Saturday, June 30, 2007

Edwards on the Trinity

When we speak of God's happiness, the account that we are wont to give of it is that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, his own essence and perfections. And accordingly it must be supposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view. And from hence arises a most pure and perfect energy in the Godhead, which is the divine love, complacence (read satisfaction or contentment) and joy. Edwards, Works v21, Writings on the Trinity, Grace and Faith, Yale. p113


Some helpful notations:
1. God eternally and infinitely enjoys Himself.

2. God's "most perfect idea of Himself" which is an "exact image and representation of himself" and which He constantly has his eyes on is the Son.

or - God's most perfect idea of himself = His exact image and representation of Himself = the Son.

3. The "perfect energy" which unites God's perfect idea of Himself to Him is the divine love, contentment and joy which is the Holy Spirit.

or - The perfect energy uniting Father and Son = divine love = the Holy Spirit

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Golden iPhone - Copper Will Do.

Apple's iPhone is scheduled to release on June 29th. You can watch the promo video here.

Susheel Daswani, attorney in San Francisco, makes no qualms about it,
"I've always had a huge case of gear lust for the iPhone. If I don't get one...Friday, I'll be utterly disappointed" (USA Today, June 25, 2007, 4B).

Gear lust. Utter disappointment. Unfortunately, I was there at one time. Maybe not utter disappointment, but the mindset was there. However, do in large part to God's using this man, I now have an internal war over lusting for other things more that I lust for fellowship with the Trinity and how that relationship actually plays out in my love for others over my love for gadgets.

God gives us money not so we can pound it into golden idols, but so we can use it as a means to being utterly delighted in Him in our God-lust and other's being gifted with a God-lust. By God's grace copper will do!

If you want learn what it means to have a pilgrim mindset with a war-time lifestyle. Go here and bathe in the gold of God's perspective on the almightly dollar. Below is one excerpt of the resources therein.

Lavish Giving, Loving Guests, Living Christ

Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Romans 12:13

How do you live when you know and feel that the mercy of God, obtained by the death of his Son, is the source of your life past, present, and future? That’s the question Romans 12 answers. Notice verse 1 again: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice . . .” I appeal to you therefore. “Therefore”—on the basis of everything I have shown you in chapters 1-11 about God’s wrath and mercy, about Christ’s deity and death and resurrection and reign and intercession for you, about the Holy Spirit poured out with love into your hearts, about justification by faith alone and how we are counted righteous because of one man’s obedience, about the sovereign power of God that governs the universe and works all things together for your good and will never let anything separate you from the love of Christ—therefore, because of these mercies, give your body to God and live like this.

Romans 12 is a description of how we live when we know and feel the truth that we deserve nothing but misery forever, but instead, because of Christ, we have the promise that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing to glory that will be revealed to us (Romans 8:18). Romans 12 is the way you live when you have been broken because of your sin—when you have said with the apostle Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)—and then, after being broken, you have discovered that in Christ God is for you and not against you, and that neither tribulation, nor distress, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor danger, nor sword can separate you from the love of Christ and from everlasting joy. Romans 12 is how you live when you know this Christ-bought, broken-hearted joy.

The Issue of How to Handle Our Money and Possessions

One of the great issues of life facing Christians in every age, and especially in times and places of great prosperity (like 21st century America) is how to think about and feel about and handle our money and our possessions. For Jesus this was simply huge. He spoke about it over and over again. He gave promises and warnings and commandments. He rebuked people bent on bigger and bigger barns for the sake of their ease. He told stories and parables. By hoarding possessions, he said, you can perish, and by giving them you can lay up treasures in heaven. How we handle our money and possessions is the barometer of how we trust God and treasure Christ. Where you treasure is, there will your heart be also.

How Crucial Are Giving and Hospitality?

Is it really that crucial? Is it near the center of life in Christ—giving to the needs of the saints and welcoming people into your home as v. 13 says?

Randy Alcorn says so well, “God prospers me not to raise my standard of living, but to raise my standard of giving” [The Treasure Principle (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah, 2001], 71).

In answer to the first question: yes, giving lavishly and loving guests is near the heart of what it means to walk as a Christian. I appeal to you by the mercies of God, give generously and open your homes to the saints.

What Prevents Giving and Hospitality?

What stands in the way for us to do better at giving and at hospitality?

Four reasons we don’t give as we ought:

  1. Obliviousness. For whatever reason, you may have never even thought about giving away your money regularly. It never occurred to you that this is part of worship (verse 1). The height of virtue for you is, “Thou shalt not steal.” Good start. But now God is calling you to hear the New Testament command. Not just: Don’t take what’s not yours, but give what is yours. “Contribute to the needs of the saints.” “Let him who contributes do so generously.” Don’t be oblivious anymore.
  2. Carelessness. Perhaps we are not oblivious. We know this is what people who love Christ do. But we just never seem to get around to planning how much and when and where to give. Things just slide. God has appointed this message to bring you to a critical new place in your walk with him this week. Don’t be careless. Be thoughtful. Be intentional.
  3. Greed—the desire to keep more than we need. The spirit of greed groans when it gives. It thinks of all the things we could buy if we didn’t give. The biblical alternative to this is not disciplined groaning. The alternative is a new heart and the joy of being free from the bondage of greed. It’s the glad experience that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). Don’t live in the bondage of greed. Be free.
  4. Fear that we won’t have what we need. Fear is the flip side of greed. Greed focuses on what we don’t have but would like to have. Fear focuses on the consequences of not having what we need to have. The answer to greed is the pleasure of Christ’s presence. The answer to fear is the certainty of Christ’s promise. Don’t live in fear. Be satisfied with Christ, and trust his promises.

How Do We Break Free in Order to Give Lavishly and to Open Our Homes?

The point of God’s providence is the point of his promises: trust me, and go beyond in ministry and in giving what you think you can.

What Are the Rewards or Giving Lavishly and Opening Our Homes?

Finally, our fourth question: what are the rewards if we trust God’s promises, give lavishly, and open our homes to each other and the needy?

  1. The suffering of the saints will be relieved or at least diminished. That is what verse 12 means when it says, “Contribute to the needs of the saints.” We lift a burden. We relieve stress. We give hope. And that’s a reward!
  2. The glory of God is displayed. Matthew 5:16 “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Lavish giving and open homes display the glory and the goodness and the worth of God in your life. The reason God gives us money and homes is so that by the way we use them people can see they are not our God. But God is our God. And our treasure.
  3. More thanksgiving to God is unleashed. 2 Corinthians 9:12, “The ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God.” God has given us money and homes not just so that we are thankful, but by our generosity and hospitality to make many people thankful to God.
  4. Our love for God and his love in us is confirmed. 1 John 3:17, “If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?” In other words, when we give generously and open our homes, the love of God is confirmed in our lives. We are real. We are not phony Christians.
  5. Finally, we lay up treasure in heaven. Luke 12:33-34. “Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail. . . . For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

$5 Piper Books

Every book in our store will be $5 on June 27-28, Wednesday and Thursday next week. No limits, so spread the word.

