Dark Night At Noon

Everyday Theology

2011-09-16T10:35:00.003-04:00

This morning I just finished reading a book edited by Kevin Vanhoozer entitled, Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. This book is a part of the Cultural Exegesis Series published by Baker Academic and it is a fine volume which I commend to you. The book's second opening paragraph reads,

"Everyday theology is the reflective and practical task of living each day as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. Theology is not for Sundays only. Disciples must walk the Christian way the whole weekend and throughout the workweek. Theology is an everyday affair: to live to the glory of God is a full-time privilege and pursuit. Everyday theology is the mandate of every Christian who is actively trying to walk the way of truth and life [7]."

The opening chapter begins with Vanhoozer addressing the the "how" & "why" believers of Jesus Christ should not only care about culture but engage & interpret it. He makes a clear distinction between "culture" and "society." The former he propounds is the "human world that persons create by doing things not by reflex but freely as expressions of desire, duty, and determination." The latter primarily denotes "the institutional forms of organization within which and the norms or conventions by which a group of people live." Such a distinction ultimately moves this discussion forward to a definition of culture - a "lived worldview" or the "meaning dimension of social life."

Launching from this foundational chapter various authors examine a sampling of cultural "texts" from the grocery store line, the hip-hop milieu of Eminem, human rights, the movie Gladiator, concept of busyness, transhumanism, to the cultural scope and text of weddings. The last chapter sounds so much like the SS class on Biblical Theology which Rob Hall & I had the privilege to teach at Cornerstone recently. It was as if I had read this book prior to teaching it. I conclude with several statements from the last chapter.

"Understanding the text or trend from an explicitly Christian point of view reflects our belief that the gospel is the true story of the world. It is the real context in which all text and trends live and move and have their being [238]." His section on "Seeing the World through Redemptive History - Colored Glasses" emphasizes the critical importance that interpretation must happen through the creation-fall-redemption-consummation motif (i.e. the Story of the Scriptures). He argues that all believers must view all of life under the rubric of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. "Cultural agents" understand the ultimate goal of cultural hermeneutics is "to live redemptively in response to the cultural work." He continues, "We find ourselves in a world of decay and yet the shadow and promise of glory, a world that God is reconciling to himself. Part of our ambassadorship for Christ is to imagine how he should shape our lives in light of the influences of the text and trends around us. Only if we practice cultural agency have we truly done cultural interpretation and fulfilled our responsibility to acquire wisdom. Theological analysis of cultural work should already have prepared us for how to respond. Identifying signs of creation and the fall, and imaginatively reconceiving the text or trend in redemption, should yield concrete possibilities for wise living... Our mandate to live wisely as Christians includes all of life. Our response, therefore, should be holistic, encompassing hands and the heart, the individual and the group [242-243]."

The Question of Radical Sacrifice

2011-04-09T14:16:00.003-04:00

In light of our discussion in Acts regarding wealth, check out this post by Trevin Wax on the question of radical sacrifice in regards to wealth, poverty, money, & possessions. Some good stuff to think about.

G.O.S.P.E.L.

2011-03-25T20:02:00.002-04:00

Some killer art explaining the gospel. Check it out here.

Social Psychologist Detects Liberal Bias

2011-02-11T17:38:00.001-05:00

An interesting piece in the NY Times this week. Check it out here.

The Cosmic Disillusionment

2010-12-17T14:20:00.002-05:00

Lately, I've been personally working through the issue of money, wealth, and possessions in my own spiritual journey. The Spirit has used numerous circumstances and events in recent days to help reveal subtle, yet stubborn idols hoarded within my heart. So in keeping in step with the recent revelations I picked up Tim Keller's "Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, Power, and the Only Hope that Matters."

In his second chapter, Keller focuses on the gaping emptiness contained in the world's definition of love. His chapter title, "Love is not all you need" is most revealing. In this chapter he talks about the "cosmic disillusionment" which captivates mankind's environment since the Fall. In all of human life there belies a "cosmic disappointment" which acts as a common denominator.

Let me expound. God in His creative genius placed within man an innate desire. This desire transcends love, passions, & even death. God has given each of us a desire for worship - a longing outside of ourselves. So men & women either choose to be satisfied from the Satisfier - the One who gave them the desire in the first place or a substitute of the Real satisfaction - a substitute that later is revealed as cheap, devastating, and even damning. So Keller tells of examples after examples of people (biblical & contemporary) who have sought after various counterfeit satisfiers.

Often, people don't even realize this underlying cosmic disillusionment exists. Yet Keller argues the sooner they understand it the wiser they will be in life. He states that every person in some way or another experiences this comic disillusionment and disappointment, "but we especially feel it in the things upon which we most set our hopes" (Keller, Counterfeit Gods, 39). He gives four possible responses to this issue:

1. You can blame the things that are disappointing you and move on to try better ones.

2. You can blame yourself and beat upon yourself (i.e. bouts of depression, self-pity, self-loathing).

3. You can blame the world and become hard, cynical, and empty.

4. OR you can reorient the entire focus of your life toward God as C.S. Lewis mused, "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probably explanation is that I was made for another world [something supernatural and eternal]" (Keller, 39).

All of this leads me back to my own issues on my view of money, wealth, & possessions. The power of the Gospel has freed me from the constricting powers of this cosmic disillusionment and has given me hope & purpose from its devastating disappointments. Jesus, my Savior has given me a grace I didn't deserve, a grace I didn't seek, and a grace that I didn't appreciate! But that simply demonstrates how the Gospel affects every facet in life. The Gospel is not simply a story, a time I said a prayer, the Romans road, etc. The Gospel is totality of Jesus & His abiding Spirit in the world today!

In summary, we must stop trying to make everything our everlasting satisfier - a savior in a sense. Rather we must acknowledge & understand that we already have the ultimate Satiator - a Savior who is Christ the Lord.

Why I Don't Like Christian Music

2010-10-14T16:10:00.002-04:00

Michael Patton attempts to stir the pot in his recent blog post.

He states:

"Well, the title gives away my lack of passion for Christian music, so I am not going to do an inductive blog. There, I got it out. I don’t like Christian music. In fact, I think Christian music is theologically wrong. It is like saying “I like Christian cooking.” There is no such thing . . . or at least there should not be. I know that some of you are not going to agree with me, and that is cool. Your probably right. This is not that big of a deal. Nevertheless, allow me to express my odd passion here anyway.
Why don’t I like Christian music? That is a good question. I have often asked this of myself. What happens is this. I am driving down the road, listening to talk radio. The Renewing Your Mind broadcast ends, and is replaced by an hour of Christian music. I immediately change the station. I look for other music. Maybe something in the 90’s. The 90’s was a great decade for music. Here is my order of preference:
U2
Lifehouse
Creed
The Fray
Cranberries
Alanis Morresette
Smashing Pumkins
Matchbox 20
Nickleback
REM
Pearl Jam
Oh, and (cover your ears boys and girls) . . .
Just about anything Country
That is my list. In fact, you can check my iPhone and see the same on my favorites list. I know what you are thinking. None of these are Christian groups. In fact, some have been thought of as anti-Christian. Even U2, Lifehouse, The Fray, and Creed, although they have Christian members, are not Christian bands. I like that. In fact, if they were to change and exist under the title of “Christian rock” I would probably bow my head in sadness and cease to listen to them so much. I would think to myself “They have caved to the pressure of the Christian sub-culture network.
It would take much more than one blog to explain my reasonings for this (especially since I do not completely understand them myself), but let give you some thoughts.
Broadly speaking, I don’t like the Christian mentality that Christians must create Christian sub-cultures in order to be truly Christian. We have a sub-culture for everything. When people come into Church they have to learn a different language, change the way they dress, only read Christian books, start liking the organ, and limit their cinematic entertainment to Fireproof and Facing the Giants. Why? Because we must conform to the sub-culture that says everything outside the Christian sub-culture is evil at worst and dangerous at best.
I especially don’t like a sub-culture in a genera that is a human genera—music. What does this mean? I believe that the Church is to exist as the Church, representing Christ in culture. This does not simply mean that we are out giving the Gospel to every person we see (as important as evangelism is), but representing Christ by being human. We are part of the culture, we are not a sub-culture. If a person feels musically inclined, he or she can honor God with their music, but this does not necessarily mean that every song they sing contains the words ”Jesus, “God,” or “saved” anymore than saying that every pancake they cook has to have Jesus on it.
Why is it that when people become Christian in the music business they feel pressured to only sing songs exclusively about Jesus?
Let me just say it. I think that most Christian music is fake. I would much rather hear about people’s real lives, real struggles, and real passions than the shallow stuff that I hear coming out of the Christian music industry. Transparency is the key. I would rather hear someone honestly wrestling with the difficulties of life than listen to those who act like they have all the answers when I know this is not really the case. I would rather hear someone honestly cursing God than hypocritically praising His name. Music is about touching the deepest part of the human soul, grabbing a hold of the passions in a way that no other form of communication can. One Greek philosopher once said, “You can have the government and education, but give me the music and I control the people.” Music is about meeting people where they are. For example, Disarm by Smashing Pumpkins asks more questions than it answers. Cumbersome by Seven Mary Three, while depressing, speaks to real situations where life is overwhelming and sad. Lead On by George Straight tells a short simple story about two people trying to work out their fractured relationship. You Found Me by the Fray is a muffled cry out to God for seeming to be absent when everything was falling apart. This is an essential component in music. It enters your struggles, joys, angers, frustrations and says ”This is life.” It should never put on a veneer of a sub-culture, but speak to people where they are. Didn’t David do this in the Psalms? Aren’t the Psalms music? Yet the Psalms are real. Some cry out to God in real anger, some praise his creation. Even the Song of Songs is about real life. It is about sex and it does not need to mention God once to honor him.
I am not saying that music should seek to normalize or glorify sin, but neither should it seek to avoid the real holes that we find ourselves in. Neither am I saying that the music that I have listed above necessarily honors God, but at least it is real. U2 sings real songs. Bono, the Edge, Larry Mullin, and Adam Clayton are all Christians, but they are not a Christian band. Why? Because they want to make an impact in the real world, speaking about real issues with honesty, openness, and transparency. If they were to enter into the “Christian music” genera, they would have to wear the same mask as all the others. They know this and they wisely stay out of the Christian music sub-culture.
There is no reason for Christians to create sub-cultures. In fact, this is a concession. God created music. He does not require you to mention His name in every song any more than He requires it in every email or conversation that you have. Real life can honor God without mentioning His name or acting like things are okay. Sometimes they are not okay. I am not against mentioning God at all, but let your music reflect the real world. He should be honored in all things. The same thing can be said about all entertainment. I don’t like the Christian movie industry for the exact same reasons, but that is another blog.
(I hope you also see that this is really about much more than the value of Christian music.)
Okay, let the roasting begin."

I find it interesting that many of the comments are people who seem like they have finally found someone to condone their obsession with "secular" music. Like little closet Christians who have hoards of "naughty" worldly music. Patton is now their hero. In one sense all music is secular, because all men are human and sinful. Patton acts as if he's just announced something revolutionary. Really? The Christian can now listen to secular music? Wow, that's insightful Mike. However, I do sympathize with him on his point about Christian sub-cultures. And why do people think that is biblical?

