When Martin Met Katie

Here is the link the second post of Justin Taylor's series, Luther and Marriage.

http://theresurgence.com/2010/10/05/when-martin-met-katie

Luther: The 40 Year Old Virgin?

Check out this post from Justin Taylor. It is the first in a series on Martin Luther and marriage.

http://theresurgence.com/2010/09/28/luther-the-40-year-old-virgin

Book Reviews From My Summer Reading

An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson and Moo

I found this volume super helpful. Carson and Moo did a great job of handling the arguments and controversies. I walked away feeling that I had been given all of the necessary information. The authors were not only careful to give all sides of the argument, but they were also careful not to make assertions without backing them up. My copy is filled with highlighter marks and comments. I'm certain that I will be referencing this book for years to come.

An Introduction to the New Testament by David deSilva

Another great volume. Dr. desilva's strength is in giving an incredible amount of background and context information. In this regard I would rate deSilva's introduction higher than Carson and Moo's (to be fair to the authors they did state that it wasn't their purpose for the volume).Where I wouldn't rate deSilva's volume as high as Carson and Moo's is in its use of assertions without adequate substantiation. In other words, I heard what he was saying, but I didn't understand why his view was right or wrong, since opposing arguments were not always given. All-in-all I think that deSilva's and Carson and Moo's introductions work will in tandem.

Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns

This volume was disappointing. Dr Enns comes right out in the beginning of his book asserting that it isn't intended to be academic, but rather to aid and encourage students who were looking for direction. This might have been my greatest frustration with his book. Is it responsible teaching to make assertions about such important issues without including any challenging arguments? I don't find this approach helpful since it recruits adherents who don't know all of the information, and attempts to make those who disagree feel ridiculous. Inspiration and Incarnation is entirely one-sided, and demeaning of mainstream evangelical scholarship. For a book that boasted a desire to be helpful to the discouraged, I don't think that Dr. Enns took enough care not to discourage students who might deal with the evidence and come to different conclusions.

A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren

This book is both properly and improperly titled. What McLaren is propagating is not new, but it is different; so different that I wouldn't call it Christian at all. McLaren's view of Scripture is so nebulous that I don't think that he could really assert anything meaningful from the Biblical text (even to support his own world-view). He denies human depravity, the fall, the existence of hell, and even the exclusivity of Christ. In the end of the book he questions whether "Christianity" is even a helpful term. I think for McLaren it isn't. For the most part McLaren's book is old liberalism repackaged for a post-modern audience. I would rename this book "A Generous Unorthodoxy" or maybe as one scholar has, "A New Kind of Apostasy." (I know that this is a harsh review, and it is not my intention to mock Brian McLaren. I do think that this book is unorthodox and harmful, and for that reason I have used as plain of language as I could to call it as I see it)

Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

I found this book to be insightful, though the title can be a little bit deceiving. The volume is indeed about the Emergent church, but it's about more than just that. DeYoung and Kluck did a great job of engaging the issues and controversies of contemporary and post-modern church life. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is looking for clarity about what church should and should not be, and about what Christians should and should not be about. I have to note though that I enjoyed DeYoung's chapters more than Kluck's. As the author's note in the introduction, Kluck's chapters are there to help people who think DeYoung is boring, get through the book. Kluck at times came off as a bit antagonistic to me, and I thought DeYoung's portions were interesting enough. Not to say that Kluck didn't contribute to the book, I think he did, but I related better to DeYoung.

The Grand Design

Here is the link to a review article of Stephen Hawking's newest volume written by Dr. Edgar Andrews (Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London).

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design#more

Telephone Game Gospels?

Here is the link to an interesting critique of Bart Ehrman's telephone game analogy.

http://www.davidbsloan.com/blog.html#007

I Want One !

Doubt vs Faith: What You Talkin' About, Willis?

One of my favorite shows as a boy was Diff’rent Strokes, most remembered by it’s star Gary Coleman (who died this year) and that iconic phrase, “What you talkin’ about, Willis?”. This phrase worked its way into our house years ago and it conveys the same basic message that it did on Diff’rent Strokes: Whatever you are trying to say, I’m not following you. Recently, while reading and blogging, I have found this phrase echoing through my head. As an ultra-opinionated guy, it’s often because I don’t happen to agree with the author. Sometimes it’s because writers put forth ideas that are so nebulous, ideas so layered in double-meanings, that I find myself wanting to post “sp-sp-spit it out junior” in the comments section. An idea that tends to fit into the first category is what’s being put forth as the new litmus test of faith for many Christian thinkers: Doubt.