Abraham Piper, Desiring God blog

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Was Jonathan Edwards Promoting an Emergent Culture?

Though there may be some ends of particular works of providence that were not the last end of the creation, which are in themselves grateful (read, pleasing) to God in such particular emergent circumstances, and so are last ends in an inferior sense; yet this is only in certain cases or particular occasions.

This is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards's Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World, Introduction, eighth general position.

In the eighth position Edwards is arguing that the "ultimate end...of [God's] works of providence must be the ultimate end of...creation." Edwards' definition of providence is God's putting His creation, especially the "moral world" (read, humans) to use toward His highest end in the world, that end being the "emanation and remanation" or, knowing and delighting (not two things) God and expressing it back to God praise.

"The end of God's main works of Providence towards moral beings, or the main use to which he puts them, shews the main end for which he has made the whole world" (Section II, Chapter II, Position 6).

Edwards's metanarrative for the End for Which God Created the World is,

God's respect to the creature's good, and his respect to himself, is not a divided respect; but both are united in one, as the happiness of the creature aimed at is happiness in union with himself. The creature is no further happy with this happiness which God makes his ultimate end, that he becomes one with God. The more happiness the greater union: when happiness is perfect, the union is perfect (Section 7).

Or, in an abbreviated form, GOD aims that His children glorify Him by delighting in Him as He delights in Himself. "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" (John Piper).

?Where does the Emergent Church come into this? (Note: I am not addressing the Emerging Church or Missional movement in this post. There are differences in the three, especially Missional from the other two.)

The postmodern* mindset, to which the Emergent Church movement tailor their propositionless "conversation", is incredulous to metanarrative (i.e. an overarching story to explain all knowledge and experience). Postmoderns* along with the Emergent Church deconstruct propositions, beliefs, overarching stories, etc. into more palpable minor narratives that aren't so "restrictive and suppressive".

Clearly, incredulity to metanarrative is incredulous to Jonathan Edwards. The story of God's glory is the bettametanarrative (read, better - should be "best" but it wasn't as phonetically pleasing) by which all other minanarratives (minor) should be understood and held in place.

Edwards, Emergent? No!

*if there is such a thing as "postmodern". See here and here.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death?

Short Review and Response to Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness.
Disclaimer: I do not want this to come across as if I think I have all the answers or that the effects or solutions I see and posit are all inclusive. I do hope it spurs on your thought in regards to being a good steward with TV.

In the form of a response to Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, I would like to: 1) state the problem as postulated by Postman; 2) apply it to Evangelicalism during television's brief 20th century setting by showing some of the effects of TV epistemology on our seminaries, churches and missions agencies; and, 3) give four potential solutions.

The Problem. Neil Postman, with sharp discernment, posits that the television as a
“major new medium changes the structure of discourse; it does so by encouraging certain uses of the intellect, by favoring certain definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding a certain kind of content – in a phrase, by creating new forms of truth-telling” (27).

Formerly, the structure of discourse in the American culture was dominated by print. Under the influence of typography,
“public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, orderly arrangement of facts and ideas…which revealed the world…to be a serious, coherent place, capable of management by reason, and of improvement by logical and relevant criticism” (51, 62).

However, “as typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes it place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines” (29).

Application to Evangelicalism. Neil Postman’s juxtaposition of the typographic mind and television-based epistemology can be applied to evangelicalism by way of seminaries, preaching, the laity and missions agencies.

God has revealed Himself through Christ and a Book, the Bible. Thus Christians should be the most highly adept readers possible, able to develop thoughts, track proposition on proposition, focus intently on a text, and clearly and accurately articulate positions as a reflection of their love for the Text-Giver. The Age of Show Business with its easy access entertainment, context-free environment and amusement driven come-back-for-more TV ideology has devoured the Age of Exposition which had a
“sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially; high valuation of reason and order; abhorrence of contradiction; capacity for detachment and objectivity; and tolerance for delayed response” (63).

“Television’s way of knowing is uncompromisingly hostile to typography’s way of knowing; its conversations produce incoherence and triviality; the phrase “serious television” is a contradiction in terms, and television speaks only in one persistent voice – the voice of entertainment” (80).

How has t
elevision-based epistemology affected the seminaries, churches and missions agencies? (in no particular order)
  1. A decreased ability to focus intently for sustained periods of time and demand from ourselves rigorous attention to the study of the Word and the preaching/teaching of the Word .
  2. A decreased ability to intelligently read, question, ascertain meaning, demand academic work from a text or a sermon/presentation.
  3. The evaluation of methods by means of their visual excellence rather than their God honoring accuracy.
  4. Aesthetic value is elevated over biblical accuracy.
  5. Acceptance of what is biblically profane as commonplace.
  6. Instant access and the remote control have elevated autonomy over the denial of assumed personal rights and living in community.
  7. Comfort elevated over conviction due to the ability to control the output of “the tube”.
  8. Humor esteemed of greater value to the soul than serious reflection and conviction over sin.
  9. Felt needs esteemed over real needs the Text says one has but does not feel due to the blinding effects of the sin nature (i.e. conviction and godly shame for sin, fear of God, trembling in His presence).
  10. The weighty things of God (gravitas) traded in for levity (levitas) due to the value of humor and entertainment on television.
  11. Affluence prized over modest living.
  12. Polished professionalism prized over servant hearted work in the trenches.
  13. Sermons become commercials (Sermercials) built to address “the psychological needs of the viewer” (130).
  14. Uncritical acceptance of ideas.
  15. Pastor/teachers become celebrities (a cult of personality can happen without the TV).
  16. The emptying of substance for the sake of image.
  17. A decreased ability to retain information or memorize.
  18. Emotionalism becomes commonplace over a consistency and balance of the heart’s affection and the mind’s attention.
  19. Topical sermons mirror television as a “non-graded curriculum” which “excludes no viewer for any reason, at any time” (147) and do not push one to in-depth study due to a non-hierarchical, non-systematic bias doing away with systematic and biblical theologies.
  20. Because on television “perplexity is a superhighway to low ratings”, (147) and “contentment, not the growth of the learner is paramount” (148) so churches can become comfort driven rather Gospel-driven.
Four Potential Solutions.
First, we must foster environments in seminaries, churches and missions agencies which are open to dialogue and serious thought over the effects of television-based epistemology.

Second, we must recover the Text by rigorous exposition aimed at conforming the heart and mind, which shows itself in joyful obedience to God (which is faith). This may force us to preach with notes as we attempt to develop Text-driven sermons and classes, built proposition by proposition through determined study.