Bonhoeffer's Deepened Faith

2010-07-22T12:38:00.004-04:00

Metaxas records Dietrich's compelling experience that fundamentally shifted his life journey and work. Some historians have referred to it as his conversion, but Metaxas hardly deems this as an appropriate attribution due to the mass of opposing evidence. The experiential shift in Bonhoeffer's life during the year of 1932 was recorded in his letter which he wrote to the love of his life (whom he never married because of his life work/calling), Elizabeth Zinn. In January 1936 he wrote,

"I plunged into work in a very unchristian way. An...ambition that many noticed in me made my life difficult...Then something happened, something that has changed and transformed my life to the present day. For the first time I discovered the Bible....I had often preached. I had seen a great deal of the Church, and talked and preached about it - but I had not yet become a Christian...I know that at that time I turned the doctrine of Jesus Christ into something of personal advantage for myself...I pray to God that that will never happen again. Also I had never prayed, or prayed only very little. For all my loneliness, I was quite pleased with myself. Then the Bible, and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, freed me from that. Since then everything has changed. I have felt this plainly, and so have other people about me. It was a great liberation. It became clear to me that the life of a servant of Jesus Christ must belong to the Church, and step by step it became plainer to me how far that must go. Then came the crisis of 1933. This strengthened me in it. Also I now found other who shared that aim with me. The revival of the Church and of the ministry became my supreme concern...My calling is quite clear to me. what God will make of it I do not know...I must follow the path. Perhaps it will not be such a long one. (Phil. 1:23). But it is a fine thing to have realized my calling...I believe its nobility will become plain to us only in coming times and events. If only we can hold out" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted by Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, A Righteous Gentile vs. The Third Reich, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson]: 2010, 123-124).

Metaxas elaborates upon the aftermath of his spiritual awakening. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a changed man. For the first time in his life Bonhoeffer became a regular churchgoer. No more wishy-washiness for this scholarly academician. Church became an integral part of his life as well as regular participation in the Eucharist. Church-going was now more than an interest, it was an essentiality. Suddenly, church began to take priority over his avid love for concerts, movies, museums, the arts, travel, & the "philosophical & academic give-and-take of theological ideas." Metaxas notes that this shift was largely influenced by his American exposure in the "negro churches" which he attended in Harlem - one of the few avenues where the Gospel was being proclaimed in the States in his estimation.

Excerpt from Bonhoeffer

2010-07-21T18:31:00.006-04:00

"Christianity preaches the infinite worth of that which is seemingly worthless and the infinite worthlessness of that which is seemingly so valued" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted by Eric Mataxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor Martyr, Prophet, Spy, A Righteous Gentile vs. the Third Reich, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson]: 2010, 85).

The Importance of Not Studying Theology

2010-04-20T15:05:00.003-04:00

Wow. A powerful article from Carl Trueman in the most recent edition of Themelios. He nails the danger in loving the study of the theology rather than theology itself and the God of that theology. This post spoke to me as I find myself saturated in God's Word in biblical languages, semantics, & linguistics and theological vernacular, articulation, and debates. He states,

"The second way in which the study of theology for study’s sake can play out is the manner in which it can ultimately disconnect you from reality, an odd result of studying that should, in theory at least, ground you more firmly in reality than anything else. I often wonder, as I sit in church on a Sunday, of how much of the knowledge I have is truly significant for the people in the pews—the man who has just lost his job, the single mum struggling to hold it together, the teenager coping with all of the pressures that come with the transition to adulthood."

"The answer to such abstraction is not to stop making the study of theology our goal; it is rather to stop making the study of theology our goal. We have a tendency to make the chronological end points—what new things we learn each day—the most important. Yet this confuses the process of learning with the real order of things. The study of theology is not a chase after something or a movement beyond where we start our Christian lives; it is rather a reflection upon the foundations of where we already are. The end term is, strange to tell, the beginning. I start by confessing with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in my heart that God raised him from the dead, and I never actually go any further. All my theology, all my study, is simply reflection on what lies behind that. Thus, I never move beyond praise, never leave behind the beauty of adoration of the living God; I simply learn more and more about the deep foundations upon which that praise and worship rest, which all believers share from the most brilliant to the most humble.

We need to stop studying theology, or, perhaps to put it better, we need at least to stop thinking of what we do as study in the generic sense. It does not move us beyond our starting point; it merely helps us to understand that starting point better."

Read the rest here.

Matt Chandler

2009-11-13T08:25:00.002-05:00

Denny Burk posted a message given by Matt Chandler at SBTS's recent chapel. This message on Hebrews 11 & 12 struck a chord in my heart of my own wickedness and selfish "christian" lifestyle. He spoke with power and conviction and his thoughts hit me head on. Check it out.

HT: DB

Frame's Review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"

2009-10-21T11:35:00.003-04:00

John Frame writes a very critical review of Mike Horton's, Christless Christianity. His conclusion:

I usually don’t review books at this length. But I have noticed that the theology of this book is becoming more influential in evangelical and Reformed circles, and I believe there is danger in that. I say that despite the fact that I agree with the book about many things. Most relevantly, I agree with Horton that the evangelical church needs to put more emphasis on man’s sin and the saving grace of Christ, less emphasis on what Horton regards as other things and what I regard as the lower-priority applications of Christ’s work. But he thinks this wrong emphasis is so bad as to put the church in immediate danger of Christless apostasy. I do not.
Horton’s alarmism is persuasive to many people, and I have been moved to try to show them their persuasion is premature. The problem is that the yardstick Horton uses to measure the American church’s allegiance to Christ is not an accurate yardstick. Or, to drop the metaphor, Horton measures the American church with a defective theology.
He comes on to the reader as a generic Protestant Christian with a passion for the historic doctrines of the atonement and of justification by faith alone. He writes engagingly. Naturally, then, other Protestants tend to resonate to his arguments. But Horton is not just a generic Protestant or even a generic Reformed theologian. He holds certain positions that are not warranted by the Reformed Confessions and which in my mind are not even Scriptural. To review, he advocates the following:
1. Attention to ourselves necessarily detracts from attention to Christ.
2. We should not give attention to the way we communicate the gospel, or to making it relevant to its hearers.
3. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are a zero-sum game. The idea that man must do something compromises the absolute sovereignty of God.
4. God’s work of salvation is completely objective, external to us, and not at all subjective, internal to us. (Here he backtracks some.)
5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a “theology of glory,” deserving condemnation.
6. Law and gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.
7. Preaching of the gospel must never use biblical characters as moral or spiritual examples. Nor must it address practical ethical issues in the Christian life.
8. A focus on redemption excludes a focus on anything else.
9. In worship and in the general ministry of the church, God gives and does not receive; the congregation receives and does not give.
10. Analysts of the church must compare the Church’s focus on Christ with its focus on other things, rather than considering that many of these other things are in fact applications of Christ’s own person and work.
Horton considers adherence to these principles essential, so that departing from them constitutes Christlessness, and failure to emphasize them sufficiently leads to a false gospel. But not one of these principles is found in any Reformed confession. (#6 is found in the Lutheran confessions, but it is controversial among other Protestants.) And in my view, none of them are Scriptural.
So Christless Christianity is essentially an evaluation of the American church, not from the standpoint of a generic Protestant theology, but from what I must regard as a narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective. Readers need to understand this. If we remove #1-10 as measuring sticks for the American church, the church does not look nearly as bad as Horton presents it.
There is great danger here of further division within the body of Christ, as if there were not already enough. Arguments over redemptive-historical preaching (#7) have already split congregations apart. When one group presents these principles as the only orthodox position, but others (understandably) are not convinced, and the principles themselves are often unclear, we have a recipe for disaster.
And the church would do well, in my judgment, not to add principles 1-10 to its creed. The results could include intentional irrelevance (1-2), especially on social matters (5, 7, 8), Christian passivity (3, 9), intellectualism and impersonalism in our relation to God (4, 9), artificiality in preaching, not drawing on the richness of Scripture (2, 6-8), elimination of lay ministry (9), and poor theological analyses and evaluations of the church (10).
So I must render a negative verdict on this book, though commending the author’s passion for the purity of the church and for the gospel. In doing this, I must disagree with many friends and respected colleagues, who have commended this volume lavishly. They should have known better.

HT: Z

Is Wrath an Attribute of God? Part II

2009-10-16T10:59:00.002-04:00

Perhaps it would be even more beneficial to go beyond the Aristotelian distinction and distinguish between God’s essence and attributes (the necessary essentials in contrast to those predicates, though contingent are still attributive). It has been agreed that no element of God is divisible from the host of other characteristics which his being and nature entail. In light of the following statement by Heinrich Heppe, it may seem like theological double-talk to some when distinctions are being made between the attributes. He states, “the divine attributes are not something different from the nature and existence of God, so that the latter may be thought of as distinct from the former. … Rather the attributes of God are the divine nature itself in its relation to the world.”[1]

The danger in categorizing God’s attributes apart from his essence is two-fold. First, there is the temptation to ascribe every attribute to God’s immutable essence and consequently creating a God who is unknowable, unfathomable and ineffable.[2] Such an approach leads to the via negativa where nothing positive can be said of him, but only those characteristics which he is not. Second, some scholars have conceptualized God as one who capriciously utilizes a single quality in each response to his creation. This touches on the discussion of a singular fundamental attribute which was noted earlier as an improper assertion in theology proper. God never acts apart from the wholeness and unity of his very character and nature. “…[T]hese are not to be separated but to be celebrated in their indivisible unity.”[3]

Nevertheless, it still seems helpful to perceive the difference in the characteristics of what the divine nature is in itself and how the divine nature in itself relates to creation. Although the above distinction (essence and attribute) would be an adequate distinction, it seems to be less helpful in that it creates a harder distinction between essence and attributes than the common division of an attribute and property. It is as if attributes derive from his essence whereas properties emanate from his essence – of which his attributes constitute. Therefore, the Aristotelian distinction will be advocated simply because it stresses that attributes are what constitute the essence of God. From this intricate and incomprehensible mak-up we perceive certain properties that derive from his attributes – the essence of God and who he really is.

Now turning the discussion to address the topic at hand, the question surrounds the classification of God’s wrath. Is wrath an attribute of God? Carson states, “… God wrath is not arbitrary but is the willed and principled response (however affective) of his holiness when it confronts the rebellion of his creatures, not least those of his creatures who have entered into covenant with him.”[4] Earlier he remarked, “… as God’s wrath reflects God’s holiness, it is grounded in the very Godness of God.”[5] Wrath seems to be a “reaction of God” rather than a principled fundamental of his Being.[6] It is his response because of his holiness and love.

A danger in not ascribing wrath as an attribute of God is pointed out against those who do not perceive the objective reality of God’s fierce and terrible wrath. Although it is argued in this presentation that wrath should not be qualified as an attribute proper, but as a property, this in no way intends to minimize or diminish the absolute, horrific, objective reality of God’s wrath. Berkhof, Shedd and Reymond all categorize the wrath of God under retributive justice or the infliction of penalties.[7] Again, wrath is a property that is sourced in the goodness (i.e. righteousness) and love of God. Wrath is necessary. But the necessity of God’s wrath is dependent upon the reality of his essential composition and constituent nature.