That’s right, faith equals doubt. Sound confusing? No longer is doubt to be considered an obstacle to faith, but rather the legitimizer of faith. Some seem bent on the idea that because the testimony of the Bible is sometimes doubt-worthy (it's not), our doubts should be embraced as the new beginning of a more realistic faith. Under this new definition, the Bible is no longer to be considered a primary, rather Christians must look to Jesus for an example of how to live (or journey if you prefer). I have two concerns with this way of thinking. First, as I have stated before, if we cannot trust the account given to us by the gospel writers, than we cannot reasonably know or assert anything about Jesus’ life and character. Second, without a trustworthy Biblical account of the life and teaching of Jesus, adherents to this strange new doubt/faith are forced (or inclined) to follow a Jesus created in their own image; which in reality, turns out to be no Jesus at all.

While I agree that there is a sanctifying work in doubt, I do not believe, as some, that it should be celebrated as privileged spirituality. Writers like Brian McLaren have infused his readers with ideas that equate doubt with humility and accuse clarity of being dishonest (or unexamined). Within this paradigm, one might conclude that confusion is the new acumen (intellect).

Let me clarify (because I think clarity is important) that I too believe that spiritual honesty is paramount, and that doubts are part of the human condition. I do not think that doubt is a sin. What I do think is that God desires to (like Thomas the apostle) move us past our doubts, not build a religion out of it. Thomas doubted, but he later learned that God was who He said He was (clarity). This kind of humility was exhibited by the father of a demon tormented child and his willingness to cry out, “help my unbelief” (Mk 9:24). Throughout my life and ministry I have been drawn to “good questions”. Sometimes these questions have led me to a submissive heart and then good answers. At other times my questions have led me to unhealthy thoughts and misguided understandings. In these times it has often taken a friend who cares enough to ask, “What you talkin’ about Willis?” to restore in me a heart that humbly cries, “my Lord and my God.”

“Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
(John 20:27)

An Argument Discredited

Posted By Kevin DeYoung on his blog Restless and Reformed (Link below)

Of all the bad arguments against inerrancy, the most frequent is also one of the worst: namely, that the idea of error-less autographs was an invention of Old Princeton.

The once (and briefly) credible idea that Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield invented inerrancy has been shown to be resoundingly false. Scholars like John Woodbridge and Richard Muller have demonstrated convincingly that the doctrine of complete biblical truthfulness is not a Princetonian invention. Clement of Rome (30-100) described “the Sacred Scriptures” as “the true utterance of the Holy Spirit.” Polycarp (65-155) called them “the oracles of the Lord.” Irenaeus (120-202) claimed that the biblical writers “were incapable of a false statement.” Origen (185-254) stated, “The sacred volumes are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and there is no passage either in the Law or the Gospel, or the writings of an Apostle, which does not proceed from the inspired source of Divine Truth.” Augustine (354-430) explained in a letter to Jerome, “I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of the Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honour, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any of them.” It was not modernism that invented inerrancy. It was modernism that undermined inerrancy. (Why We’re Not Emergent, 76-77)

In other words, while inerrancy may be a relatively recent addition to the theological lexicon, the truth it means to protect is as old as Christianity.


An Argument Discredited

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy?

Here is a great post from Kevin DeYoung's blog concerning a conversation between Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, and Brian McLaren on inerrancy.

Who’s Afraid of Inerrancy?

Generous Unorthodoxy

Brian McLaren's new book "A new kind of Christianity" asserts 19th century liberalism and ignores the creeds of historical Christianity." Here are the links to a couple solid review articles posted earlier this year by Scot McKnight and Tim Challies.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/3.59.html

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/a-new-kind-of-christianity

And/or, watch a panel discussion between Albert Mohler, Jim Hamilton, Bruce Ware, Stephen Wellum, and Gregory Wills

http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/chapel-spring-2010/panel-discussion-a-new-kind-of-christianity-brian-mclaren-recasts-the-gospel/

What Is Salvation?

Growing up, I was told that salvation is believing that Jesus died for me, and asking Him to come and live in my heart. I still believe that this is true, but as I have matured in my faith I've come to learn much more about what it means to be saved. In order to gain a better perspective on salvation, I think one needs to go back to the story of the first human persons, Adam and Eve.