Third, help people to set stewardly parameters on their consumption of television.

Fourth, if we televise our services we should ask “What is accurate to the text as God honoring?” rather than, “What is best for television?”

Below I have provided some links that you may find interesting.
  • You can attend church online - totally autonomous.
  • But, if it's too autonomous, you can join an after service chat room.
  • You donate to the online offering plate.
  • Check out how these two churches are promoting their series on Desperate Households and mylamesexlife.com

Theology, Unity and Inner-Trinitarian Unity-Reflection



The Question:

For all the good that Continental Pietism did to nourish the spiritual lives of millions of Christians in Europe, it did downplay the need for doctrinal precision. In your view is this lack of an emphasis on theology for the sake of unity within the church healthy for a church or denomination over a long period of time? Why or why not?

My Answer:

Where an emphasis on theology does not exist, true unity, one will not find. Let me explain.

Theology: the humble, joyful submission to the Word of God in practice and in theory - worship with head and heart, affections and intellect. All learning is for lauding. Theology is a commitment to studying about the Triune God to apply His truths in order that the believer increasingly die to sin, live to righteousness, care for the saints, and to ultimately develop faith, hope and love for the Triune God.

Unity: the act of reflecting the inner-Trinitarian fellowship. Unity is the eager communion of the saints by the Spirit in the bond of peace in Christ as the Spirit enables the believer to fellowship with one another and the Trinity. The inner-Trinitarian fellowship, which the unity of the saints with Christ and each other reflects, is the intimate, open, submissive love which eternally radiates among the persons of the Trinity.

True Trinitarian unity-reflection only happens in a community which is beautifully and joyfully submitting itself to the Word of God (this is worship which is the purpose of theology), in order that the institutions - which God has erected to reflect His inner-Trinitarian unity - would submit themselves to Christ as Head of the Church and thus, show off His love for Himself.

Thus, theology and unity are inseparable because both are inseparable in their purpose - knowing and loving the Trinity to reflect His beauty back to Him.

Remove either one, theology or unity, and you never produce or maintain the other. They go hand in hand in their purpose.

Is the lack of theology for the sake of unity unhealthy? It's impossible. You can't produce beautiful Trinitarian-reflecting unity where worshipful Trinitarian-knowing theology doesn't exist and vice, versa.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Abort 73 - Help Stop Infant Homicide



Abort73.com exists to cut through the skewed rhetoric of a broadly “pro-choice” culture by presenting young people with the conclusive evidence that abortion is a massive injustice, one which has and continues to systematically destroy the most innocent and helpless members of
the human race.

Abort73.com further exists as a gateway into the more fundamental questions of human existance. Where does human life come from? From whence does evil emerge? What is the meaning of life?


ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS

  • In 2002, approximately 1.29 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

  • In 2001, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in NYC (91,792), Florida (85,589), and Texas (77,409); the fewest occurred in Idaho (738), South Dakota (895), and North Dakota (1,216) (CDC).

  • There are 36 abortions per 1,000 live births in Idaho and 767 abortions for every 1,000 live births in NYC (CDC).

  • Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (CDC).

  • In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).

  • The abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).

  • The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1973 to 358 abortions per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981. The ratio peaked at 364 abortions per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline. In 2001, the abortion ratio was 246 abortions per 1,000 live births (for the states that reported, a 0.4% increase from 2000 (CDC).

  • 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 40% of these are terminated by abortion (AGI).

Thursday, June 21, 2007

All Books at Desiring God $5

Every book in our store will be $5 on June 27-28, Wednesday and Thursday next week.
No limits, so spread the word.

Abraham Piper, Desiring God blog

Do You Suffer From Teenage Affluenza

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Prayer for My Wife, Christina

Please be in prayer for my wife, Christina. She is ten (10) weeks pregnant with our third and has been nauseated pretty much non-stop. She doesn't just have morning sickness, it's all-the-time sickness.

Please pray that God would cause her nausea to subside and, should He choose that it continue, that He would give grace for her to rejoice in the Lord all the while.

Thank you very much.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Book Review - Created in God's Image

Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. 264 pp. $22.00
The fact is widely held that an artist’s work reflects much of the personality and make-up of the artist – the experiences, heritage, struggles, emotions, beliefs and so on. Surrealist sculptors and painters Salvador Dali and Joan Miro’s incessant desire for autonomy, liberation and revolution was reflected in their various cross usage and experimentation of medias.[1] The same producer/product reflection-relationship can be said for architects, authors, scientists and scholars. However, can one posit this same creator/product relationship to the Creator of the universe? Is it even proper to attribute this distinction to God? If so, what are the boundaries of this relationship? What is the nature of this relationship? Primarily, does the Bible have anything to say about the creature’s reflection of its Creator?

Created in God’s Image is Anthony Hoekema’s systematic attempt to answer some of these long pondered questions through a survey of biblical and historical information “about the nature and destiny of human beings” (ix); what is formally known as the doctrine of anthropology. From a Reformed perspective, Hoekema aims to

Present the image of God as having both a structural and a functional aspect, as involving man in his threefold relationship—to God, to others, and to nature—and as going through four stages—the original image, the perverted image, the
renewed image, and the perfected image (ix).

To his three goals we now turn.

In his theological summary of the image of God, Hoekema argues that,
The image of God in man must therefore be seen as involving both the structure of man (his gifts, capacities, and endowments) and the functioning of man
(his actions, his relationships to God and to others, and the ways he uses
his gifts) (73).

To be included in the structural aspects by which “man is like God, and therefore images him” are his rationality, moral sensitivity, conscience, capacity for worship, responsibility, volition, aesthetic sense, and others (70-71). These capacities which “enable man to function as he should in his various relationships” (70-71) “have not been lost” (10) post-fall, but have been retained according to Hoekema (72). On the other hand, man lost the image of God in the functional sense (72). This aspect of the image of God consists of “true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” (71). In this sense the image of God “means man’s proper functioning in harmony with God’s will for him” (72). From the perspective of the God-given gifts (structural or broader sense) and purposes of those gifts (functional or narrower sense) the heinousness of sin can be seen “by the fact that man is now using God-given and God-imaging powers and gifts to do things that are an affront to his Maker” (72). Pre-fall both the structural and functional aspects were in harmony in man to glorify God in his threefold relationship.

From Genesis 1:26-27, Hoekema contends that “God has placed man into a threefold relationship: between man and God, between man and his fellowmen, and between man and nature” (75). As the perfect image of God, Jesus was in perfect functional peace in this threefold relationship, and likewise, so should man. The primary relationship for man as a “created person” (5) is with his Creator, and all of his “other relationships are to be seen as dominated and regulated by this one” (75). The second relationship given by God to man is his relationship to his fellowman. This relationship is to be used to glorify God by not viewing “gifts and talents as an avenue for personal aggrandizement, but as a means whereby he or she can enrich the lives of others…through acceptance and love” (78). The final aspect of man’s threefold relationship is his rulership over nature. This cultural mandate is “the command to develop a God-glorifying culture” (79); “to cultivate and care for that portion of the earth in which [man] is placed” (80). Hoekema believes that “the proper functioning of the image of God is to be channeled” (81) through this threefold relationship and that by looking at the four stages of humanity one can arrive at a more robust biblical view of the image of God.