By not labeling wrath as an attribute does not deny the absolute necessity of divine justice. It simply demonstrates that in eternity past wrath was not necessary in the eternal Trinitarian Godhead, whereas love and holiness have eternally characterized the intrinsic nature of God. Is wrath then an attribute of God? This perspective is persuaded that, no, the wrath of God is not an attribute but a property. This conclusion is based on the definition given above which seems to best handle the Scriptural data and inferences. As Frame has rightly stated, “God’s wrath is nevertheless an outworking of his love.”[8]

[1] Heinrich Heppe, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson, Reformed Dogmatics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), 57, quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 40.

[2] Bloesch, God the Almighty, 43. The Bible is replete with anthropomorphic features and personal names of God. YHWH is a noetic God. The Bible’s intention is not to list or categorize the attributes of God. Rather they are comments from historical perspectives which give the readers a mere glimpse into the incomprehensible reality of God – who he is and what he does.

[3] Ibid., 41.

[4] D. A. Carson, ed. Bruce L. McCormack, “The Wrath of God” Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), [37-63], 51. Emphasis original.

[5] Ibid., 49.

[6] Bloesch, God the Almighty, 142.

[7] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), II:75, W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Third Ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 295, Robert L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Second Ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 196-197.

[8] Frame, The Doctrine of God, 468. Love displayed in jealousy, results in wrath. Regardless of the discussion as to which fundamental attribute does wrath stem from, may the reader be reminded that it is sourced in the unification of his nature and intrinsic character. Although wrath may be stemmed primarily from his love, goodness, and/or holiness, it is nevertheless grounded in all his necessary attributes.

Is Wrath an Attribute of God? Part I

2009-10-15T12:11:00.001-04:00

Such a question compels the responder to describe what is meant by an “attribute.” From there the receiver must determine whether or not wrath is an essential attribute or merely a consequential or derivative attribute (or as Feinberg refers to as an “accidental” predicate).[1] If wrath is simply an accidental predicate is it even legitimate or helpful to refer to it as an attribute? Once an adequate description of an attribute is properly laid out, the responder can then address whether or not wrath can be ascribed to God, let alone be attributed to him.

An attribute will be defined in this presentation as a property that is inherent in one’s essential makeup and constituent nature.[2] Frame explains attributes as those defining qualities that are necessary and therefore intrinsic to someone or something (in the case of this discussion all references are being made to God) and not contingent.[3] In simple terms attributes tell us “who God really and truly is.”[4]

Before further elucidation is presented concerning an attribute let it be stated that one must acknowledge the breadth of the attributive scope. An attribute in a general, all-inclusive sense can be used to describe any property or quality in relation to God. Conversely, an attribute in a limited sense refers to only those predicates that define God’s essence and nature.

For the remainder of this particular discussion, only those qualities that define and constitute the very essence and nature of God will be referred to as attributes. Those predicates that merely describe a Scriptural quality in regards to God’s relational activity will be referred to as properties. Reasons for this will be discussed below. Therefore, this presentation will use key words such as, “essential, defining, natural, and necessary” in relation to God’s attributes. Those words that are key in reference to the properties of God will be referred to as “accidental, contingent, relational, optional, and free.”

Attributes used in the broad and general sense seem to cloud the intention of clarity within this particular discussion. A narrower view of attributes seems to provide a distinction which offers a more helpful solution to the entire laborious discussion concerning how theologians categorize the breadth of God’s attributes. Those familiar with the discussion understand the problems that surround the often-times untidy categorizations of the attributes (communicable and incommunicable, transcendence and immanence, active and passive, etc.).[5]

After moving from Scripture to theology it seems clear that if one decides to label all of God’s Scriptural qualities as attributes, than he cannot grant that all attributes are of equal consequence. Because some thing can be attributed to God, such an attributive thing does not necessitate it to be inherent to one’s essential makeup and constituent nature. So who decides which attributes are more intrinsic to God’s nature? Who determines that not all the attributes are equal? In God’s eternally self-existent state did wrath, grace, and mercy constitute his essential being? Since this broad application attribute lends to confusion, the limited and narrow description of an “attribute” seems to be the most helpful definition.

John Feinberg initially defines an attribute in the broad sense. He states, “In speaking of someone’s or something’s attributes, we refer to the characteristics or qualities that express their nature.”[6] Yet he realizes the issues surrounding the broad sense of the word, and so he too turns to the above Aristotelian distinction of the essential and accidental qualities. Feinberg’s conclusion is that those narrowed qualities are the “permanent attributes of God’s very being.”[7] He remarks that they “… are the subject of our discussion of the divine attributes.”[8]

Yet even Feinberg seems to disregard his own distinction between attributes and properties. For example, he lists grace, mercy, and lovingkindness as moral “attributes.” From his statements, “All three members of the Godhead ... are characterized as gracious” and “God is a God of grace” Feinberg concludes that grace constitutes as an attribute of God. The issue arises when he seemingly blurs the distinction when he states, “when we understand this fact [that grace is never owed or earned] about grace, we see how good and loving our God is to grant us grace.”[9] Similarly, in regards to mercy he remarks, “… of course it is an expression of God’s love and goodness.”[10] Then why refer to it as an attribute and not a property?

Wayne Grudem even concedes that although grace, mercy, and patience can be understood as separate attributes of God, they can also be understood as particular examples or relational contingencies within the realm of God’s goodness.[11] Such a concession reveals a seeming distinction or “hierarchy” per se in which not all the “attributes” (as Grudem sees them) appear to hold the same weight.

The concern is that everything in this world in some way, shape or form expresses God’s nature. It is inescapable. Thus, to define all characteristics and qualities as attributes seems unhelpful, because while everything in the world somehow relates to God, not everything is intrinsic to his being. Although the Scriptures never present a list of God’s attributes but rather appeal to a characteristic of God as the foundational source of his relational activity, it can be deduced from one’s movement from Scripture to theology vis-à-vis legitimate and logical interpretation that certain qualities are sourced in the very essence and nature of God. Therefore, it seems advantageous to distinguish between the attributes and properties of God, and not to refer to all of his qualities as attributes.

Negatively, an attribute is something that is non-optional and non-essential. Positively, an attribute is that which is necessary and defining. In addition, attributes pertaining to God never stand alone or are singled out. There is not one fundamental attribute of God that stands as the essence from which all the other attributes derive. Rather the necessary attributes of God coalesce and relate to all the other defining attributes, and from those essential attributes the properties of God find their derivation.

[1] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 234.

[2] John Frame’s depiction of an attribute is as follows: “Attributes are the predicates, properties, or qualities ascribed to a substance. Those that define its nature constitute its essence. Others are accidents, which are properties that are not part of the essence and therefore are not necessary to its being” (The Doctrine of God, (Phillipsburg, P&R, 2002), 221), emphasis original.

[3] Ibid., 387.

[4] Ibid., 387.

[5] Thus, when defining the attributes of God the theologian must begin in Scripture, commit to solid exegesis, formulate legitimate hermeneutical premises, conceptualize arguments, test conclusions, all the while examining the logic in the formulation, deduction, implications, and inferences.

[6] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 233.

[7] Ibid., 235.

[8] Ibid., 235.

[9] Ibid., 354.

[10] Ibid., 359.

[11] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 200.

Beat the Gospel into Heads Continually

2009-08-03T10:53:00.002-04:00

Tony Reinke posted some insightful comments:

To a group of pastors in London, Tim Keller explained the inner workings of an old Coke machine in his Manhattan apartment building. After inserting the proper coinage, Keller explained, you must then pound the side of the machine with your fist. Then, and only then, would the coins trickle down into the heart of the machine and a Coke would fall into the bottom tray.

Keller takes this metaphor into the pulpit. While preaching, he thinks of his audience as an assembly of Coke machines. His audience needs a little pound on the side of the head to get the truth of the gospel to sink into the heart and to produce spiritual fruit. He laughs when he says this, but the point is true.

Luther knew this centuries ago. He wrote,

“Here I must take counsel of the gospel. I must hearken to the gospel, which teacheth me, not what I ought to do, (for that is the proper office of the law), but what Jesus Christ the Son of God hath done for me: to wit, that He suffered and died to deliver me from sin and death. The gospel willeth me to receive this, and to believe it. And this is the truth of the gospel. It is also the principal article of all Christian doctrine, wherein the knowledge of all godliness consisteth. Most necessary it is, therefore, that we should know this article well, teach it unto others, and beat it into their heads continually.” *

I am thankful to God that I am surrounded by pastors, friends, and a wife who are skilled at swinging the gospel hammer. I’m always in need of it.

So who swings the gospel hammer in your life?

———

* Martin Luther, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Smith, English & Co. 1860), p. 206.

HT: TR

2009-07-23T10:41:00.002-04:00

NT Wright on Blogging/Social Media from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Stimulating insights from the Bishop of Durham.

HT: Bill Kinnon

Culver: Christology

2009-07-09T13:22:00.001-04:00

While pounding out over 80 pages of Culver’s Christology, I realized out that my reading merely scratched the surface of his 200+ page discourse. Culver’s presentation is quite thorough and at times excessively prolix, but overall his stuff is solid. Due to the size and amount of data, I did not cover a lot of his Christology. So the part which I got through I did not have any concerns. My comments will be brief and mostly positive.

In Appendix II (457) Culver states his “principles for writing about Christology.” His intent in his systematic is to present a thorough examination of orthodox teaching rather than an apologetic. Therefore, he does not continually present opposing views, and if he does mention them rarely will he comprehensively “advertise” their arguments. He simply presents their views/errors that are pertinent to the discussion and moves on.

Not surprisingly, Culver (like Shedd) argues that Christ coupled and united with a new human nature and not a new person (472), thus denouncing any Nestorian tendencies. He (like Warfield, unlike Grenz) views the Virgin Birth as “indispensable” and therefore vital for doing Christology. His eight points on the “practical importance and values of the VB” were helpful although I felt his first three (especially his third) points were weak if not unnecessary. I understand the arguments of those who want to “drop” the VB as essential to Christology, I just do not see the benefits.

A Tribute to My Father

2009-06-21T15:06:00.000-04:00

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

2009-06-15T11:44:00.002-04:00

(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?

2009-06-10T10:01:00.003-04:00

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

2009-06-09T10:18:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-08T11:28:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-03T10:45:00.002-04:00

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.

Alexandrian Hermeneutics

2009-05-21T12:16:00.002-04:00

INTRODUCTION

The city of Alexandria was probably the most important city for the rise of Christianity in Egypt.[1] It was a significant city culturally, socially, politically, economically, and scholastically. This northern port city was strategically located and became the most influential city-center in Egypt. Its prominence attracted various ethic groups from across the vast Roman empire in early church history. The city of Alexandria saw a large influx of Jews stemming from the Diaspora. Being the second largest city of the empire, this commercially iconic city was the seedbed for culture, scholarship, and the academy particularly of Hellenistic, Jewish, and later Christian thought.

This post is a brief examination of the history and hermeneutics of the Alexandrian School as well as the proponents and influences that largely shaped and contributed to its perpetuation. Some brief examples of biblical texts will also be examined. This paper will now examine the chief proponents and authorities that began to shape the biblical hermeneutics in the second and third centuries of the early church.