We have all heard or read Adam and Eve's story, but if you’re like me you have walked away from a reading of it with a very shallow understanding of what actually transpired in the Garden of Eden on that dark, but glorious day. Was Adam and Eve's sin that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Yes, but that's not the most significant part of it. Remember what the serpent said to Eve when He was tempting her to disobey the Lord's command;

"The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die!
“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'” (vv. 4-5)

The temptation wasn't to the eat fruit, so much as to gain the knowledge. Indeed, this knowledge would make her like God. No longer would Adam and Eve need to seek God about what was right or wrong; with this knowledge, they could decide for themselves. No longer would Adam and Eve have to be dependant on God for the revelation of what they should and should not do; now they could be the masters of their own destinies. Isn't it obvious that humanity has battled God for control ever since. Isn't it the battle that you and I fight everyday? Who is going to be in control of my life and destiny? Herein lies the big questions, which more often leads to our greatest rebellion.

So back to our initial question, what is Salvation? Salvation is surrendering your life and destiny to the one who should have control of it in the first place. This is the significance of baptism, my death and Christ's life becoming realized in my human body. Salvation is realizing that Life is not about me, and that I am not at a place to rightly judge my own destiny, because without Christ I am not at a place to judge what is best from what is evil. Salvation is surrender. Salvation is my death. Salvation is the exchanging of my life, for the life of another, my glorious and victorious Savior Jesus Christ.

Is Post-Modern Liberalism really Pre-Modern Gnosticism?

A thought postulated by reforming Lutherans in a new article from Christianity Today. Here is the link

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/septemberweb-only/46-31.0.html

"Scholars and Snake-Handlers"

An interesting article in this months Christianity Today about evangelicals and the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature). Here is the link

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/september/4.16.html?start

You're Already An Idiot!

Me too

The Apostle Paul taught that the “Word of the Cross” was (is) foolishness to those who are perishing (I Cor. 1:18; see also 2:12-14). This statement, as I understand it, draws the logical implication that all Christians believe something that is and will always be illogical in the eyes of non-Christians.
As a seminarian, I have often been perplexed by teachers who confidently assert both the historicity and regenerating implications of Christ’s death and resurrection, while at the same time questioning and sometimes rejecting the historicity of miraculous Old Testament stories like the “global flood,” or “parting of the Red Sea”. When approached and asked to explain their lack of confidence in the biblical record, often the reply involves some reference to the number of scholars who don’t think it really happened, followed by a declaration that it makes Christianity “look foolish to assert such stories as historical.” The idea is… that by making Christian history more believable or reasonable, more people will believe in Jesus without having to be viewed as an idiot.
Here’s my thought… If we minimize the biblical stories of God’s mighty and miraculous deeds, how can we expect someone to accept that God is real, has a divine Son, that this Son came to the earth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death for all of humanity, and rose from the dead. Doesn’t that seem like nonsense? I mean, either God is in the business of working miracles, or we don’t have any hope in Christ. So why do we draw conclusions like this? (My personal opinion is that scholars have caved under pressure from secular scholastic institutions, academic journal editors, and liberal peer pressure in trade for professional legitimacy). Since there is no substantiated (historical, scientific, or otherwise) argument against the old Bible stories, other than probability, I see no reason to question them. The Apostle Paul had a similar debate with some Jewish academic types… I think he had the right idea…

“Now, if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”(I Corinthians 15: 12-14 NASB)

What’s more important, a “legitimate” profession, or a legitimate faith? That is the question.

Need Help Getting Sleep At Night?

I just posted a paper I wrote last year titled, Bad Thinking: Modern Scholarship’s Neutralization of Conservative Minority Voices. Check it out if counting sheep isn't getting the job done (or if you have a bone-to-pick with the modern critical paradigm). Click the link listed under "pages".

Themelios July 2010 is availiable

Everything from a critique of Brian McLaren to a discussion on Ancient Near Eastern parallels. Check it out. Here is the link

http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications

Empty Churches with Open Arms

My family and I had the privilege of living in Amsterdam for about 5 months in 2004-05. While there, we were struck by both the post-Christian culture and the emptiness of the churches. A salient example was the Oudikirk (old church) which towers above the neon windows of the Red Light District. There it stood... a symbol of faith and holiness surrounded by prostitute windows, drug dealers, and thrill seeking tourists. A church that we learned was at one time overflowing with people and salvation...now filled only with art and spiritual emptiness.