The four stages of the image of God are: the original image, the perverted image; the renewed image and the perfected image. Briefly, the original image is in the pre-fall environment where the threefold relationship and functional and structural aspects all functioned properly. The perverted image is the situation post-fall into sin, where “the image of god was not annihilated but perverted” (83) in the sense that the structural sense remained but the functional sense changed from using his gifts and capacities for doing God’s will to fulfilling his own fleshly desires. The renewed image is the “restoration of the image [that] takes place in the redemptive process” (85) of sanctification. Finally, the perfected image is the glorious state of the image of God which is not a return to the original image but a moving beyond it into a situation where man is not only able not to sin (posse non peccare), and able not to die (posse non mori) but also not able to sin (non posse peccare) and not able to die (non posse mori) (92). Alongside these three stated purposes, Hoekema provides several worth while views.

Even though Hoekema is writing well within the Reformed tradition, he does hold to a modified view to said position in regards to the covenant of works. Standing with a few more recent Reformed theologians such as, G. C. Berkouwer, John Murray and Herman Hoeksema, he shares “their conviction that we ought not to call the arrangement God made with Adam and Eve before the Fall a ‘covenant of works’ (119). Among the classical Reformed theologians Hoekema confronts are Herman Bavinck[2] and William Shedd[3] to name two. Another not mentioned is Stephen Charnock.[4] One final Reformed theologian holding to a covenant of works with whom Hoekema did not interact due to his passing is Wayne Grudem.[5] Grudem actually deals with all four of Hoekema’s objections giving sufficient answers to affirm that in some sense the covenant of works is still in force and in others it is not. The ways in which he claims the covenant of works as still functioning are: 1) If one perfectly obeyed the law, then as Paul implies in Rom. 7:10; 10:5 and Gal 3:12, then he would have eternal life; 2) The punishment of death for breaking the covenant is still binding; and, 3) Christ perfectly fulfilled the covenant of works in our place. The sense in which the covenant of works is not binding are: 1) We do not have the law to refrain from eating of the tree in the Garden from which Adam and Eve ate; 2) Due to the sin nature which has been imputed to us from Adam, we no longer have the ability to meet the requirements of the covenant and thus, benefit from its blessings, we only get its punishments; and 3) “Christians have been freed from the covenant of works by virtue of Christ’s work and their inclusion in the new covenant, the covenant of grace.”[6] Now we shall turn to two objections dealing with what Hoekema terms as the “heart of the image of God” (22).

On pages 29, 57, and 73 he makes statements exact or similar to his statement on page 22, “the heart of the image of God is love. For no man ever loved as Christ loved.” Objection 1: The claim that the heart of the image of God is love goes against the doctrine of divine simplicity. By claiming that the heart of the image of God is love, Hoekema violates aseity because it pares the divine attributes. God is identical to His attributes and His nature, thus His existence. By elevating love he has a normative attribute. Why elevate love as a normative attribute, why not holiness or justice or righteousness? Perhaps a good starting place would be at God’s aseity. It imposes no methodological problem because any doctrine of God rightly starts with God’s self-existence. If talking of the heart of the image of God as an attribute then start where Van Til does, “First and foremost among the attributes, we therefore mention the independence or self-existence of God” and, “we must take the notion of the self-contained, self-sufficient God as the most basic notion of all our interpretive efforts.”[7] It may be interesting to see where this approach would lead. This brings us to the second objection.

Objection 2: Jesus himself made statements about His other attributes as well, not just love as the central understanding of the heart of God. Speaking as the perfect reflection or exact representation of the image of God, Jesus calls himself the “light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5); “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). As judge, Jesus says He “came to cast fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49). In Revelation, He says He will stand as judge holding the world in trial (Rev. 3:10). There are other arguments but these should suffice for now as we move to the book’s impact on the field and its readers.

Created in God’s Image is a God-centered breath of fresh air in a narcissist society emitting deadly carbon monoxide for the soul. Hoekema has offered a highly laudable theological anthropology which has spanned the gambit of the field of study. He has rightly connected the historico-redemptive hermeneutic approach to the imago Dei. God’s redemptive plan and the presence of the imago Dei are no coincidence. Were Hoekema writing today, after multiplied critiques of the destructive integration of psychology with Christian theology, perhaps he would not have added their perspectives (204-05). That said, the critique is minor.

Readers are presented with a straight forward, balanced view of the Reformed tradition on the doctrine of man. The work is highly assessable due to Hoekema’s nimble perspicuity as he dissects biblically and historically the doctrines at hand. There is much spiritual value prompting the reader’s introspection over the heinousness of their sin in using the gifts of God for idolatrous purposes. Hoekema writes with spirited command over his topics of interest. I found myself amening the bulk of his work.


FOOTNOTES

[1] Wikipedia, last updated November 15, 2006, "Joan Miro," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3#_ref-0/ (accessed November 15, 2006).

[2] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, God and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 560-88.

[3] William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003), 479, 535-37.

[4] Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 250-51, 253.

[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 516-18.

[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 518.

[7] John M. Frame, Divine Aseity and Apologetics (Reformed Theological Seminary, Prof. of Systematic Theology and Philosophy), 4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt, trans. John Vriend. God and Creation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

Frame, John M. Divine Aseity and Apologetics. Reformed Theological Seminary, Prof. of Systematic Theology and Philosophy.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003.

Wikipedia. "Joan Miro." last updated November 15, 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Mir%C3%B3#_ref-0/ (accessed November 15, 2006).

Monday, June 18, 2007

Fathers and The Father

Two Questions:

1. What are the biggest differences you see between being a man who is a father and a man who has children?

2. Is it necessary for a father to have God as his Father to fulfill his God ordained role?

The assumption in Q1 is that a father is not simply a man who can have children, but a man who takes care of his children in some higher sense than a man who simply procreates and leaves his child(ren) to be cared for by someone else.

Friday, June 15, 2007

6 Rules for Ethical Islamic Jihad

The Guidebook for Taking a Life (This article modified from the "New York Times")


Rule 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt.


The Koran, as translated by the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association’s Compendium of Muslim Texts, generally prohibits the slaying of innocents, as in Verse 33 in Chapter 17 (Isra’, The Night Journey, Children of Israel): “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause.”

But the Koran also orders Muslims to resist oppression, as verses 190 and 191 of Chapter 2 (The Cow) instruct: “Fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. ...”