ALEXANDRIAN PROPONENTS

In the late second century, a catechetical school began to arise in the diverse cultural milieu of Alexandria. The origination of this school of thought is commonly credited to the scholar, Pantaenus. Pantaenus is largely overshadowed by his main pupil, Clement of Alexandria, who was succeeded by his well known student, Origen. These three men are frequently referred to as the chief proponents of the Alexandrian catechetical school.

Of the three scholars previously mentioned Pantaenus is least known. The data on his life and influence is scarce. Little is known about this scholar, but the fruit of his work is recognized in his successors. His student, Clement is considered the “first Christian scholar.”[2] Much of his life is also unknown. He died somewhere between 211 to 216. Clement was a brilliant scholar. He was well versed in the classical, philosophical (particularly Platonic), and Christian literature of his day. Roger Olson likens Clement as “the prototype of the broad, liberally minded, intellectual and philosophical Christian theologian who seeks to synthesize Christian belief with culture as much as possible.”[3]

Clement attempted to coalesce the Christian faith with the culture of his day. He held a high view of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. He employed Greek philosophy to aid him in his interpretation of Scripture. For him God’s word was intelligible and therefore logic and reason would aid the reader in his understanding of the text. Five of his writings exist today and are largely instructive in nature. Clement fiercely opposed the heretical teaching of his day: Gnosticism. He argued against Gnosticism’s insistent ideology of dualism. For him the faith of man had precedent over knowledge.

As Pantaenus is overshadowed by Clement, so too is Clement overshadowed by his student, Origen. Persecution raged in the church of Alexandria during the early third century. The violence forced Clement to leave the city in 202 and it was during this time that Origen succeeded Clement in his position at the Alexandrian school. Origen’s life is probably best remembered in the traditional account of his rescue as a sixteen-year-old by his mother. Later in life Origen wished to be ordained, but due to various speculative reasons he fell out of favor with the bishop of Alexandria and his request was denied. Undeterred, Origen went to the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was ordained and never returned to his hometown of Alexandria. Origen died a martyr’s death. He was tortured and executed during the middle of the third century during the persecution of the Roman emperor, Decius.

His academic and scholarly career were marked by his incredible writing ability. Approximately 800 manuscripts derived from his hand. His most well known works were his disputation against the Roman philosopher, Celsus titled, Contra Celsus and his theological treatise, De Principiis. Gerald Bray states, “By any standard of measurement, Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity.”[4]

ALEXANDRIAN HERMENEUTICS

The Alexandrian school is characterized by their allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Their understanding of Scripture was combined with Greek philosophical influences. Clement employed three main approaches to interpreting Scripture.[5] He saw that the literal aspect of the text brought out the historical and doctrinal features. Typology yielded the prophetic interpretation, and allegory gave the spiritual or mystical meaning of Scripture. For example in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, Clement allegorized the robe which the son upon his return received from his father as immortality. His sandals represented the upward progress of the soul, and the fattened calf depicted Christ as the Christian’s spiritual sustenance.[6]

Origen had a similar approach. His hermeneutic corresponded with the triad found in human beings – the body, soul, and spirit. His triadic hermeneutic featured the literal (bodily), moral (soulish), and spiritual (mystical).[7] Origen allegorically appealed to texts such as 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 5:31-32.[8] For example he interpreted the account with Lot and his daughters in Gen 19:30-38 as follows:

…the passage has a literal sense…, but its moral meaning is that Lot represents the rational human mind, his wife the flesh inclined to pleasures, and the daughters vainglory and pride. Applying these three elements yields the spiritual…meaning: Lot represents the OT Law, the daughters represent Jerusalem and Samaria, and the wife represents the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness.[9]

In regards to a literal interpretation some of the commands and imperatives in the Scriptures were helpful and instructive. Taken at this level, a literal interpretation was useful for the Christian. Clement viewed literal interpretation of the Bible as a beginning point for immature Christians.[10] The moral level was found in examples given in the narrative portions of the text. The ethical paradigms exemplified in these narratives were to be seen as underlying the literal level. Passages that encouraged moral living in contrast to the world were considered part of the rational or moral level. According to this interpretation, all texts contain a mystically deep and spiritual meaning. It was up the mature believer to decipher such a meaning. In Alexandrian hermeneutics the spiritual meaning is superior to the literal.[11]

Several contributing factors challenged the early proponents to adopt an allegorical approach to Scripture. One of the dynamics that compelled this school to emphasize and at times impose an allegorical or spiritual meaning into the text was because of the negative view by the pagans concerning the validity and legitimacy of the biblical text. They felt constrained to safeguard the Bible against the pagan’s attacks on the seeming obvious and ridiculous accounts of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. Allegory seemed like a legitimate technique to ward off the assaults and criticisms of those who attempted to deny the authority of the Scriptures. This however was not the primary motivation of the Alexandrian school; rather this method was viewed as having “basic theological significance,”[12] and this significance became the principal motivation.

Another reason for the use of allegory was to alleviate the tension of the Bible’s divine nature and its humanity.[13] Origen attempted answer the myriad of questions that face the interpreter. How are the very words of the Divine interpreted and applied to the finite? Since God is absolute and infinite and mankind’s situations are relative, how does his law relate to human events? How does the interpreter handle the issue of literal versus figurative? What is the essence of allegory, typology, and analogy? What is the relationship of the two Testaments? For Origen the way of allegory seemed to assuage much of the tension.

The Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus Christ gave the proponents of the allegorical approach yet another reason. Origen perceived that if the Jews of Christ day misunderstood the prophecies about the coming Messiah from a literal hermeneutic than a meaning deeper than the literal must be veritable.[14] Although he did not detect the difference between the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and allegorical interpretation, he nonetheless felt the tension of a purely “literal” interpretation.

CONCLUSION

It seems apparent that Origen, Clement, and church fathers alike understood a literal hermeneutic as “literal.” By not perceiving a “straightforward reading,” they failed to see a hermeneutic that considered genre and figurative language.[15] For them the literal should be considered, but the spiritual must be ascertained. However, we can hardly point fingers. The church fathers were committed to the texts of Scripture and their entire purpose was purely of a practical nature.[16] Not that this in anyway justifies their actions; nevertheless God in his divine providence orchestrated men with devotion to him in the molding of Christian theology. David Dockery states, “It is clear that the Alexandrians lived in a complex hermeneutical environment. Out of this environment Clement began to forge a hermeneutical methodology.”[17]

The Alexandrian method of interpretation had positive and negative affects upon the church.[18] Positively, it always took the text of Scripture to a spiritual level.[19] For these men the Bible was more than a moral storybook. It was God’s Word. However, the negative side was also inherent this spiritual reading. Allegory tended to take the Scriptures out of history. Unguarded and often negligent interpretations would result, and man’s “spiritually” subjective intuitions gave precedent over proper interpretational methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Clinton E., “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Dockery, David S., “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation.” Faith and Mission vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 3-34.

Goldsworthy, Graeme, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.

Knight, Jonathan M., “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Olson, Roger E., The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)

[1] Clinton E. Arnold, “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 149.

[2] Jonathan M. Knight, “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 37.

[3] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 85.

[4] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 83.

[5] Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 91.

[6] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), 38-39.

[7] Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 106.

[8] Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 55.

[9] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 39.

[10] Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 90-91.

[11] Ibid., 91.

[12] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.

[13] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 102.

[14] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.

[15] Ibid., 52.

[16] Ibid., 54.

[17] David S. Dockery, “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” Faith and Mission, vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 14.

[18] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 103.

[19] Dockery remarks, “The spiritual sense served an apologetic purpose against the Gnostics and other challengers to the orthodox mainstream, but primarily it served a pastoral purpose to mature the soul” (“The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” 17).

What does that make me?

2009-03-25T11:14:00.003-04:00

DeYoung just posted an insightful observation on his blog on the "hip" and the "hearty." Ironically, I find myself in both categories at times. So what does that make me? "hiperty"?

2 Boxes of Mac 'n Cheese

2009-03-16T20:16:00.003-04:00

Zach posted a comment on his growing family eating 2 entire boxes of Mac 'n Cheese. I chuckle over this because I read it on the heels of hearing the news earlier today that my oldest sister Emily and my Bro-in-Law Daniel are having their fourth child....oops. Honestly, having four kids under the age of 6 IS the freakiest thing that I have ever conceived. Good thing God is Sovereign and has opened my eyes and allowed my heart to embrace Sovereignty....and 4 kids....

Maybe one day I will think such freakness is cool? Maybe.

Stackhouse, Many Christian Hymns are Pretty Bad Too, Bro

2009-03-12T09:43:00.001-04:00

Ben Myers responds to John Stackhouse's polemic against modern Christian music. I agree.

Adoption & Money

2009-03-10T12:38:00.002-04:00

A great post by Randy over at his blog. He gives a few very helpful suggestions for those who feel the financial pressure of adoption. Some good stuff.

"You're so gay"

2009-03-07T12:47:00.003-05:00

I came across this post today and it spoke to me. Currently this is where I am at...things are "gay and retarded," but not in the technical sense...at least in my mind. However, my thoughts and intents are not always communicated in the best manner and so I can understand how these things can be taken wrongly. It is an interesting and controversial topic and one that cannot be solved overnight in one's life. A while ago I mentioned to my a buddy of mine that if we move to Vancouver and begin ministry in the city (which is known for is acceptance and open embracement of homosexuality) that my vernacular is going to have to change....I should probably begin now huh?

Dissin' the Bride

2009-02-14T12:20:00.002-05:00

A good reminder from Mike Bird about expressing one's frustrations with the Church.

Stetzer on Family & Minstry

2009-02-02T10:21:00.003-05:00

Ed Stetzer just posted his comments on the priority of his marriage and his family over "ministry." For Ed, his wife and children are his ministry. Some good thoughts.

"Roe No Mo"

2009-01-22T10:22:00.003-05:00

Norma McCorvey was the plaintiff in the monumental case, Roe vs. Wade. Here is here sworn testimony. Today "Jane Roe" stands as an advocate for the unborn and is an active pro-life voice.

Bird on Justification and Race

2009-01-17T22:49:00.004-05:00

Check out this excellent post by Mike Bird over at Euangelion. I love his statement, "Yet justification in its rich, fully orbed, and biblical scheme is what the church needs to cling to in order to preserve sola gratia of the gospel whereby sinners (and not the righteous) are justified by faith in Christ and preserve the truth that Christ unites in himself a Greek and a Jew, an American and an Arab, an African and an Asian, and thus unites them together in full eucharistic fellowship! This is justification."

This reminds me of a similar discussion that I commented on earlier in regards to Redmond's post over on JT's blog.

HT: MB

Logos for Mac

2008-11-07T10:59:00.002-05:00

It is now here! Check it out!

A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections

2008-10-07T09:51:00.003-04:00

A free digital copy of Jonathan Edwards' A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections is available this week through Logos Software!

Frame MP3s

2008-09-23T09:34:00.007-04:00

Once again Monergism has made MP3s available for FREE!!! This time around 43 lectures given by Dr. John Frame, and they are titled "Pastoral and Social Ethics."

Bergen's Article Review

2008-09-20T22:46:00.004-04:00

A overview and critique of Robert Bergen's article, Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism.

