A Tribute to My Father

Today as I reflect upon Father’s Day I am grateful to God for the absolute blessing of having a godly earthly father. I can truly say that I understand and realize the spiritual adoption/sonship that the Bible so powerfully presents in Romans 8, Galatians 4 and Ephesians 1. As being one who is adopted both spiritually and physically, I genuinely cherish my heavenly and earthly fathers who took someone that nobody wanted and called him their son. That’s my story. My heavenly Father sought me out, called my name, placed me at his side to be his son, and blessed me with every spiritual blessing! I am now his child forever! I have access to his eternal name and the bountiful inheritance which he offers to me! I am his son.

So to my Heavenly Father who has given me spiritual life and upholds my physical life in his power, I give Him my gratitude for my earthly father. There has never been a doubt in my childhood that my Dad loved God and desired to do what his Father wanted in his life. My Dad has always been devoted to God’s service. For the last 30+ years that entailed loving my Mom, raising 5 kids to love and serve the eternal King, committing time and sacrifice to Kingdom work via the Church, and working extremely hard in the vocation which he had been called serve: farming.

So Dad, I’m thankful that there was never a day in my childhood in which I thought you were not committed to your marriage to Mom. I never had reason to doubt that you loved her and were willing to give your life for her, just like Jesus. Dad, I’m thankful that you never talked of leaving Mom or us kids. You were always present in our childhood. You were always there for your wife and your kids. Thank you Dad.

Dad, I’m thankful that you were intentional in your instruction and discipline that we as your children would understand and experience the presence of God and the power of the Gospel!Thank you for deliberately raising us with Jesus as our only source of substance and existence.Dad, thank you for pointing us to the cross at such an early age. Thank you for living a Spirit-led life. Thank you also for placing great emphasis on God’s work here on earth. Thank you for training us to embrace Kingdom work. Thank you for showing us sacrificial service and a love for the local church!

Dad, lastly I want to thank you for being devoted to the call of God upon your life. Never was there a day where you shirked or ran from your responsibilities and the extreme hardships that accompanied it. You taught me how to work. You taught me how to be diligent. You taught me how to be a steward. You taught me how to be responsible. You taught me how to simply live life. You taught me how I could be a child of God.

So Dad, today is Father’s Day, and I want to wish you the happiest, joy-filled Father’s Day ever.As I sit here and type over a tear-stained keyboard, I cannot express to you and to the Lord of how thankful I am to have an earthly father like you. Looking back at all the bumps in the road, I can truly say that if I could be half the man that you are I would be absolutely thrilled! Dad, thank you for everything! Thank you for your life, your love, your devotion!

Thank you Dad. I love you! Happy Father’s Day!

Your Son

Reymond ~ Christology

(623-702)

I appreciated Reymond’s presentation concerning the “major revision” in Christian thought of the cross work of Jesus Christ. His argument concerning the “God-ward reference” of the cross work was helpful, but in a few areas I am needing refinement of thought, so maybe you guys can help clarify those areas.

First, (in accordance with the previous discussion concerning Reymond’s overstatement in regards to reconciliation) I question the legitimacy of Reymond’s use of aorist tense in the 4 passages on reconciliation (643-650). I understand that the aorist can be and often is used “punctiliarly.” I recognize that Paul uses it in reference to the cross work which was an “accomplished fact.” However, does the aorist in reference to the -allasso verbs demand “a past, objective, and forensic event” and never “a subjective ongoing operation in men’s hearts”? (647) Is he freighting the aorist with more than it was intended? I lose him when he states, “Such a change of attitude clearly can be true only of God and only with reference to the elect since most men continue in their enmity toward God” (647).

Second, in his treatment of Eph. 2:14-17 he remarks, “…clearly it is God’s enmity which Paul says…” (649). I am having a hard time seeing the “clarity” amidst his “God-ward reference” presupposition.