In the typical car bombing, some Islamists say, God will identify those who deserve to die — for example, anyone helping the enemy — and send them to hell. The other victims will go to paradise. “The innocent who is hurt, he won’t suffer,” Dr. Massari says. “He becomes a martyr himself.”

There is one gray area. If you are a Muslim who has sinned, getting killed by a suicide bomber will clean some of your slate for Judgment Day, but precisely where God draws the line between those who go to heaven or hell is not spelled out.

Rule 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress.

True, Islamic texts say it is unlawful to kill children, women, the old and the infirm. In the Sahih Bukhari, a respected collection of sermons and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, verse 4:52:257 refers to Ghazawat, a battle in which Muhammad took part. “Narrated Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.”

But militant Islamists including extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda’s ideology teach recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits as martyrs receive.

Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.

Rule 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.

In principle, nonfighters cannot be targeted in a militant operation, Islamist scholars say. But the list of exceptions is long and growing.

Civilians can be killed in retribution for an enemy attack on Muslim civilians, argue some scholars like the Saudi cleric Abdullah bin Nasser al-Rashid, whose writings and those of other prominent Islamic scholars have been analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center, a research group at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Shakir al-Abssi, whose Qaeda-minded group, Fatah Al Islam, has been fighting Lebanese soldiers since May 20, says some government officials are fair game. He was sentenced to death in Jordan for helping to organize the slaying of the American diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002, and said in an interview with The New York Times that while he did not specifically choose Mr. Foley to be killed, “Any person that comes to our region with a military, security or political aim, then he is a legitimate target.”

Others like Atilla Ahmet, a 42-year-old Briton of Cypriot descent who is awaiting trial in England on terrorism charges, take a broader view. “It would be legitimate to attack banks because they charge interest, and this is in violation of Islamic law,” Mr. Ahmet said last year.

Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there.

Militants living in a country that respects the rights of Muslims have something like a peace contract with the country, says Omar Bakri, a radical sheik who moved from London to Lebanon two years ago under pressure from British authorities.


Militants who go to Iraq get a pass as expeditionary warriors. And the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not violate this rule since the hijackers came from outside the United States, Mr. Bakri said.
“When I heard about the London bombings, I prayed that no bombers from Britain were involved,” he said, fearing immigrants were responsible. As it turned out, the July 7, 2005, attack largely complied with this rule. Three of the four men who set off the bombs had been born in Britain; the fourth moved there from Jamaica as an infant.

Mr. Bakri says he does not condone violence against innocent people anywhere. But some of the several hundred young men who studied Islam with him say they have no such qualms.
“We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for
Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target,” says Khalid Kelly, an Irish-born Islamic convert who says he studied with Mr. Bakri in London.

Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.


Muslims are instructed by the Koran to be true to their religion. “Therefore stand firm (in the straight Path) as thou art commanded, thou and those who with thee turn (unto Allah), and transgress not (from the Path), for He seeth well all that you do,” says verse 112 of Chapter 11 (Hud). Lying is allowed only when it is deemed a necessity, for example when being tortured, or when an innocuous deception serves a good purpose, scholars say.

But some militants appear to shirk this rule to blend in with non-Muslim surroundings or deflect suspicion, says Maj. Gen. Achraf Rifi, the general director of Lebanon’s internal security force who oversaw a surveillance last year of a Lebanese man suspected of plotting to blow up the PATH train under the Hudson River.

“We thought the story couldn’t be true, especially when we followed this young man,” General Rifi said. “He was going out, drinking, chasing girls, drove a red MG.” But he says the man, who is now awaiting trial in Lebanon, confessed, and Mr. Rifi recalled that the Sept. 11 hijacker who came from Lebanon frequented discos in Beirut.

Mr. Voll takes a different view of the playboy-turned-militant phenomenon. He says the Sept. 11 hijackers might simply have been “guys who enjoyed a good drink” and that militant leaders may be seeking to do a “post facto scrubbing up of their image” by portraying sins as a ruse.

Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent.

Militant Islamists interpret the Koran and the separate teachings of Muhammad that are known as the Sunna as laying out five criteria to be met by people wanting to be jihadis. They must be Muslim, at least 15 and mature, of sound mind, debt free and have parental permission.
The parental rule is currently waived inside Iraq, where Islamists say it is every Muslim’s duty to fight the Americans, Dr. Massari says. It is optional for residents of nearby countries, like Jordan.

In Zarqa, Jordan, the 24-year-old Abu Ibrahim says he is waiting for another chance to be a jihadi after Syrian officials caught him in the fall heading to Iraq. He is taking the parental rule one step further, he said. His family is arranging for him to marry, and he feels obligated to disclose his jihad plans to any potential bride.

“I will inform my future wife of course about my plans, and I hope that, God willing, she might join me,” he said.


This brings to mind several verses:


We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. 2 Corinthians 1:8-9


Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. Colossians 1:24


But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. Hebrews 10:32-36


For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. Romans 8:18

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God. 2 Timothy 1:8

Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 2:3

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day
long;we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:35-39

10 Principles to Combat Christian Jihad in Worship

Worship that Pleases God (Pss. 92-98)
Sam Storms

I don’t know about you, but I’m weary of the worship wars that have wreaked havoc in so many churches. It’s sad to look back over the past twenty-five years or so at the damage and division that have resulted from this internecine conflict. Should we use traditional hymns or contemporary songs? Which do you prefer, a robed choir or praise team? Baldwin piano or acoustical guitar? Liberty or liturgy? Standing or sitting? Formal or free? Long or short? Hands raised or at your side? Solemnity or celebration?

As much as I may wish otherwise, I suspect the battle will continue. No, I don’t have a solution for a cease-fire or a remedy that will make everyone happy. But perhaps a start would be for us to return to the biblical text to determine, not what makes us feel comfortable, but what it is in worship that pleases God.

As I was reading through Psalms 92-98 I couldn’t help but notice the exhortations and counsel concerning how and why and to what end we are to worship. So, without further ado, look with me at ten truths or principles that we need to keep in mind when we worship and as we try to draw the near the throne of grace in a way that will honor and exalt the name of Jesus.

1. Worship that pleases God is perpetual and constant.

It is always and ever appropriate. The psalmist resolves “to declare your steadfast love in the morning, and your faithfulness by night” (Ps. 92:2). We should never think of worship as something reserved for a Sunday morning, as if there were any hour of any day where it wasn’t the thing to do.

2. Worship that pleases God is instrumental.

The psalmists speak of “the music of the lute and the harp” as well as “the melody of the lyre” (Ps. 92:3) and “trumpets and the sound of the horn” (98:5-6). This isn’t to say that singing a cappella is forbidden or unacceptable to God (far from it), but our Lord does appear to enjoy the loud and harmonious sounds that come from all sorts of instruments. Psalm 150 speaks of “trumpet sound” and “lute and harp” and “tambourine” and “strings and pipe” and “sounding cymbals” and even “loud clashing cymbals” (vv. 3-5).