Bergen’s article[1] examines various aspects within written human communication that allows the audience to accurately perceive and understand the author’s original intent. His article articulates and explains several “language-specific parameters” within linguistics which exist on a conscious and subconscious level. This type of analysis of written human communication is referred to as “discourse criticism.” Discourse criticism is especially crucial for the Biblical/theological community because theology and exegesis are utterly dependent upon the very text of the Scriptures. Bergen deals with the following three aspects of discourse criticism in his article: 1) basic assumptions of discourse criticism, 2) discourse-grammatical features which point to authorial-intended significance, and 3) a discourse-critical strategy for discerning authorial intention.

From the outset Bergen lays out that within discourse criticism there are underlying “assumptions about language” upon which this linguistic analysis is grounded. He succinctly articulates the five most basic assumptions undergirding discourse criticism. First, Bergen asserts that all parties within communication must agree upon a “set of symbols” or “code” that exude certain meaning. He refers to this mutual agreement of both parties as a “convention of significance.” The writer and the reader must come to this median in order for written communication to be effective. Second, he argues that a majority of written communication takes place on a subconscious level. Because of the vast amount of data being taken in much of the information received is processed subliminally.[2] However, Bergen rightly points out in his third assumption that although much of the data taken in is at a subliminal level, this does not decrease its importance or its contribution to communication.

His final two assumptions deal with parameters that universally guide all language codes. Genre obviously limits communication to specified realms while hierarchical organized units of language dictate the application of a language code. According to Bergen language is “multi-tiered.” The higher levels (i.e. stories, scenes, episodes, etc.) of a language text govern the lower levels (i.e. letters, vowels, words, etc.) of which they are made. Therefore, the principles that govern a language code are equally dependent upon the higher and lower levels of a language text. The pattern is cyclical for without the higher levels, the lower levels have no guidelines and therefore no significance. Likewise, the reverse is true.

Bergen proceeds to explain three discourse-grammatical features that point to authorial-intended significance: 1) order, 2) quantity, and 3) type of information. He bases these “hints” which point to authorial significance upon the “norm-deviation principle.” When any of these three categories of information deviate from their “normal” use the author is in some way signifying precedence. In his last two points Bergen gives a staggering strategy for doing proper discourse analysis and then lists the incredible benefits of such analysis.

In critique I felt Bergen beautifully summarized the art of discourse criticism. He was realistic, yet optimistic in his approach. I appreciate that from the outset he readily admitted that “discourse criticism works from a set of assumptions.” Whether one agrees with the accuracy of his presuppositions laid forth will determine their acceptance of such research. I also thought his observation of the subliminal level of human communication was insightful. So much of why we as 21^st century believers have a hard time understanding the text is that we are ignorant and oblivious to the subliminal factors that even we subconsciously use in our everyday language!

A few other things to note: on pages 330-331, his fourth and fifth sub-subpoints seem to be saying the same thing, just reworded. I personally was not seeing the difference between the two? His second main point in his article was straightforward, and his third point concerning his strategy is where he nails the difficulty in discourse criticism studies. People fitting such a description are definitely “in short supply.” Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree with his three concluding thoughts concerning the potentially revolutionary ramifications of discourse analysis. By the will of the Father via the Holy Spirit such research could open up the text of Scripture in an astounding new light as never seen before in the history of the Church!

[1] Robert D. Bergen, Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism, JETS, 30/3 (September 1987), 327-336.

[2] Bergen gives a couple factors that contribute to this subliminal level of communication. He states, “in normal communication people choose to overlook them,” and that in basic Biblical language grammars such subconscious levels of communication are oftentimes “ignored or inadequately treated.”

Martin Luther King Jr. on Social Justice

2008-09-20T22:39:00.004-04:00

Dr. MLK Jr. spoke at Western Michigan University on December 16, 1963 concerning Social Justice. Check out this speech transcription.

ht: jt

Clowney and Keller on Preaching in Postmodern World

2008-09-16T11:28:00.003-04:00

35 sessions in which Keller and Clowney team-teach through RTS. Find it here. All lectures are free!!!

HT: JT

God of This City

2008-09-16T10:01:00.006-04:00

Katie and I just recently bought Chris Tomlin's newest cd, "Hello Love." His fourth track is called "God of This City" and as I listened to the lyrics for the first time, the Lord instantly turned my mind to the people of Vancouver. God is God, and we are not. He is in control, and His will is sovereign. He choose to use us as broken, dirty, and useless vessels to carry out His cause and His kingdom! What an incredible and humbling privilege and calling! As I listened to this song the Spirit of God just burned in my heart, and I became so excited for the future ministry and the people of Vancouver, BC which God has divinely given us a burden to reach with the Gospel! Ironically, the week in which we bought the cd was so hectic that Katie and I didn't see each other until several days later, and when we finally had some down time we immediately asked each other about this song, and we both felt the Spirit of God moving our minds and thoughts to the ministry and people of Vancouver!

"Lord use us as you want whatever the cost. By faith we'll preach your Gospel till our dying breath! Let your kingdom come. Let your will be done, so that everyone might know your name! Let your song be heard everywhere on earth. Until your sovereign work on earth is done! Let your kingdom come!"

Driscoll lays down the hammer in Sydney

2008-09-13T22:03:00.005-04:00

Mark Driscoll spoke to the Anglican clergy concerning what was hindering evangelistic ministry in Sydney. Some hard-lined statements were laid down in his 18 point critique!

MP3 is also available!

HT: MB

Ray Boltz announces that he's gay.

2008-09-13T14:29:00.003-04:00

The well known Christian musician in the 90's announced that he is gay. He is best known for his GMA song of the year in 1990, Thank You. I grew up listening to this guy. His song, I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb was one of my favorites growing up. I listened to it all the time. Crazy. You can read about it here.

"In my flesh dwells no good thing."

Palin vs Obama

2008-09-08T08:26:00.002-04:00

This post by Jeff Emanuel is pretty hilarious. Check it out here.

HT: AN

Driscoll interviews Piper

2008-09-05T11:28:00.003-04:00

Mark Driscoll sits down with Dr. John Piper. Check it out here.

Best Commentaries

2008-08-19T09:41:00.004-04:00

Over at JT's blog, Naselli has posted a really sweet commentary site! Check it out here. It's got forthcoming commentaries as well as divisions between testaments, authors, sets, and best 2 of each Biblical book! Sweet stuff...check it out.

HT: JT (Naselli)

I Can't Say I Had the Same Reaction

2008-08-13T09:18:00.004-04:00

Ray Ortlund just posted a powerful personal post about concerning today's entertainment. Michael Spencer's response to Ortlund was quite powerful too. This is all continues to speak to me as I work through what it means to live a "cross-centered," gospel-saturated life. I can talk and talk about it all day long, but at the end of the day does my life betray my speech?

HT: JT

Guns and Martyrdom

2008-06-29T23:43:00.007-04:00

John Piper posted an article today on Desiring God's web blog entitled Guns and Martyrdom, and this piece spoke volumes to me in light of some recent events. Last weekend I completed my concealed handgun training course, and Monday I turned in my application and course completion certificate to the VA Beach City Police Precinct. I am now registered and licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the state of VA. I know scary, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. (I can hear the onslaught of heckles coming now.) Needless to say, I was quite thrilled and excited to complete this course seeing that I have been looking forward to it for quite some time. However, I must confess, I have not given the entire situation much thought.

What am I going to do if I'm in a situation where I might "have" (for a lack of a better term) to take someone's life? Sure, I can sit back and smugly remark now that, "Pffhh, I'll just blow his freakin' head off!" But what will I really do if it's my life or his? As Piper noted (my paraphrase), "I'm ready for heaven, he's not." I am now sitting back thinking about the Gospel. Is this the Gospel? Is my life so dear to me that I can't afford to lose it? I mean, my initial reaction was, "Wait a second, that's extreme stuff Piper! I mean we're talking about my second amendment rights here!" But in reality, do I really have any rights?

As Americans, "rights" seem to be prevalent in our society. No where in the current known world or in the history of the world has an individual's "rights" been so prominent as in the United States of America.

Let's set aside rights, martyrdom, and a man's initial reaction to protect what's "his" (i.e. his life, family, possessions, etc) for a moment. What about the Gospel? What about taking someone's life so that they will never have the opportunity to hear/receive the Gospel again? Is my life really more valuable than theirs? Is that really my call to make? I think not. But is this whole thing Biblical? Is it Gospel-centered? I mean, the only reason that I took this course and obtained this permit was so that I could protect those that I love most: myself and my wife. To be honest with you, I'm not sure if I'm ready to die. Honestly, I think I still love myself way too much. But then again is the end of my life for me to decide?

I must admit that I am struggling with this present issue even as I sit here and type. For those that know me, I'm pretty sure that you would all agree that I am fairly strong sovereign-tist. So how does my theology (i.e sovereignty/providence of God) control they way that I live? In the larger scheme of the eschaton is it wise, biblical, or Gospel-centered that a Christian take another's life to save his? And I'm not talking about martyrdom here...(i.e. my life is not being threatened b/c of what I believe.)

Any thoughts? Insights?

EXPELLED!

2008-04-12T11:22:00.005-04:00

Theology hits the theater in Ben Stein's documentary: Expelled! In theaters April 18th. Check it out!

Zondervan's New Hebrew Reader!

2008-01-27T15:38:00.001-05:00

Dano gave me the tip about his sweet gem! A Hebrew Reader!

Some cool features are of course the Italian Duo-Tone Leather cover, it's 1680 pgs., and the binding is on the right side (rather than the left) so that on a normal book you would be starting from the back and working your way to the front! Cool stuff!

Interesting side note...the general editors are 2 Bob Jones grads.

Top Ten Things to Say on Returning Home with Conference Book Plunder

2008-01-22T11:59:00.000-05:00

I came across this today and thought I'd post it:

Here are some verbal tactics you might find useful as you bring your conference book plunder home under the scrutiny of your nonacademic spouse. The premise is that, arriving at the airport, you can’t manage to drop the books off at the office.

10. “Look at how much money I saved! These were all forty to fifty percent off!”

9. “You should have seen the temptations! This is the small price of my restraint.”

8. “Remember, I’m writing a book, and the royalties will more than cover the price of these books. It’s just a temporary investment that we’ll recoup.” (Oh sure. Like your monograph on Athanasius Against the Ariansis going to cover the cost of even one of those Brill titles in your bag!)

7. “Look! I’ve taken care of a lot of our Christmas shopping!” (When he/she tells you that no one on the Christmas list wants those books, you act disappointed and rejected, and absorb them into your library.)

6. “Oh, so you’re going to complain about your husband/wife squandering money on books! Do I blow money on alcohol? tobacco? gambling? drugs? sex? stadium box seats? No! Just books on justice and peace, Jesus and Paul, trinitarian theology and the evils of, uh . . . consumerism!”

5. “Don’t worry. It just looks like a lot. Amortized over my lifetime, I’m not spending very much on books at all. Certainly nothing like You Know Who.”

4. “These are all tax deductible.” (This only works if he/she is under the illusion that you somehow subtract the book bill from the tax due.)

3. “These are all tools. Just the cost of doing business in my trade.”

