It's not that I have
writer's block. It's more along the lines of biting off more than I can chew. The topic (the Abrahamic covenant and how it relates to infant baptism) is too big, more fundamental than I can treat in a "dash off a quick essay" burst of inspiration. Rest assured that I have been meditating on this a lot. I am sure that Abraham would have been more than a little put out had Isaac said, "You know dad, that circumcision bit was alright for you to apply to your child, but for me and my house, I think I'll pass". That's where I am. It's more than grandfather's rights. It is God's idea, not mine.
The funny thing is that I have been going backwards - from infant baptism to the Abrahamic covenant. Now I propose to go backwards again. I am proposing to back up out of necessity. The need came up because twice in this discussion I was asked to produce a scripture proof of infant baptism. I was subjected to the clever red-herring "That's what we have so often treasured in the reformers, their insistence that the word is pre-eminent. There must be a scripture to prove your point. Give me a single scripture that says that we should baptize infants."
I think that argument is a misuse of sola scriptura. The sola scriptura principle was the reformer's weapon that combatted the Roman Catholic insistence that the church was authoritative over scripture, claiming that the church and especially its leaders who maintain apostolic succession from the first (i.e. Peter) were the authors of scripture.
I mentioned that I am lousy at theological ping-pong. That red-herring slam won a point for my opponent. But I am here to assert that inspite of the absence of a single scripture that says "you must baptize your infant children", it is nevertheless God's will for his church. That point, however, I am not going to push any further right at the moment. Rather, I want to address the principle that a single clear scripture must exist in the Bible before we as believers can accept a doctrine.
It's not at all hard really. What follows is a list (an incomplete list) of doctrines or in a few cases, practices, that orthodox Christians hold to without there being a single verse that backs up the belief.
1) The Trinity. Without a single verse to back this belief up, the church has unequivocally stated that unless you hold to the trinity, you are not a Christian. Ask yourself how we get away with this.
2) A second, like unto the first, - Jesus is God. Of course, many verses come close to explicitly stating this but we're not playing horseshoes.
3) Orthodoxy has stated for centuries that Jesus, in the flesh, was a single person with two natures. Not two persons with two natures, or a single person with one nature, etc. You may think that this distinction is not important, but I would counter that knowing Jesus includes knowing about Jesus.
4) Two wills of God. One will which relates to his moral demands of humans, and his sovereign will that controls every event that transpires inside and outside time and space. (See number 3)
5) Any eschatology system that you care to bring up. Especially those systems that appear to counter actual verses brought out by those pre-mil/dispensational types. A-mil types defend their position with what must seem to the pre-mil guys as having no visible means of support.
6) Just for fun, on what scriptural basis do we allow women to a) partake of communion - since, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code notwithstanding, only men were present at the initial supper b) preach from a pulpit c) be an elder or deacon.
7) On what scriptural basis do we take the liberty to change scripture where it suits us - i.e. gender inclusivity issues.
What's the point? The point is more than just demonstrating that the demand for a single scripture to prove the doctrine of infant baptism fails. The point goes beyond a mere 'heads up' that handling this issue will take a little work i.e. you won't get your wish that a nice little verse, heretofore un-noticed, will pop up and solve the dilemma or that the lack of that single verse proves the opposite. The point really is two questions, 1) what is the Bible, 2) how do you read it?
There, I did it again. I bit off more than I can chew. But I am quite sure that to get to the bottom of infant baptism, to get to the bottom of the Abrahamic Covenant, you have to get to the bottom of your philosophy or presuppositions of what the Bible is and how you read it?
I am talking about more than just recommending that you read Gordon Fee's Read the Bible for All its Worth. Although that wouldn't be a bad idea.
I am amassing a pile of unfinished business. This wouldn't happen if I was more disciplined.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I'm thinking, I'm thinking!
But in the mean time, here is a contest: a signed print of any photo from our collection to the first person who can identify what this piece of code (which I wrote and run daily at home) does. (Second prize is two photos)
d=Dir.new(".")
flac_fns = Array.new
wav_fns = Array.new
d.each {|x|
if x =~ /\.flac/
flac_fns.push(x)
elsif x=~ /\.wav/
wav_fns.push(x)
end
}
high_num = flac_fns.length
wav_fns.each {|i|
high_num = high_num + 1
`move \"#{i}\" \"#{i.sub(/\d+/,high_num.to_s)}\"`
}
To be eligible for this contest, you have to be someone other than a male whose last name is Settergren or someone younger than 25 or older than 36.
You don't have to be baptized as an infant to be eligible.