3. Clearly God delights in joyful worship (92:4; 98:4).

“For you, O Lord, have made me glad by your works; at the works of your hands I sing for joy” (Ps. 92:4). Again, we are to “make a joyful noise to the Lord” and “break forth into joyous song” (Ps. 98:4).

So, I guess there are good grounds for the hymn writer having penned the words, “Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee” rather than “Grumpy, grumpy, we adore thee” or “Somber, somber, we adore Thee”!

4. Worship that pleases God is grounded in the recognition and celebration of his greatness.

Listen again to the psalmist: “How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep!” (Ps. 92:5). Contrary to the blasphemous sentiments of Christopher Hitchens’ recent book (God is not Great), I concur with King David: “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps. 145:3). A great God calls for great praise.

5. Worship that pleases God is both loud and logical.

That may sound a bit strange, but seems reasonable in light of Psalm 95:2 (cf. also Pss. 66:1; 88:1; 98:4-6), for there we are exhorted to “make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise!” Note well that worship here entails noisy songs! There is volume to David’s praise, but not random or chaotic sounds. His noise takes the form of songs, of theologically precise and well-formed articulations of God’s worth and glory and majesty. It is good to know that one can be both exuberant and exact, both passionate and precise, or as I said, both loud and logical. We do not merely shout aimlessly in the air but fashion our delight into melodies of spiritual substance and theological clarity.

6. Worship that pleases God is physical.

In an earlier meditation I focused on the raising of one’s hands and its symbolic importance. Later, in our study of Psalms 149 and 150, we’ll look at the place of dancing. But in Psalm 95:6 we are called to “worship and bow down” and to “kneel before the Lord, our Maker!”

I can’t recall the number of weddings I’ve performed, but one in particular stands out in my memory. The bride was from England, and asked that I use portions of the Anglican ceremony that she had heard so often growing up. At one point the bride and groom take this pledge:

“My body will adore you,
And your body alone will I cherish.
I will, with my body, declare your worth.”

What a beautiful expression of marital affection! So I’ll ask, do you adore and cherish God with your body, no less so than with your mind and heart? Do you declare his worth physically as well as spiritually? Ron Allen put it well:

“We are not simply spirit beings. We are more than hearts or souls or ‘inner beings.’ We are persons possessing an intricate complex of physical and spiritual realities. We who worship God truly with the heart, do so with our physical bodies as well” (132).

7. Worship that pleases God is fresh and creative.

Numerous times in the Psalter we are exhorted not simply to sing a song, nor even to sing a song joyfully, but to sing a new song (see Pss. 96:1; 98:1; as well as 40:3; 149:1; Isaiah 42:10; Revelation 5:9).

I can only surmise that we are to sing new songs because God is always doing new and creative and unprecedented and heretofore unseen and unrevealed things for his people. God is fresh in his love and his redemptive and providential dealings with us, so let our worship of him be fresh as we constantly compose new and exciting songs of praise.

8. Worship that pleases God is public.

Now, no one enjoys private worship more than I do. Whether in my car or on my bed at night or in my study by day, I love to have a continuous flow of worship filling the air. But this should never justify the failure to corporately worship in the presence of all. “Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!” (Ps. 96:3).

9. Worship that pleases God ascribes glory to his name but doesn’t add to it.

Take special note of Psalm 96:7-9 – “Ascribe to the Lord, O families of the peoples, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength! Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come into his courts!”

We should never purport to give God glory as if we were capable of adding to his supply or somehow enhancing and expanding the quantity of divine splendor. God’s glory and worth always have been, are now, and forever will be infinite. Our responsibility, indeed our joyful and delightful privilege, is to ascribe or predicate or declare or make known or display or pronounce what is inherently and eternally true of him.

10. God is especially honored when the whole of creation joins in celebrating his goodness and greatness.

So, “let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult and everything in it! Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord . . .” (Ps. 96:11-13a). And “let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together before the Lord, for he comes to judge the earth” (Ps. 98:8-9a).

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Discerning Reader: A Reader's Resource


For those interested in not wasting your life reading bad books, I have two suggestions (There are numerous many others, but I'm trying to stick with being a good steward of my time. This means I have only two suggestions for now.):

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Book Review - The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views

Beilby, James and Paul R. Eddy. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grover, Il: IVP Academic, 2006. 208 pp. $20.00

Contributors include: Gregory Boyd - Christus Victor; Joel Greene - Kaleidoscope; Bruce Reichenbach - Healing; Thomas Schreiner - Penal Substitution.

Survey says? Within evangelicalism everyone agrees that Christ died to atone for sins. But, take a poll asking what the primary emphasis in Christ’s death was and you are liable to be struck by an errant stone thrown from a radical feminist who blames God for societal child abuse, get weak-kneed under the weight of a party of healing hands determined to free you from your sin-sickness, be whisked off to a Christian séance where the oppressive demons haunting your life are exercised or even given a paint brush and ushered up to a partially lit stage and encouraged to have a canvas conversation narrating which view of the atonement feels best for you at the given time in your given life-stage. All joking aside, while these are extreme positions, they are actual and go to show that theology and practice are wed. One’s view of the atonement is an outworking of, or a solution to his understanding of man’s problem and God’s requirement(s) to be in relation with Him. Is there a view of the atonement that garners biblical precedence over all others? A view by which all others are to be interpreted? A view which answers the historical problem of man and God’s requirement for a relationship with Him in a biblically faithful and foundational way? Or, is the testimony of Scripture equally weighted regarding atonement metaphors? A view that is a situationally-exalted position?

The Nature of the Atonement is a self labeled “panel discussion” attempting to answer some of these long pondered questions through a survey of four views over “the complexities of the Christian view of the atonement” (9). The dialogue flows in a positive-statement, three-rebuttal format. While each contributor affirms multiple shades of useful metaphors in the New Testament, all but one argue for a definitive model which informs the others (21). In the next four paragraphs I will point out from each author’s contribution, his preferential view of: 1) the atonement, 2) the nature of sin and the problem in the fall, and subsequently, 3) how he sees his preferred view of the atonement to be the solution reconciling God and man. To the four views we now turn.