2. Dull the impact by itemizing. “Some of these are for Christmas. Some of these are for the new class I’m teaching. Some of them are for my research. Some of them I might adopt as texts. And one of them is for you!”

1. “Folks who had lost their homes in the fires were selling these books on the streets of San Diego. I couldn’t resist helping them out. If you had looked into their eyes . . .” *

Next year, perhaps we can offer ideas on how to hustle the plunder onto the premises and avoid this conversation.

*This one shows just how low one can go.

Learning and Piety

2007-12-01T22:58:00.000-05:00

I am not a die-hard Bauder fan, however I greatly respect this servant of God. Recently he posted an article titled "So Why Go to School?"

In it he made the following statement which I am still contemplating surrounding my own life as I am wholly saturated in my studies and ever progressing in my pursuit of Christ-likeness.

"Spiritual warmth and good personal skills are not sufficient qualifications for ministry, however. A man who possesses these qualifications but who is unlearned is no more ready for ministry than a brilliant but spiritually cold theological pontificateur. Both learning and piety, both knowledge and practical skill are necessary.

Of course, at the end of the day we have no guarantees. Even an educated person can learn the wrong things. Worse yet, he can become proud of his learning. That is why learning must always be coupled with piety and with experience. Still, learning is one part of the equipment that a pastor or missionary must have when he approaches the work that God gives him to do. Heart and mind and hands must work together to the glory of God."

Crux sola est nostra Theologia: On being a theologian of the cross - Part 2 of 3

2007-08-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

The crux of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation lies within the six theses which are about to be discussed. The formulation of his theology has been building from the outset of his disputation. Yet due to the nature of this discussion let it suffice to assume this author’s awareness of the original context as a whole and the heart of Luther’s thought. This section of his disputation will be broken down into two digestible segments. First, in theses 19-21 Luther contrasts the two types of theologies – the theology of the cross and the theology of glory. Second, in theses 22-24 he examines those two theologies in relation to wisdom and the law.

Two Types of Theology

In theses 19-20 Luther begins to depict who a theologian is and what a theologian does. He contrasts the two types of theology mentioned above. It is not until thesis 21 does Luther actually specifically state a “theology of the cross” or a “theology of glory.”[1] However, as stated earlier, he sets the background in his previous eighteen theses and builds toward this theological climax.
Thesis 19 states "that person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened."[2] This thought was extrapolated from the Apostle’s writing in his epistle to the Romans. When Luther looked at Rom. 1:20-32 he saw that men who had perceived (seen and understood) the invisible attributes of God still rejected Him. Therefore they “became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools” (Rom. 1:21b-22).
In Luther’s mind they were still considered fools even though they observed the invisible attributes of God. For every thesis stated, Luther adds some commentary to this statement to explain his thoughts and reasoning. Therefore he remarks concerning invisible attributes in thesis 19. "The invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise."[3]
This is only the embryonic stages of what Luther will eventually propound. However, at this point he is beginning to argue that God cannot be truly known by mankind through his invisible attributes. For Luther, God initially revealed himself in this way in creation. Nonetheless, God no longer reveals himself in this manner because of what man has done (Rom. 1:20-32).[4] God now reveals himself through Christ. It is through the crucifixion and resurrection that God can be known. Thesis 20 explains this aspect.
The contrasting side is presented in the following thesis. Luther propounds that "[h]e deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."[5] He now turns to the all important passage in 1 Cor. 1. In his explanation he defines the visible attributes of God. In the midst of his explanation the idea of the “hidden God” is brought to light.
The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1 [:25] calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering...so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering. As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1 [:21], "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.[6]

At this point Luther comes out and firmly states that God cannot be known in or through any other manner or means than the cross. It is solely by the preaching of what is foolish and weak that men are able to know God. He states, "Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. [45:14] says, "Truly, thou are a God who hidest thyself."[7]
For Luther Christ in his humility, suffering, and anguish was the visible manifestation of God. In his mind the only way to see and know God was through His Son. He proves this when he refers to the dialogue between Philip and the Lord in John 14. Philip asked Christ to "Show us the Father." Yet Christ's response to Philip's request was "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Luther goes on to present examples that Christ is the only avenue to the Father. He states John 14:6 where "No one comes to the Father, but by me." He also gives the example where Christ illustrates that He is the "door" in John 10:9. Passages such as these are basic proof that the only way to see God is through the cross. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. For in Luther's mind there was no alternative.[8]
The last thesis of the first triad is a comparison of the two theologies. Thesis 21 reads: "A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is."[9] Theologians of glory want to call and define terms on their own basis.[10] God is not the standard; they are. A theology of glory wants to be in control and be the definer. He wants to be the one to identify things. For the theologian of the cross, he looks through the lens of Christ and the cross and defines things by God’s terms. God is the standard for description and depiction.[11]
In summary, a theologian of glory wants to do things his way. He wants to earn God’s favor on his own merit. On the contrary, a theologian of the cross looks to his Savior and is “deflated and destroyed” by the cross and “knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.”[12]

Two Types of Theology Concerning Wisdom and the Law

After contrasting the two types of theologies in the first triad of these six theses, Luther moves on to describe these conflicting theologies in light of wisdom and the Law of God. The second triad begins with thesis 22 stating, "That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened."[13] He remarks, "Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires."[14]
Luther goes on to illustrate such a desire. He uses the analogy of loving money. One's love for money always grows. His desire will never subside without divine intervention. He cites Ecclesiastes 1:8 which states that "the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing." In his mind this is true with all desires. "The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it."[15]
So it is with the desire for knowledge. Gaining wisdom and intellect only feeds that desire for more knowledge. It does not cure or alleviate it in any way. Glory, strength, power, and praise are all fueled by the fleshly human desire of wanting more glory, strength, and so forth. Luther cites the words of Christ in John 4 when He converses with the Samaritan woman at the well. Christ said "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again" (John 4:13). Satisfying a desire will not cure it; rather, one must extinguish it. In order to become wise, one must become a fool and seek after foolishness, not more wisdom. In order to obtain glory, strength, power, and praise one must forsake pursuing these things. Luther concludes his explanation of this thesis with the following phrase: "This is the wisdom which is folly to the world."[16] The mind of man will never grasp this concept without the imparting of grace.
In the next thesis Luther addresses the Law. As stated in thesis 1 the law cannot and does not advance man in righteousness. That is not its purpose. Rather the law restricts man in obtaining a righteous standing.[17] "The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ [Rom. 4:15]" says Luther.[18] He forcefully opposed those who boasted in the law and in their own wisdom of the law. To him they were boasting in utter confusion. This would eventually lead to their damnation, death, and the wrath of God upon their lives. He cites numerous passages to support his claim (Gal. 3:10, 13; Rom. 4:15; 7:10; 2:12, 23).[19]
In this final thesis of the second triad Luther retracts somewhat in the forceful manner of his previous claims. However, he does not lose any emotion in conveying his thoughts. He merely conveys that wisdom and the law are in and of themselves from God (Rom. 7:12; 1 Tim. 4:4; Gen. 1:31). Therefore, they are not inherently evil. But, he claims, when used apart from God they are stepping stones for man to boost his self-esteem and self-worth. It is then they become the "best in the worst manner."[20]
For Luther a man must be completely and utterly emptied of himself (Phil. 2:7). He must realize that he is totally dependant upon God. Everything within him is from God. There must not be any boasting on man's part. Every work done within him is a gift of grace from God. Every work withheld from him is also because of God. Regardless of what happens a man must understand that only through the suffering, shame and humility of the cross (i.e. theology of the cross) can God be known. Luther states, "It is this that Christ says in John 3:[7], 'You must be born anew.' To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand."[21]
Now that the two theologies have been presented and examined in relation to wisdom and the law, the next section will analyze the heart of Martin Luther’s theology of the cross.

[1] Tomlin, Graham, The Power of the Cross, Monograph, ed. Trevor A. Hart, David F. Wright, Anthony N.S. Lane, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999), 154. Luther's theology of the cross begins to appear in his first set of lectures on the Psalms, the Dictata super Psalterium of 1513-15. However, It is not until his Heidelberg Disputation in 1518 that his theology of the cross is fully developed.
.
[2] Harold J. Grimm, ed., Luther's Works, Career of the Reformer: I, by Martin Luther, American Edition (Philadephia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), vol. 31:52.

[3] Ibid., 31:52.

[4] Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 1963, trans. Robert C. Schultz, Second Ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 25-26

[5] Luther, Career of the Reformer: I, 31:52.

[6] Ibid., 31:52.

[7] Ibid., 31:52-53.

[8] Ibid, 31:53.

[9] Ibid, 31:53.

[10] Ibid, 31:53. Theses three and four are good examples of theologians of glory. Thesis three states, “Although the works of man always seems attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.” Likewise four reiterates the previous, “Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.” Man views eternally good things as evil because he is the one defining what is good and bad. However, man’s ways are not the ways of God (Isa. 55:8-9).

[11] Ibid, 31:53. Luther comments, "This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general good to evil. These are the people who the apostle calls "enemies of the cross of Christ' [Phil. 3:18], for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said. Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified."

[12] Ibid., 31:53.

[13] Ibid., 31:53.

[14] Ibid., 31:53.

[15] Ibid., 31:53.

[16] Ibid., 31:53-54.

[17] Ibid., 31:42.

[18] Ibid., 31:54.

[19] Ibid., 31:54.

[20] Ibid., 31:55. Thesis 24 reads, “Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.”

[21] Ibid., 31:55.

Crux sola est nostra Theologia: On being a theologian of the cross - Part 1 of 3

2007-08-18T11:38:00.000-04:00

Recently I read this book which has greatly influence my spiritual walk. Luther is such an incredible man who was used by God in some incredible ways. Five centuries later, his life and work still resonates clearly. Here are some of my thoughts and research from the life of Luther. Oh, for great biographies on his life check out Bainton's Here I Stand and Oberman's Man Between God and the Devil.

One year after his famous posting of the Ninety-five Theses, Martin Luther penned a short work which would eventually form his position concerning justification by faith alone. This work is referred to as the Heidelberg Disputation and within the text of this document his “theology of the cross” is revealed. However, before the theological implications are brought forth and the examination of them, let the historical context be revealed first in order to cast further light upon this subject.