For the last decade the debates have raged throughout American churches over issues of morality and lifestyle choice. There has been a push for the normalization of life decisions that the Bible identifies as sinful. These same decisions are no longer debated in European culture. The debate there is over and done, and the verdict is that any lifestyle chosen is okay. The result over time has been two fold; 1) churches in Europe have become more “accepting” and “supportive” of immoral lifestyle choices; and 2) the same churches, over time, have become more irrelevant and largely abandoned. Somewhere along the way people, having found the affirmation they were seeking, had no reason to remain in churches that taught that the Bible was sometimes authoritative and sometimes not. Simply put, if it wasn’t all true maybe none of it was true.

In the United States the battle rages on. Scholars and pastors behave more like teenage girls rummaging through the closet looking for what fits and gains peer approval than keepers of God’s Word. Many churches are coming to the conclusion that the more “accepting” they are of people, the more their churches will grow. They may be right in the short term. But eventually people will ask themselves why they are following a religion where many of the teachings have to be explained away, deemed as no longer culturally relevant, or obscured to a point beyond recognition in order to become acceptable to its followers. . Like the church in Europe, if the debate is won in favor of those who wish to minimize the Bible’s authority and influence, the church will be abandoned by the same.

A Most Common Question

What should I do with my life?

It’s funny throughout the years of my life and interaction with people few questions have been asked more. The question comes most commonly to us at significant moments. 

Should I marry this guy/girl? What should my major be?

And now as a church planter I get calls/emails/etc. regularly from guys wondering if they have what it takes. In, and out of, for that matter, pastor circles it is known as the question of calling. 

Should I be a church planter?
Should I pastor an existing church?

The odd part of the question for me is most folks want to be called in some mystical, miraculous way. But it doesn’t happen like that very often, at least not for me. Jesus didn’t shine the cross shaped symbol in the night sky and stand on a roof waiting for me to arrive. I didn’t flip open my Bible to II Hesitations, drop my finger on Chapter 3 verse 5 and read replant this dying church. My call came from jail. Literally. Late on a Friday night a friend called, asked me for a favor and without realizing the implications of saying yes, I accepted. The craziest part was…I wasn’t even looking for a calling. I wasn’t asking the question. All I was doing was trying to faithfully serve right where the Lord had already put me.
And that to me is the real answer to the question of calling. Are you already being faithful? If you can’t be faithful to the girl while you are dating….God doesn’t want you to get married. If you flunked out of Algebra….God isn’t calling you to be a math teacher.

If you aren’t serving with integrity and faithfulness in a local church, making disciples, gathering people who want to follow you & haven’t read your Bible in a week….God isn’t calling you to church planting.
The reason we see so many men get their calling out of the wilderness is because the Lord was teaching them that faithfulness always come before fruitfulness. Most guys need to serve right where they are first and worry about the call second. I have seen few folks through the years who were simply walking with Jesus everyday being faithful to what was in front of them who didn’t get the call when Jesus rang.
One comment

What's the point of being a Christian?