Greg Boyd, arguing for the Christus Victor model, claims that “through the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ, God defeated the devil” (24). He believes that the overarching testimony of Scripture is “accurately described as a story of God’s ongoing conflict with and ultimate victory over cosmic and human agents who oppose him and who threaten his creation” (25). In other words, Boyd thinks that the post-fall cosmic interplay of Satan’s kingdom and God’s kingdom is the explanatory story of history. Sin is an impersonal, human-victimizing force wielded by the cosmic powers; a “quasi-autonomous power that holds people groups as well as individuals in bondage” (29). God’s solution was His Son’s breaking into this long raging “cosmic war” (30) “to destroy the power of sin rescuing us from the cosmic powers that keep us in bondage to sin…this is the essence of the Christus Victor view of the atonement” (29). Jesus “set Satan’s captives free” (30). For Boyd salvation is “most fundamentally about [being] ‘transferred’ out of Satan’s dominion and brought under the reign of God through his son” (32). For these reasons and others “the Christus Victor paradigm…can be described as Satanward in its focus” (12). Next, we turn to the penal substitution view of the atonement.

Tom Schreiner forwards the penal substitution position. He defines it as such:
The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested (67).

Schreiner understands man’s fundamental problem as internal rather than merely external. “We ourselves are radically evil…wrongly related to God himself. Evil powers reign over us because of the evil within us. We are victims to sin because we have failed to glorify and thank God the way we should” (68). The problem in the fall is man’s idolatry or “spiritual adultery” whereby he “[finds] delight in the praise of people instead of seeking the glory of God (Jn 5:44)” (77). Schreiner shows the link between man’s “spiritual harlotry” (77) and the intensity of the problem in the fall by arguing that “(1) lawbreaking is not impersonal, (2) God judges sin retributively, and (3) God is personally angry at sin” (77). From this framework the atonement can be understood “theocentrically and not anthropocentrically” (88). “In the cross of Christ the justice and mercy of God meet. God’s holiness is satisfied by Christ’s bearing the penalty of sin, and God’s saving activity is realized in the lives of those who trust in Christ” (88). The penal substitution theory can be described as Godward in its focus or “objective” – “[understanding] the work of Christ as primarily addressing a necessary demand of God” (14). The healing view by Bruce Reichenbach follows.

In dealing with the nature of sin, the healing view understands man’s problem as a disease from which he suffers which “describes not only [his] spiritual condition but [his] physical, economic, political, social and environmental conditions” (120). Reichenbach admits that “God punishes sin by bringing sickness, devastation and death to person, nation, and land” (122) in the Old Testament, but also emphasizes that “not all suffering results from sin” (123). In order to reconcile “sin-sick” (120) man to Himself, the Great Healer, “God, in love sends the great Physician to take on and remove our sin; otherwise we are left without a cure for our deep human predicament” (138). This solution or healing can be physical and spiritual and here and now, not just eschatological (139). The healing view is known as part of the “subjective trajectory of atonement theories” where the “primary focus…is humanward” (18). The final view is the multifaceted kaleidoscope view.

Joel Green prefers an all-inclusive equally worthy view of the atonement. He favors this approach because of his understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion as so centrally wed to “the means for comprehending the eternal purpose of God” that “we may never exhaust the many ways of articulating its meaning for our salvation” (158). Green argues that “the death of Jesus cannot be understood apart from the powerful social, political and religious currents he set himself against” (163). In this context “his mission…was directed toward revitalizing Israel as the people of God” (163). Green, against my approach of defining each view as to how it deals with sin and the human problem and God’s solution, opts for a view that he claims “cannot be reduced to the relationship of the individual to God, nor an objective moment in the past when Jesus paid the price for our sins” (165). His kaleidoscope, he believes, privies him to a vantage point which upholds the “diversity in the Scriptures” (167) and “the diversity of the tradition” (168). For the sake of proving his multi-operative viewpoint to the situational audience, North America, he presents two “at home” (171) models, “atonement as sacrifice” (172) and “atonement as revelation” (177). The kaleidoscope view can be classified as the postmodern, relativistic, “incredulity to metanarrative”[1] view which is humanward in its orientation. Next, I consider chief objections to the Christus Victor, healing and kaleidoscope views from the perspective of a penal substitutionary view.

In his response to the healing position presented by Reichenbach, Greg Boyd employs an illustration of a scientist and a “self-replicating organism” (143) to argue his Christus Victor model. Using Boyd’s illustration, with appropriate biblical modifications, let us analyze the ineptitudes of each view from the perspective of the penal substitution model. The illustration goes as follows:
A scientist named Dr. Joe produced an airborne, self-replicating organism that would instantly annihilate every virus it came in contact with. Once released into the atmosphere, all viral diseases would eventually be eradicated from the earth. Now, those who had been suffering from viral diseases would be perfectly correct in proclaiming, “Dr. Joe healed us of our infirmities!” (143).

Greg Boyd goes on to point out that the great thing that Dr. Joe fundamentally did was not completely or best answered as the healing of people’s diseases. Boyd, argues that the great accomplishment was the annihilation of all evil viruses. Accepting the illustration for now, the penal substitution model would say that even if (and it’s a stretch) all the evil viruses lurking around the atmosphere were killed, the primary culprit, the evil viruses within each human, have been left unscathed. The real virus is a genetic disorder so debilitating that all are infected by their own desire to be such. The self-replicating Organism which, may I say was begotten not produced or made, from Dr. Joe had to be just like Dr. Joe in His immunity to man’s genetic disorder, but just like man as well so he could break the genetic lineage. Not only that, Dr. Joe’s anger against all organisms He made which rebelled against Him flow from His justice as the perfect Maker. At this point the relativist may come in with his kaleidoscope and analyze the cultural, political, socio-economic environment into which the defeator organism came and attempt to allow every diseased individual to come to a communal agreement through drawn out dialogue over the viability of any medicine to heal their disease, even if the medicine is out of date, not prescribed for the particular ailment or not accessible for whatever reason to the community at large. Much further and the illustration gets lost and/or breaks down, as all non-canonical analogies do.

Looking a bit more closely at the two positions, one can see the presuppositions concerning sin and reconciliation with God. The healing view sees man’s spiritual condition as having a high fever or the flu from a virus that to some degree is outside of him infecting him. So, the solution is not concerned with the Creator’s just nature, rather His love. Likewise, the Christus Victor view sees man as a victim to the controlling evil forces which are holding him in bondage. As go the bondage-making evil forces, so goes the freedom of man. Victory is won when the Hero defeats the forces of darkness. The Bible sees man’s spiritual problem as spiritual death (Eph 2). Man is hostile to the things of God because man is an idolator in need of a New Man to destroy the works of the flesh in his place. There are other arguments, but these should suffice for now as we move to the book’s impact on the field and its readers.

The Nature of the Atonement is a useful tool for evaluating four views of the atonement sided by side. The editors made a particularly helpful choice of which four views to put on display considering the recent vitriol against the penal substitutionary position and the growing strength of the postmodern or relativistic hermeneutic. Tom Schreiner did a fine job showing that the tree producing the fruit in the atonement views is the penal substitution model. I would like to have seen a brief final argument from each position after the three counterarguments were given. That said, the critique is minor.