Third, should we even answer the question “to whom was Christ’s death as a ransom paid?” (657) God paid God a ransom?

Lastly, footnote 25 on 692-93, Reymond seems to reject the God has two wills. I disagree with Reymond that view projected by Murray “imputes irrationality to God.”

Who do you say that I AM?

Great post from Kevin DeYoung. I too often find myself living as if Jesus Christ is someone other than "the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Hermeneutical Spiral ~ Chapter 1

Osborne kicks off his comprehensive work in Biblical interpretation by devoting the first chapter to the discussion of context. The five chapters under the rubric of general hermeneutics deal with the respective topics accordingly: context, grammar, semantics, syntax, and historical and cultural backgrounds. The first chapter dealing with context is foundational. Without it the subject matter becomes absolutely meaningless.

Osborne divides his chapter into three key components within the subject of context. He begins by briefly examining the historical context of a biblical book. He encourages the use of commentaries, OT/NT Introductions, as well as reference works (i.e. dictionaries and encyclopedias). These works are all helpful in gathering the “preliminary data.” He stresses that these are not authoritative or final, but are merely helps and guides which aid the interpreter in understanding the ancient setting and milieu. The goal in the historical study is to grasp the authorship, date, audience, and intent of the biblical book. The historical context acts as a “filter” in which the text must be sifted through.

The logical context is the second component which Osborne observes, and the bulk of his chapter is spent discussing this most basic factor. An inductive study of a biblical book requires that the interpreter 1) studies the book as a whole and 2) diagrams the paragraphs within the book. After an elementary and inspectional perusal of the book has been read and the paragraphs within have been ascertained, a more thorough examination of those paragraphs must follow. Because the paragraph is essential to the flow and development of thought within a book, Osborne gives three stages in which the interpreter should read the paragraphs in order to determine the overall purpose of the book.

In studying the book as a whole Osborne first encourages the reader to skim through the paragraphs while taking notes in order to gain a big picture idea. Second, after charting through the text, the reader must then scrutinize the breaks in pattern or thought. Repetition and progression are key, and the greater the reader’s ability to highlight development and replication, the greater his understanding of the original intent. Third, Osborne promotes the subdividing of major sections within a unit of thought. This step regresses back from the first two steps and broadens the scope beyond the paragraph. Basically, the last step aids the reader by utilizing the data from the first two steps and stepping back in order to see how the patterns fit into the overall structure of the book.

Once the overall structure is established Osborne moves from studying the whole to examining the parts. Of course, the paragraph is where he begins, and he gives various methods of diagramming a paragraph (eg. grammatical, phrase or sentence flow, block, etc.). He prefers the block diagram simply for its ease and function. Although it is not as detailed as other methods, block diagramming helps “visualize” the possible flow of thought rather than rigidly “deciding” the details of the text.

Determining between the major and minor clauses is absolutely essential. A firm understanding of conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating) is also vital. Osborne’s healthy observation is right on when he points out two caveats when diagramming. First, he again emphasizes that diagramming is merely “preliminary;” it is not final. Second, the syntactical relationships within the text “aid” the reader in determining the patterns and breaks, but they do not always determine them automatically. He emphasizes that when the finer elements of exegesis are employed, the diagram must always be subject to revision.

The third and final major component in his chapter on context is the rhetorical or compositional patterns in communication. He refers to this as the “macro level of the organizational pattern” of a text. The grammar, semantics, and syntax he refers to as the “micro” level because of their more detailed structure. Osborne lists five rhetorical categories or patterns: 1) collection relations (repetition), 2) cause-effect and problem-solution, (question-answer, purpose, result, substantiation), 3) comparison (interchange, similarities/contrasts), 4) description (continuation, extension, summation, inclusio, chiasm), and 5) shifts in expectancy (climax, cruciality, omission).