The Early Years

The life of Martin Luther life could be compared to that of the apostle Paul. Both men started off their “careers” in the midst of a certain religious group only later to repudiate the practices and beliefs they originally had been taught. For the apostle Paul this was of course the life of a zealous Pharisee. For Martin Luther this was the eventual and painful break with the Roman Catholic Church. Respectively, both men being divinely empowered shook the world of their modern day.
In the opening paragraph of his paramount biography on Luther, Roland H. Bainton cleverly introduces Luther as
The man who thus called upon a saint was later to repudiate the cult of the saints. He who vowed to become a monk was later to renounce monasticism. A loyal son of the Catholic Church, he was later to shatter the structure of medieval Catholicism. A devoted servant of the pope, he was later to identify the popes with Antichrist. For this young man was Martin Luther.[1]

According to Martin Luther’s prolific biographer, Heiko A. Oberman "Luther was born in the center of the county of Mansfeld, in Eisleben, a small town with a population of no more than four thousand, situated about seventy miles southwest of Wittenberg and some sixty miles northeast of Erfurt."[2] Although the exact date of Luther's birth has come under some slight disagreement, a great deal of evidence points to the date which Luther's close friend, biographer, and colleague, Philipp Melanchthon had set - the date, November 10, 1483.[3]
Luther was the son of Hans and Margaret Luther. His parents had a profound impact upon young Martin. The education he received at home was fleshed out in his later life. For example, the way he disciplined his own children was shaped by how he was disciplined as a child. According to Oberman, Luther felt as if his upbringing was "strict but not unfeeling." It was his upbringing that shaped and molded the direction in which he would eventually follow: the monastic life. Luther is quoted as saying, "The serious and austere life they led with me later caused me to enter a monastery and become a monk; but they meant it very well indeed."[4] Oberman succinctly summarizes Luther's early years by stating,
Responsibility, experience with misbehavior, and subsequent punishment were all shaped into concepts which later became so central to the Reformer, and molded - or at least sharpened - young Martin's conscience. It was the way he was raised at home that brought him to the gates of the monastery - but not straightaway.[5]

The Educational Period

Luther started out his academic career in the field of law. He enrolled in the University of Erfurt in 1501. During periods of Luther’s childhood and especially during his time in Erfurt he confirmed to having moods of deep depression. He referred to these states of anguish and painful inner struggles as Anfechtungen[6] or “trials.”
Luther's outbreaks of Anfechtungen never gave warning or indication. They continued to plague him throughout his life. Much speculation exists as to why or when he suffered from these excruciating periods.[7] Bainton indicates that the "precise delineation" is unknown. These periods of Anfechtungen do not point to a single traumatic experience or crisis. However, the drifting nature of these stages proved that there were no definite causes, times, localities or situations. To Luther they overcame him without warning or sign.[8]
For Luther these periods of Anfechtungen were more painful than any other physical ailment he had ever encountered. Because of these painful experiences Luther sought after God all the more earnestly. These periods of Anfechtungen drove him to find respite for his soul. Bainton states,
Luther probed every resource of contemporary Catholicism for assuaging the anguish of a spirit alienated from God. He tried the way of good works and discovered that he could never do enough to save himself. He endeavored to avail himself of the merits of the saints and ended with a doubt, not a very serious doubt or persistent doubt for the moment, but sufficient to destroy his assurance.[9]

Nevertheless, despite his periods of Anfechtungen on September 29, 1502, Luther received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Erfurt. By January 7, 1505, he had successfully completed and received his Master of Arts degree. However, all of his academic preparation was soon to take a drastic change. On July 2, 1505, the twenty-one year old Luther was returning to Erfurt from his hometown after spending some time with his parents when he was caught in a terrible thunderstorm. Fearing death Luther cried out in anguish to Saint Anne, the patron saint of miners, “Help me Saint Anne;[10] I will become a monk.”[11] This event is often referred to as Luther’s “lighting experience.”[12]
Luther’s life was spared, and so he reluctantly took the cowl, much to the dismay of his parents.[13] Against his father’s wishes he enlisted in the strict Augustinian cloister there in Erfurt, a mere fifteen days after he had given his “vow”. Once in the cowl Luther poured every ounce of energy into his new found lifestyle. The life of a monk was vigorous, and Luther energetically carried out his duties. While at Erfurt, Luther resorted to extreme forms of asceticism hoping to gain the favor of God and in essence save himself. He would fast for extended periods of time, pray for several straight hours, and even sleep without blankets to the point where he almost froze.[14] However, salvation and respite of his soul would not come to Luther until his “tower experience” several years later.
In 1510 Luther and one other brother from the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt were sent to the Eternal City, Rome to represent their chapter. It was this trip to Rome that Luther was exposed to the rampant immorality and the grossness of the sins being committed not only in the "holy city" but also among the clergy. According to Bainton this trip for Luther was a vivid portrayal of this Augustinian monk's character. The experiences during his time in Rome reveal much about the man, Martin Luther. Luther himself admitted that he went to Rome with onions and had returned home with garlic.[15] His experience in Rome was only the mere beginning of the rumblings that would take place in his soul, and those rumblings would eventually be felt throughout all of Christendom.

The Events before Heidelberg

In April 1511 Luther moved from the monastery in Erfurt to a small village called Wittenberg. He had been selected to teach theology at the University of Wittenberg. Bainton describes Wittenberg as a mere village compared to Erfurt. Its population was estimated around 2,000 to 2,500. The dominant site in the little village of Wittenberg was the university. In 1511 the university was quite new. Frederick the Wise, the elector of Saxony chose teachers from Augustinian and Franciscan orders to supply teachers hoping to induce its establishment so that it might stand as superior to the prestigious University of Leipzig.[16] It was here at the University of Wittenberg that Dr. Martin Luther, the professor of theology, would spend the remainder of his life.
It was also here at Wittenberg where Luther became quite familiar with a man by the name of Johann von Staupitz.[17] Staupitz played a significant role in the life of Martin Luther. He was the vicar-general of the Augustinian order in Germany. Luther respected this man greatly. His influence and opinions impacted Luther. It was during Luther’s periods of deep spiritual struggles that Staupitz helped him realize the forgiveness of God.[18] Bainton suggests that no other man could have been a better spiritual influence than Staupitz. He comments, "The vicar knew all the cures prescribed by the schoolmen for spiritual ailments, and besides had a warm religious life of his own with a sympathetic appreciation of the distress of another." Luther is quoted as saying, "If it had not been for Dr. Staupitz, I should have sunk into hell." The very character of Staupitz definably shaped the life of Martin Luther.[19]
Luther is probably best known for his postings of his ninety-five theses on the Castle Church doors of Wittenberg on October 31, 1517.[20] These theses attack John Tetzel’s motives and scheme[21] in the employment of indulgences.[22] While being the most famous of Luther’s documents it is probably not one of his most important documents. Rather his theses only set the stage for even greater controversies.[23]
The date was April 11, 1518. Luther had been called to the city of Heidelberg. The trip would be dangerous. By this time Luther had enemies. Four months prior, Albert of Mainz had notified the curia of Luther’s actions. Consequently the religious orders in that region were well aware of Martin Luther and his activities.[24] Staupitz asked him to defend his theology in wake of the controversy which had been stirred up by his posting of the ninety-five theses the year prior. He was to address the German Augustinian order with his views. In defense he was to write out a disputation or an argument concerning the ideas behind and supporting his theology. Basically Luther’s disputation was a basic, foundational thesis of what he truly believed. In addition, Staupitz had requested Luther to not bring controversial topics to the disputation. Consequently, his Heidelberg theses say nothing concerning indulgences of which had obviously been the main thrust of his postings on the castle door at Wittenberg.
Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation is made up of forty thesis statements. The first twenty-eight are theological. The last twelve are philosophical. Throughout the first twenty-eight theses Luther lays out powerful theological concepts such as grace, sin, free will, works of God and man, and the law of God. The philosophical theses are rebuttals against the current scholasticism and natural theology of his day (which he refers to as the “theology of glory”). He puts down Aristotelian reasoning and emphasizes that human wisdom and philosophy of man are foolishness compared to grace and the cross.
Although Luther did not make a distinguishing outline, his theological theses can easily be divided up into four distinct categories. In the first twelve theses Luther deals with the works of man and sin. The following six he discusses the concept of free will and the grace of God. In the next six theses Luther introduces his concept of his “theology of the cross.” In this section he contrasts the “theology of glory” to the “theology of the cross.” The final four theses cover the work of God in the faith of the righteous. Luther’s third section in his theological theses concerning his “theology of the cross” will be the focus of this research.

[1] Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Pierce and Smith, 1950; reprint, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1978), 15.

[2] Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New York, NY: Image Books, Doubleday, 1992), 82.

[3] Ibid., 82.

[4] Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Tischreden [Table Talk] vol. 3. no. 3566b; 416, 24-26; 1537). Luther did not concur that excessive physical force taught young children to be more submissive. Rather Luther felt the kind of discipline which he received while growing up would tend to estrange a child. In his mind the Heavenly Father did not treat his children in such a manner. Although he did not readily agree with the style of discipline that took place during his early years, he did not in any way harbor a bitter or angry spirit.

[5] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 92.

[6] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 19-20. Bainton disregards the arguments which state that Luther suffered from depressant stages attributed to mere adolescence or that he suffered from manic depression. To Bainton these attributive causes seem to overlook some obvious facts. Luther suffered from these depression stages throughout his entire adult life. It was not merely a physical stage related to adolescence. Nor could it have been manic depression for the positions which Luther held proved that he "exhibited a prodigious and continuous capacity" to work competently. For Bainton the plausibility of these arguments is virtually nonexistent.

[7] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 87-88. Speculation has hovered around Luther's periods of intense inner struggle. Luther once reminisced of how he had stolen a nut and received a beating from his mother which drew blood. Psychoanalysts have propounded that Luther's life-long traumatic experiences were due to the fact that his parents used physical force during his childhood, therefore rendering him mentally and emotionally traumatized. However, according to Oberman this view has not sustained support largely in respect to Luther's relationship with his father, Hans who seemed to be the one to rule the house and his son, Martin. For during the times of Luther, women had far less influence than did the male. Oberman comments on the influence a mother would have on her son as “inconceivable or at least irrelevant. For this reason the features of Margaret Luder [Luther] have remained pale and undefined: a simple woman, uneducated and superstitious, nothing more." He goes on to give caution as to this type of psychoanalyzing Luther's background. He states, "Diagnoses of this kind are not only subject to changing scholarly trends but also owe part of their impact to the psychologizing mood of our times."

[8] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 40.

[9] Ibid., 40.

[10] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 93-94. The doctrine of Saint Anne derives from the idea of Immaculate Conception. In this idea Mary the mother of Jesus is thought to be conceived without any trace of original sin or inherited guilt. Therefore her mother, Saint Anne participates in the Virgin Mary (ie. Maryology) and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ (ie. the Incarnation). Later Luther would regard this doctrine as contrary to Scripture. He is quoted as saying, "It also applies to St. Anne, whose feast is being celebrated today, that I cannot find a word about here in the Bible. I believe that God left this unmentioned so that we would not seek out new holy places, as we are doing now, running to and fro and thus losing sight of the true Savior, Jesus Christ." (Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung Werke, vol. II. 475, 11-15; 1527). Luther's appeal to Saint Anne however was not uncommon in his day. Saint Anne was the patroness of miners and so Luther probably grew up with relative familiarity to her "presence." Oberman gives insight into Luther's invocation of Saint Anne in that his vow was grounded in the religious milieu of his day. He comments that "[t]he very normalcy of [Luther's] reaction later made both his critical evaluation and his Evangelical solution intelligible, viable, and liberating to so many.

[11] Ibid., 92-93. Oberman observes that Luther's current environment was responsible for much of his decision to pursue the monastic lifestyle. However, he does not readily deny the fact that it was in fact Luther's "individual decision" to enter the monastery. His current situation and childhood upbringing did not necessitate or direct him to the monastic life. He observes that Martin was the only Luther child to wear the cowl. Oberman would not say that Luther’s "thunderstorm experience" was “the” determining factor. Rather, in retrospect Luther's current circumstances played a vital role in his pursuit of becoming a monk. One has to remember that making such a vow was not uncommon in Luther's day and age. What he had been taught while growing up was in sync with the religious temperature of that time.