Readers are presented with a straight forward, balanced view of the perspectives of the atonement. The compilation work is highly assessable and well represented by each author. Each did a fine job presenting the biblical information on the doctrine at hand. There is much spiritual value within the pages as one considers his sin, God’s holiness and what God has done to reconcile wicked man to Himself in His Son.

FOOTNOTE
[1] Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), xxiv.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Gregory A. God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downer's Grove, Ill: IVP, 1997.

_______. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000.

_______. and Edward K. Boyd, Letters From a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity. Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1994.

_______. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Warfare Theology. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

_______. Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne's Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics. Peter Lang Publishing, 1992.
Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Incarnational Love

Here's a link to a sermon I preached at the church where I am member - Redeemer Church. The sermon text is John 17:20-26.


20“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”


Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Charnock on the Inner Atheist

It is necessary to depress that secret atheism which is in the heart of every man by nature. Though every visible object which offers itself to our sense, presents a deity to our minds, and exhorts us to subscribe to the truth of it; yet there is a root of atheism springing up sometimes in wavering thoughts and foolish imaginations, inordinate actions, and secret wishes. Certain it is, that every man that doth not love God, denies God; now can he that disaffects him, and hath a slavish fear of him, wish his existence, and say to his on heart with any cheerfulness, there is a God, and make it his chief care to persuade himself of it? He would persuade himself there is no God, and stifle the seeds of it in his reason and conscience, that he might have the greatest liberty to entertain the allurements of the flesh. It is necessary to excite men to daily and actual considerations of God and his nature, which would be a bar to much of that wickedness which overflows in the lives of men.
  • Excerpted from The Existence of God by Stephen Charnock, pg 27.

Monday, June 11, 2007

John Piper and Justin Peters Share Message against Health, Wealth and Prosperity Heresy



I don’t know what you feel about the prosperity gospel but I’ll tell you what I feel about it…HATRED!

It’s being exported from this country to Africa and Asia selling a bill of goods to the poorest of poor, “Believe this message and your kids won’t die and your wife won’t have miscarriages. You’ll have rings on your fingers and coats on your backs.”

That’s coming out of AMERICA!

People that ought to be giving our money and our time and our lives, instead of selling them a bunch of crap called “gospel”!

And here’s the reason why it’s so horrible. When was the last time an American, African, Asian ever said Jesus is all-satisfying because you drove a BMW?

NEVER!

They’ll say, “Did Jesus give you that?”

Yes.

“We’ll take Jesus.”

That’s idolatry! Not the gospel. That’s elevating gifts above giver.

I’ll tell you what makes Jesus beautiful…

Friday, June 08, 2007

The Word of Faith Movement: Justin Peters Call for Discernment Part 4 final.

Justin Peters is quickly gaining respect for his thorough and non-caustic treatment of the Word of Faith Movement. Though Justin is known for his work as an expository preacher, his seminar A Call for Discernment: A Biblical Critique of the Word of Faith Movement has become his magnus opum. This is a clip of one of the three sessions Justin taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also featured in a stunning documentary on the WoF Movement entitled Suffer the Children. Justin's message is clear, "this is another gospel."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


DD: Speaking of your seminar, A Call for Discernment; I saw a clip about Joel Osteen. Where does he fit into the scheme of this movement? Just thinking through some of his statements on Larry King, when Larry King asks him, “What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?” and Joel Osteen’s response to Larry King when he (Larry King) says if you believe in Christ and He’s the only way, then everyone else is wrong, and that the Jews and Muslims are wrong. I have the statement from Osteen here:


OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and
what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

JP: This is a stunning statement from a man who’s the pastor of the largest “evangelical” church in the country. On national television he’s asked three different times about the exclusivity of the gospel where Jesus is the only way to be saved and Joel Osteen responds that way by saying, “I don’t know. I’ve been to India with my father. I don’t know much of the Indian religion but I know they love God.” He’s talking about Hindus. Hindus don’t love God because they don’t know God. They reject the God of the Bible. So, how can you love someone you don’t even know?

Then he said, “I know for me and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.” Well that’s spoken like a true relativist. He’s saying, “For me I want to have a relationship with Jesus, but what’s true for me may not be true for someone else.” Of course that flies in the face of the entire testimony of Scripture.

Joel Osteen, I do not doubt he’s a nice man, I don’t doubt that he’s a sincere man, but sincerity is not the issue. Truth is the issue. Joel Osteen, by his own admission, will not preach on sin, will not preach on repentance, self sacrifice, taking up the cross, all these things Jesus preached about, Joel Osteen won’t. He says, “I don’t use the word sin.” Well, until people are confronted with their sin, they’re made to realize they are sinners, they won’t see their need for a Savior.
Joel Osteen, I’m afraid, is a ear-tickler that Paul talked about in first Timothy, “People will not endure sound doctrine in the latter days but will heap to themselves teachers who will tickle the ears.” Joel Osteen a preeminent ear-tickler of our day. By not preaching the gospel, the clear, pure gospel, I’m afraid that Joel Osteen is tickling people’s ears all the way to hell. All the way to a Christ-less eternity.

DD: Hasn’t Joel put an apology out for his statements?

JP: Yes, he has. In fairness I want to address that. He received a great deal of criticism, and rightly so, for his statements on Larry King. And he apologized for not being as clear as he should have been. I don’t think that apology holds a great deal of water because the Bible says, “Out of the fullness of the heart a man speaketh.” But also, since that apology, on other national television venues, he has made almost identical statements. So, he continues to preach this watered-down, feel-good gospel that is completely devoid of sin. And any gospel message that is devoid of sin makes the cross null and void. It’s an empty gospel. It’s a different gospel.

DD: I’ve heard you say in your seminar, “Love devoid of biblical truth is not love.”
What is your purpose for traveling and speaking and doing all of the things that you do?


JP: Dustin, my motivation for bringing this seminar to people across the country is not out of bitterness or out of a personal attack. My motive is this; I love the Lord, I love His Word, I’m driven by the truth of His Word, and I’m growing weary of seeing false christ’s, false prophets, false teachers, preying upon God’s people. I want to help open eyes to just how dangerous this movement really is, how unbiblical it really is. But not only to show them the error and the heresy, but also to show them the truth of what God’s word really is. And then, by this people will be equipped to go out and do as Ephesians 4:15 tells us to do: speak God’s truth in love. Lovingly, gently, and firmly guide people away from the false doctrinal system that’s out there to do them harm physically and spiritually.

DD: Thanks so much for you time Justin, and your seminars and your work.

JP: You’re welcome, Dusty. My pleasure.
  • Read an interview Justin did with CBS News on Benny Hinn.
  • Watch Do You Believe in Miracles a documentary done by CBS news (41 min) with Justin as a contributor.
  • Read the three previous three posts in this series.