Essentially, most of the items on this list either make salvation consist of the effects of salvation or make salvation based upon the future of salvation.
For example, moral perfection is something we look forward to eschatologically but not in the present. Consciousness of God is an excellent thing we possess when we are saved and, in my opinion, is one of the most prominent changes that takes place when someone is saved. However, being MORE conscious (or even predominately conscious of God) does not constitute salvation. Rather, it is an effect. Political liberation, while something we should be striving for now (since as believers we are called to work for the oppressed and needy) and is something we will be looking forward to in the future (the eschatological dimension), it absolutely does not constitute salvation.
It is so easy to neglect the beautiful simplicity of what salvation means. Salvation means we are rescued from death, sin and the wrath of God. This isn't popular to talk about among some people. However, I treasure the beauty of salvation and that my salvation is not dependent upon my external change or my inward shift toward God. If so, I would be in serious trouble. But praise be to God who set forth His Son to rescue someone like me.
Thank you Jesus!
Monday, September 17, 2012
Preaching the Gospel
So the new buzzword among Evangelicals lately is "gospel." I have no fewer than 10 books written in the past year with the title "gospel" in the title. Everything is "gospel-driven" and we hear a lot about "preaching the gospel." While I think that a lot of the stuff is just trying to capitalize off of the newest (old?) buzzword, I like a great deal of what has come out lately and have tried to apply a lot of it to my own ministry.
In particular, I have been attempting for the past few years to integrate preaching the gospel into my sermons in a non-forced way (altar call-esque) way. I have experimented with different ways of integrating the gospel into my sermon but I finally found out a fairly effective method. I want to especially focus on the stage of application in preaching. Truthfully, this is where a lot of preachers struggle. We can expound the text and its nuances like champs but when it comes to connecting it to life, we falter. I know that I personally have wrestled with this issue for a long time. However, what I am sharing here has helped me a lot.
Creation reminds us that God created man in his image for his glory as vice-regents to rule his world.
The Fall reminds us that because of Adam's sin we are born with a sin-nature that rebels against God's good purposes in our lives and orients us towards destruction. We are at animosity between God, the land and each other and deserve punishment because of this.
Redemption reminds us that Jesus Christ died on the cross because of our sin. He rose from the dead as the inaugurated king and secured our redemption.
Restoration reminds us that one day God will bring about complete and total restoration and we will live in the New Heavens and New Earth with God and others forever. Things will be perfected.
I have chosen for simplicity sake (and as a helpful mnemonic device) four c-words to sum up the Gospel: creation, crash, cross and consummation (but truthfully, the vocabulary matters little).
Each area (creation, crash, cross, consummation) asks a particular question and should help you think about your text in different ways.
Creation asks, "What was God's original intention for us?" This question orients us to our past and what could have and should have (and one day will be) our hope.
Crash asks, "What has sin does to God's original intention?" This builds a bridge with your congregation because, truthfully, this is where you are. You are battling your sin nature and you are sinful. So this question orients us to our present.
Cross asks, "What has Christ's death accomplished to reverse the crash?" This question actually also is our present. This is where we can begin glorying in the truly good news.
I want to pause here and reflect how absolutely vast this question is. As a preacher you need to be aware of the many theories of the atonement and appropriate various ones in your preaching. For instance, the Christus Victor model of redemption is an absolutely beautiful picture of how Christ has broken Satan's power over us. Penal substitution is similarly vital in letting people know their sin is truly reprehensible to God. Christus exemplar is a good model as well (provided you don't go into legalism) to remind people how they ought to respond in light of God's redemption for them.
Consummation asks "How does God want the story to end?" The ending is healing, judgment of the wicked, and perfection. This is a future oriented question that helps us lift our eyes off of the present and see things in light of eternity.
However, I revamped a bit of the sermon. The three points are:
1) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Other's Opinion [Gal. 1:10]
2) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Ourselves [James 4:1-2]
3) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Appearances [1 Sam. 16:7].
Notice a few things. First, this a topic driven sermon and not a full-blown expository sermon. While originally I used to be against this type of sermon and used to think "exegete the hound out of one text" I have shifted my thinking a bit after working with youth. I am still all about exegeting the text but I think it is important to adopt a "systematic theology" approach to preaching too. In other words, it is useful to show people the scope of what God's Word says. Also, it was a technique used by the early church (tying multiple texts together) so I don't think it is inherently wrong.