Overall, this chapter on context sets the foundation for the rest of Osborne’s work. For him, rhetoric is different from genre studies in that the latter is peripheral to the communication process. His method of ascertaining the big picture first, through the examination of major structural patterns and breaks is crucial. Too often preachers and theologians stay in the minutiae or the micro-level, and they end up missing the main point of the authorial intent simply because they seldom or at times never step back and observe the macro level.

Shedd's Christology

Here are a few of my comments from Shedd's Dogmatic Theology from this past weeks perusal.

Shedd’s theanthropic presentation of Jesus Christ is thorough and stimulating. The concepts that heightened interest in my reading are as follows.

Shedd argues that the Incarnation had to happen with the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son, the Logos (615-616). He argues, “The Godhead did not become incarnate,” and he seemingly leans incautiously towards Sabellianism when he remarks that, “the essence in all three modes [of the Godhead] did not become incarnate.” Hypothetically, what would the ramifications be if the Father or the Spirit incarnationalized? I am still giving that concept more thought (see supplement 5.1.1 {641}). Is OT prophecy the only grounds that the hypostasis occurred singularly with the Logos (Jn 1:14) and not trinally with Godhead? Or is there other reasons?

His discussion concerning Christ being a divine person who took on a (not the) human nature is interesting (626-33). Shedd distinguishes between “nature” and “person.” He argues that a nature can exist without being “personalized.” The sperma of Heb 2:26, Rom 1:3, and Gen 3:15 which the Logos took on was a human nature “individualized,” and not a person. He thus avoids Nestoranian tendencies.

The question Shedd raises as to why Christ could not be peccable and impeccable (since he is both finite and infinite, passible and impassible, impotent and omnimpotent, ignorant and omniscient) is insightful (661). Due to the structure of his person, Shedd attempts to philosophically support Christ’s impeccability.

Lastly, his distinction between the “sinful” and “innocent” temptations (supported by Acts 8:21-22), and his dichotomy between “seduction” and “trial” (in James 1:14 coupled with Heb 4:15) are ingenious. See supplement 5.5.3 on pg. 671.

Grenz: Christology

From the outset Grenz’s theological/confessional grid is seen. The “community” pervades his presentation and controls his Christology. Grenz is sympathetic to liberal evangelical theology. His supportive penchants towards modernism’s ideologies can be seen throughout his presentation (I have only highlighted a few).

For example, Grenz attempts to coalesce the Christ of faith to the Jesus of history in order to affirm the assertion that Jesus is Divine. He argues that Jesus’ claims alone are not sufficient to serve as “the definitive historical foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (256), nor is the resurrection as an “isolated event” capable of forming the foundation for our initial assertion (259). Agreed. He continues in his rhetoric to contend that in order to affirm the deity of Jesus one must take the claims of Jesus coupled with his resurrection as the “historical foundation” by which such an affirmation can be upheld. Where Grenz’s liberal sympathies appear is where Jamie already pointed out on (255). He disavows Biblical inerrancy and its ability to satisfactorily answer the questions posed by modern higher criticism. His logic breaks down when he emphasizes the naivety in accepting the NT historical claims (255), but then turns around to support the historicity of the resurrection by ironically citing, NT claims (257-259). Interestingly enough much of his support for the “dimensions of the history of Jesus [that] form the historical givens” (261) he finds in the NT.

Another example is his interesting 3+ page discussion of Jesus’ relationship to women. Such a topic is not common in evangelical S.T. Of course the egalitarian/complementarian debate continues to rage between the evangelical liberals and conservatives. I understand his premise that Jesus is the “universal human.” I simply find this insertion interesting.

Lastly, while the virgin birth may not be the “necessary foundation for the declaration that Jesus is divine” (322) the incarnation (as set forth in the NT) is dependant upon the virgin birth. Though the VB may not “support the entire weight of our incarnational Christology” it does seem to be Christologically “indispensable” in regards to the union of the divine and human. Grenz's casual treatment of the VB is indicative of my initial statement.