It seems to me that we as Christians (yes, even evangelical Christians) all too often lose sight not only the point of being a Christian, but of what it means to be a Christian. There appears to be two (at least) ruts we manage to fall into on either side of the proverbial road. On the one hand is the hardcore evangelical thinking that it's all about salvation in terms of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (I'm not saying it isn't). So in this rut the point is to get people converted, and then to begin the process of doing Christian things (usually reading the Bible, praying, worshipping, serving, and evangelizing--all good things!). On the other hand is the thinking in much of the emergent church movement in which the greatest emphases seem to vary between extravagant worship and righting social injustice (also good things!). The depth of the ruts come when, in the first, being a Christian means you experience a conversion to Christ and then set about merely doing Christian things; and in the second, when being a Christian becomes merely about your social activity and Christ becomes optional. In brief, I suppose, one could describe the ruts as the tradtional "faith" vs. "works," however each involves faith and works, but in different spheres.
Now, I have often heard that the solution to avoiding the ruts is to find a balance of each: you know, equal portions of faith and works. I'm not so sure that's been working for us. It seems that we as a people keep finding ourselves in one rut or another (or am I the only one who sees an uncanny resemblance to the emphasis on social justice today and the social gospel of the early 20th century? Or the intellectualized gospel of much Reformed theology today and Medieval scholasticism?).
Instead, I think we need to focus on the road itself to avoid the ruts. Jesus called Himself the road (well, ok, the "way"), so it seems logical to focus on Him, eh? But often focusing on Christ simply becomes learning about Jesus, or at best exploring and deepening our relationship with Him as Lord, Master, Teacher, Guide, etc. These are all legitimate expressions of our relationship with Christ, but fail to hit at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.
Our relationship with Christ as Christians is more than an external relationship. 1 Cor 6:17 says that the one who joins himself to the Lord becomes one [spirit] with Him. There is a union of the believer's spirit with the Spirit of God which creates an essential transformation in the life of the believer. A Christian is truly crucified with Christ and lives in a true (not merely symbolic) life with Christ (Gal 2:20). This is what (at least one thing) Paul means when he talks about Christians being "in Christ."
In my experience, far too many Christians are unaware that the point of being a Christian is not just to be saved from our sins, or to be with God in heaven when we die, or to have a constant companion and guide here on earth: it is to walk in communion with God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is to experience a oneness with God in Christ that transforms us from the inside-out. This model of Christianity thus includes both ruts, but by spanning them rather than dividing time and energy between them. To view "being a Christian" as communion with God in Christ incorporates conversion, faith, and the spiritual disciplines as well as the outward expression of our union with God through acts of service, love, and justice. The danger of reducing Christianity to a dead "faith" or a Christ-less social justice is reduced, because the focus is on walking by faith through the Spirit with a living and active Lord, who leads and moves us toward loving action of others.

How Much is Sola Really Sola in Relation to Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura, well know among the other sola slogans of the Protestant Reformation, is a bit of an awkward proposition if taken completely literally. If taken in this way, the teaching might seem to imply that scripture is the exclusive material for all things Christian. To translate such a view into spirituality and theology could mean for the church that all worship should be taken directly from scriptural passages and all theological reflection should express itself in a string of scriptural quotations. Such a reductionistic and wooden view of sola scripture was in fact never embraced by Luther or Calvin, who were quite comfortable drawing on the ancient ecumenical consensus of the churches in the east and the west. They certainly disagreed on the level to which ancient traditions should be integrated into the life of the church (Luther more accepting of them than Calvin), but both were certainly not ready to start anew with only the scriptures in mind. That is what set them apart from the more radical figures of the reformation era: they were trying to reform something that already existed not strip away the greater part to restore some primitive ecclesial reality. For this reason their understanding of sola scriptura needs to be articulated very carefully.

The term sola is an adjective in Latin for: “only, single, alone, or unique.” Of these meanings I would like to suggest that “unique” captures best the thrust of Luther and Calvin’s use of the term. Scripture is a unique authority for Christians, holding the primary though not exclusive place in the life of faith. Many of the traditions passed down from the early church (e.g., the ecumenical creeds) were of enduring value for Luther and Calvin, who were attentive to the Christological and Trinitarian language of Nicaea and Chalcedon. With this in mind, Luther and Calvin were able to maintain some sense of continuity with the ancient churches while at the same time critique other historical developments in the traditions of the western church. If this element of continuity is not taken into account then the critiques remain of figures like Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) and Matthias Scheeben (1835–1888) that Protestant biblical interpretation is susceptible to arbitrary and infinitely individualistic judgments. After all, if scripture alone as interpreted by each Christian (apart from any historical awareness of what the church has taught and lived out over time) is to result in the fullness of understanding of God’s revelation for humanity then how can one account for the multiplicity of interpretations of what the biblical texts mean? It seems to me that one needs to admit that the consensus reached by the majority of Christians throughout church history is relevant to one’s reading of scripture. This is to say nothing of the Spirit’s work in guiding the church throughout history.

To return to my initial question: how much is sola really sola in relation to scriptura? I am inclined to say that it is sola up to the point of implying uniqueness and primacy. The scripture is a sure and reliable source for Christians. It holds an irreplaceable place of authority in the Christian community. It cannot be read in a vacuum however by hermeneutically neutral interpreters, therefore awareness of the ancient ecumenical heritage of the churches as well as reliance on the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit are necessary means to transcends the limits of individualism and sectarianism.

Posted by Jacob, who regularly blogs at Inter Christianos.