The key to doing it well though, is tying it all back to the Gospel. For instance, I have a worksheet that I have gone through in preparation for this sermon. It looks like this:
In particular, I have been attempting for the past few years to integrate preaching the gospel into my sermons in a non-forced way (altar call-esque) way. I have experimented with different ways of integrating the gospel into my sermon but I finally found out a fairly effective method. I want to especially focus on the stage of application in preaching. Truthfully, this is where a lot of preachers struggle. We can expound the text and its nuances like champs but when it comes to connecting it to life, we falter. I know that I personally have wrestled with this issue for a long time. However, what I am sharing here has helped me a lot.
Defining the Gospel
There is a general consensus among most recent literature on the gospel that there are four main elements to it. Though the words change, the four main elements are: creation, the Fall, redemption, and restoration.Creation reminds us that God created man in his image for his glory as vice-regents to rule his world.
The Fall reminds us that because of Adam's sin we are born with a sin-nature that rebels against God's good purposes in our lives and orients us towards destruction. We are at animosity between God, the land and each other and deserve punishment because of this.
Redemption reminds us that Jesus Christ died on the cross because of our sin. He rose from the dead as the inaugurated king and secured our redemption.
Restoration reminds us that one day God will bring about complete and total restoration and we will live in the New Heavens and New Earth with God and others forever. Things will be perfected.
I have chosen for simplicity sake (and as a helpful mnemonic device) four c-words to sum up the Gospel: creation, crash, cross and consummation (but truthfully, the vocabulary matters little).
Integrating the Gospel in Preaching
Essentially every sermon needs to cover all four of these areas. This might sound limiting but actually, the scope and meaning in each of these words is vast--so vast you could explore them for eternity and not exhaust the ramifications of each element. In theory (and in truth), you should have endless applications at your disposal.Each area (creation, crash, cross, consummation) asks a particular question and should help you think about your text in different ways.
Creation asks, "What was God's original intention for us?" This question orients us to our past and what could have and should have (and one day will be) our hope.
Crash asks, "What has sin does to God's original intention?" This builds a bridge with your congregation because, truthfully, this is where you are. You are battling your sin nature and you are sinful. So this question orients us to our present.
Cross asks, "What has Christ's death accomplished to reverse the crash?" This question actually also is our present. This is where we can begin glorying in the truly good news.
I want to pause here and reflect how absolutely vast this question is. As a preacher you need to be aware of the many theories of the atonement and appropriate various ones in your preaching. For instance, the Christus Victor model of redemption is an absolutely beautiful picture of how Christ has broken Satan's power over us. Penal substitution is similarly vital in letting people know their sin is truly reprehensible to God. Christus exemplar is a good model as well (provided you don't go into legalism) to remind people how they ought to respond in light of God's redemption for them.
Consummation asks "How does God want the story to end?" The ending is healing, judgment of the wicked, and perfection. This is a future oriented question that helps us lift our eyes off of the present and see things in light of eternity.
So How Do I Preach This?
I have found it helpful to a) work through my text and then b) write out all four stages of the gospel to help me think through the ramifications of what is written. For instance, this Wednesday I am preaching on "Who I am not" in our series on I-Denitity. I am using a curriculum that I find a bit too moralistic for my taste but they give me a good structure from which to preach.However, I revamped a bit of the sermon. The three points are:
1) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Other's Opinion [Gal. 1:10]
2) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Ourselves [James 4:1-2]
3) The Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Appearances [1 Sam. 16:7].
Notice a few things. First, this a topic driven sermon and not a full-blown expository sermon. While originally I used to be against this type of sermon and used to think "exegete the hound out of one text" I have shifted my thinking a bit after working with youth. I am still all about exegeting the text but I think it is important to adopt a "systematic theology" approach to preaching too. In other words, it is useful to show people the scope of what God's Word says. Also, it was a technique used by the early church (tying multiple texts together) so I don't think it is inherently wrong.
The key to doing it well though, is tying it all back to the Gospel. For instance, I have a worksheet that I have gone through in preparation for this sermon. It looks like this:
The
Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Other’s Opinions (Galatians 1:10)
Creation—God created
us in his image so…
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
The
Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Ourselves (James 4:1-2)
Creation—God created us in his image so…
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
Creation—God created us in his image so…
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
The
Gospel Frees Us from Focusing on Appearances (1 Sam. 16:7)
Creation—God created
us in his image so…
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
Working my way through each element of this worksheet keeps my thoughts directed on what is truly important and allows me to direct the text back to Christ. It helps give me a clear direction in application and it helps me tie it together well.
Hopefully this helps.
Crash—You (and others) are sinful so…
Cross—Christ’s death and resurrection at the Cross has made you right with God so…
Consummation—You will one day live with God in the New Heavens and New Earth so…
Working my way through each element of this worksheet keeps my thoughts directed on what is truly important and allows me to direct the text back to Christ. It helps give me a clear direction in application and it helps me tie it together well.
Hopefully this helps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)