[12] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 25. Luther himself affirmed the fact that his "lightning" experience was a divine call. It was a call that he could not avoid. Bainton surmises that Luther could not break this "vow" lest he be considered disobedient. Yet, this experience was against Luther's will and that he "under divine constraint" was compelled to take the path towards monasticism.

[13] Ibid., 27. According to Bainton the reason for Luther's pursuit of the monastic life was a reason similar to everyone else who pursued the same lifestyle. It was to save his soul and find peace with God. The way of the Catholic Church brought Luther absolutely no satisfaction or respite for his raging soul. Therefore, another prescription was required which for Luther resulted as life in a monastery.

[14] Ibid., 34. Bainton quotes Luther in reference to his strict adherence to such drastic procedures. "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work."

[15] Ibid., 36-38.

[16] Ibid., 39.

[17] Oberman, Man Between God and the Devil, 101-02. Johannes von Staupitz was a dear close friend to Luther. Luther referred to Staupitz as in Christo suavissimo Patri, (Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechse [Correspondence], vol. l, 1.257, 2;25 Nov 1518) or "most beloved father in Christ." When Staupitz died on December 28, 1524, Luther was devastated. According to Oberman the pain was so sharp that Luther never referred to Staupitz for seven years. It was not until his paternal father, Hans died on May 29, 1530 did Luther begin to talk about Staupitz once again. The impact which Staupitz left made an indelible impression upon Luther which would last a lifetime.

[18] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 16. Luther was devoutly religious. Religion characterized his life. The most agonizing tribulations in his life which have captivated many his biographers were merely to Luther trivial compared to his "inner upheavals of his questing after God." Luther felt as if could not satisfy God in any way. The justice of God to him was always damning and condemning. There was never a moment was the righteousness of God was not being carried out. For Luther this presence was continual.

[19] Ibid., 39-40.

[20] James Atkinson, Martin Luther and the Birth of Protestantism (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1968), 150. Concerning Luther's ninety-five theses Atkinson remarks, "These Ninety-five Theses are strangely uncoordinated, rather remote and academic, not well thought out, even disappointing, compared with the mighty writings whose thunder was to reverberate throughout Christendom. Luther was quite shocked when the matter was taken out of his hands, and what had been intended as an academic disputation among scholars was literally shouted from the house-tops. He grumbled and said that if it had been a criticism of indulgences they wanted he could have written a proper one, but that had not been his purpose. It should always be remembered that the Theses are pithy aphoristic Latin paradoxes, such as were normal to academics discussing issues at universities."

[21] The sale of indulgences was not allowed in electoral Saxony. The reason being was Frederick, Saxony’s elector prohibited Teztel from distributing them. Teztel’s actions were directed by Albert, the elector of neighboring Mainz. It was Teztel’s action which troubled Luther and led to the eventual posting on the Castle Church doors at Wittenberg.

[22] Ibid., 142. "Indulgences do not mean the same thing to a modern Roman Catholic as they did to a contemporary of Luther's, or to a man a thousand years before Luther. Indulgences were not always discreditable. In the early Church, lapse into sin involved separation from the fellowship. Re-admission was gained by public confession before the congregation and true repentance shown by certain 'satisfaction', a word found as early as Tertullian (d. 220) and Cyprian (d. 258). These satisfactions might take the form of fasting, or alms-giving, or the manumission of a slave, depending on the nature of the sin and the status of the sinner, but they were always imposed by the congregation in the interests of the sinner and for his salvation. The nature of the satisfaction was always open to mitigation or even abolition on merciful grounds, if the congregation thought fit, in the light of a penitent's sincerity, or sickness, or any other material or spiritual change in his condition. These gracious and pastoral mitigations were the honourable beginning of the system which came to be known as indulgences and they must be reckoned as sound psychological and spiritual practice."

[23] Bainton, A Life of Martin Luther, 15. Luther had a deafening impact upon the Reformation, the reason being was that it added to the disintegrating milieu which had already begun long before Luther arrived on the scene. The temperature was ideal. Nationalism was breaking down the political ties of the day while the Reformation broke down the religious. The Roman Catholic Church was corrupt with its offices being characterized by the "secularized, flippant, frivolous, sensual, magnificent, and unscrupulous." The political, social, and religious scene was divinely orchestrated for the arrival of Martin Luther. It was this man who changed everything.

[24] Loewenich, Walther von, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982), 121.

REMEMBER AND DO NOT FORGET

2007-07-19T08:10:00.001-04:00

A Moment from Deuteronomy 6

Remember the promise my child, the promise that I gave to you in the book of the beginnings? Remember what I did in the lives your forefathers? Remember Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Remember the promise, and remember the promised seed? What promise and what seed you may ask? The promise of a land, seed, and blessing is the reply. Remember that through Abraham all the nations of the world would be blessed? Remember the promised seed that came from the womb of a ninety-year-old woman? When it was humanly impossible the seed was born in order that it might sustain the divinely promised Seed. But remember it is God who is rich in mercy and grace. It is Yahweh who gives to us all things whether they are (not good or bad, but rather) pleasant or unpleasant.
Chosen one, forget not what Yahweh has done for you. Do not forget who givs you your life. You did not form yourself; rather it is He, the Creator who sustains you. Do not forget who gives you your health. Do not forget who gives you your food, your clothes, your home, and your jobs. Brothers, when the good times roll do not forget, neglect, or forsake the Giver and Provider of all things. Remember the One who makes straight your paths and sheds light upon your feet.
But most of all O child of God, remember what your Lord and Savior has done for you! Redemption. Salvation. Justification. Propitiation. Remember O sinner what you used to be. Sinners. Haters of God. Vile. Unjust. Idolaters. Lovers of evil. But God, in His great love with which He loved you chose to save you. He, the Creator God predestined to redeem you before He even created you. He gave you a Savior, His own Son. The Son, the vicarious, atoning Son, perfect, spotless, blameless before the Father, this Son died for you and for me.
Do not forget O man your redemption. Remember your bondage and slavery. Do not forget your Exodus, when the very hand of God Almighty led you out and away from your bitter enemies. Oh, and remember that He not only delivered you, but He also saved you from them. Remember the horrific yoke of sin that captivated your soul. Remember how your Lord in His Sovereign will and time took the writing of requirements written against you and nailed them to a tree. Remember that sinner, and do not forget. This promised Seed, the one who was promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob gives you an inheritance. You are now adopted. You are now children of the risen Lord. You have all the spiritual blessings which the heavens afford to bestow.
Oh, and one more thing redeemed one, remember to fear God and keep His commands. Do not forget who you are and who you used to be. Do not forget why you do what you do. Remember what the “beginning of wisdom” is, and where true understanding is derived. Do not forget that it is the fear of the Lord; it is the knowledge of the Holy One. Do not forget the LORD your God. Do not forget what He has done for you. Do not forget His marvelous, divine acts which He has displayed for you in the past. With all that to remember O justified man, remember to tell your children. Tell them, teach them, instruct them, and remind them of who God is and what God has done. Men, model for your kids righteousness and remind them of the greatness of God. Remember the Great Shema. Remember, you must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength. P.S. Don’t forget!

Grieving, Yet Rejoicing

2007-07-17T08:35:00.000-04:00

God is so good. His ways are always perfect, even though I cannot understand them at times. Since our time out here in VA Beach, Katie and I have really plugged in and connected in many ways with our church family. Immediately after bringing Katie out here last August we got involved and joined the local body of believers at Colonial Baptist Church of Oceana. This past weekend for Katie and I however was one with a bitter sweet taste.

This weekend Pastor Tim and Becky announced that they will be leaving the ministry here in VA Beach to take a small church plant in Westerville, OH right outside of Columbus. When Pastor called us the evening prior, I have to admit our initial feelings were not joyful ones. But as we sat in service the next day and listened to Pastor explain what God was doing in their lives, I could not help but sit back and rejoice in that fact that God dominates their lives.

Now this is not to exalt a mere man, but indeed God gives us godly examples to learn from. Pastor Tim is a man that I hold in high regard. His life, ministry and love for righteousness are some aspects that instantly come to mind when I think of this man. I am so grateful to my Lord for allowing Katie and I to sit under the preaching and teaching of such a man (even if it was for only a year).

So, we rejoice that members of the larger body of Christ get to fellowship and learn from the passionate examples such as the Valentines. We rejoice that through this time of transition may the hearts of Pastor Tim and Becky be encouraged and excited about what God has in store for them. In the meantime, we at CBCO are excited about the shepherd whom God has in store. We are ready to learn and looking forward to moving forward by faith.

2007-05-28T19:27:00.000-04:00

Recently, I check out Westminster's Bookstore and found out that they were running a CCEF Counseling Classics sale. Here is the link if you want to check it out. http://www.wtsbooks.com/category-exec/category_id/502/nm/BEST_20OF_20WTS_20SALE_21 The sale is pretty decent and if you order a lot the shipping is one flat rate. Anyway, check it out!

Tidbits in Exodus

2007-05-25T13:31:00.000-04:00

One of my goals for this summer was to read through the Bible. I do not have a set amount that I read each day (although I probably should), but rather I read as much as I can each day. Lately, I have been crusing through Exodus which has just been awesome, and while I was going through the Egyptian bondage scene I came across a couple of things that struck me.
First, what popped out at me was the two powerful signs which God shows to Moses when he meets God at Horeb (Ex. 4) in the burning bush. Moses questions God by assuming that the children of Israel will not believe that Yahweh had sent him. So as you know God powerfully displays to Moses that He is God by turning his staff into a snake and by covering his hand with leprosy. For whatever reason, I ALWAYS thought that Moses and Aaron performed to Pharoah (via the Power of God) both of these powerful signs. However, according to the Ex. 7 account they only performed the staff and snake sign. I could not find in my reading where Moses inserts his hand into "bosom" (KJV) and it becomes leperous before Pharoah. Any insights on why I always thought that Moses performed both signs before Pharoah (other than the fact that I have watched Hesston too many times!)????

2007-05-08T13:30:00.000-04:00

I recently found out that Mrs. Horn has been diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer. According to Pastor Sam the cancer was found in her lymph nodes and in her upper chest region. There is also a tumor in her upper chest. I would ask on the behalf of the Horn family and the body of believers at Brookside Baptist that you be in prayer for them. This has come as a heavy shock, and my heart is heavy for this family. May we all be faithful to the Lord in lifting the needs of the Horn family. Lord, may Your will be done!

2007-05-08T12:50:00.000-04:00

April 15-17, 2008 I will be heading to Louisville, KY for this three-day conference. I cannot express my excitement right now. I am literally estatic. Last year my buddy, Richard bought all the MP3s, and I listened to them all with rapt attention. The cool part about the registration was that for students of all kind (high-school, college or seminary) taking 9 or more credits got an exceptional discount of $99! The regular rate is $249, and an early bird fee gives you (I think) a $50 0r $100 discount. But I was so excited to go I registered the day registration opened. What a geek I know, but I could not help myself.
Anyway, I'm in the process of coaxing Rich, Dano, Mike and Keith to meet me in KY next spring. We will see. I am working on them! Either way it will be a blast!