BTW I am seriously considering finding a different (better) free blog service. This thing can't even handle leading spaces - which makes the code even harder to read. Any suggestions for a better blog service?
But in the mean time, here is a contest: a signed print of any photo from our collection to the first person who can identify what this piece of code (which I wrote and run daily at home) does. (Second prize is two photos)
d=Dir.new(".")
flac_fns = Array.new
wav_fns = Array.new
d.each {|x|
if x =~ /\.flac/
flac_fns.push(x)
elsif x=~ /\.wav/
wav_fns.push(x)
end
}
high_num = flac_fns.length
wav_fns.each {|i|
high_num = high_num + 1
`move \"#{i}\" \"#{i.sub(/\d+/,high_num.to_s)}\"`
}
To be eligible for this contest, you have to be someone other than a male whose last name is Settergren or someone younger than 25 or older than 36.
You don't have to be baptized as an infant to be eligible.
BTW I am seriously considering finding a different (better) free blog service. This thing can't even handle leading spaces - which makes the code even harder to read. Any suggestions for a better blog service?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Well,
we have had two good reminders both of which serve to provide a bit of a wake-up. First, we are saved by grace, therefore baptism, which is a work, couldn't save. Second, the comment that Christ is to be found in the AbCo is telling. As for grace saving us, you have to admit that the infant does no work at all during his baptism, so technically, (and considering 1st Peter 3:21 which says that baptism saves us) the door is still open. However, I doubt that we will wind up there.
Second, I really appreciate the reminder to find Christ in the AbCo. This, I believe, is what covenant theology is all about: seeing Christ in the covenants. I think it is especially important to do so in the case of the AbCo.
I believe this: the church has been very lax in its teaching about the covenants. What with the focus on church growth, the importance of providing an exciting quality church experience, personal relationship and more at the expense of doctrine (which as you know means teaching) I myself can say proudly that, inspite of 2 score of years in church, I know next to nothing about covenant in any depth and next to nothing regarding teaching on baptism (among many other fundamentals).
In addition to that, I am beginning to learn the importance of not just learning about the covenant, but the importance of living the covenant; of discovering how the covenant can make sense of your life and also (as one of the elect) of life itself.
I also believe this: the way to build up faith is not by encouraging devotion, pietism, relationship for its own sake, but to teach Christ with the view to magnifying him.
I am naive if I think I can all of a sudden become an expert on covenant theology. The little reading I have done, however, has made a good start on firming up my conviction that infant baptism is fine and dandy. (My sister's reference to infant baptism as covenantal baptism is astute).
we have had two good reminders both of which serve to provide a bit of a wake-up. First, we are saved by grace, therefore baptism, which is a work, couldn't save. Second, the comment that Christ is to be found in the AbCo is telling. As for grace saving us, you have to admit that the infant does no work at all during his baptism, so technically, (and considering 1st Peter 3:21 which says that baptism saves us) the door is still open. However, I doubt that we will wind up there.
Second, I really appreciate the reminder to find Christ in the AbCo. This, I believe, is what covenant theology is all about: seeing Christ in the covenants. I think it is especially important to do so in the case of the AbCo.
I believe this: the church has been very lax in its teaching about the covenants. What with the focus on church growth, the importance of providing an exciting quality church experience, personal relationship and more at the expense of doctrine (which as you know means teaching) I myself can say proudly that, inspite of 2 score of years in church, I know next to nothing about covenant in any depth and next to nothing regarding teaching on baptism (among many other fundamentals).
In addition to that, I am beginning to learn the importance of not just learning about the covenant, but the importance of living the covenant; of discovering how the covenant can make sense of your life and also (as one of the elect) of life itself.
I also believe this: the way to build up faith is not by encouraging devotion, pietism, relationship for its own sake, but to teach Christ with the view to magnifying him.
I am naive if I think I can all of a sudden become an expert on covenant theology. The little reading I have done, however, has made a good start on firming up my conviction that infant baptism is fine and dandy. (My sister's reference to infant baptism as covenantal baptism is astute).
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
The AbCo was/is a promise made by God
and guaranteed by Him by the passing of his person through the gauntlet of multiple animal halves strewn in a line on the ground. The promise consisted of three parts. 1) Land, 2) Inumerable posterity 3) Blessing to all the inhabitants of the earth via that posterity.
We always should remind ourselves that if God pulls out of that promise, then we are certainly doomed, since we see the promise ultimately consumated in the new heaven and the new earth.
Being a bit tired right now, I will let that sit. Anybody disagree with that outline?
and guaranteed by Him by the passing of his person through the gauntlet of multiple animal halves strewn in a line on the ground. The promise consisted of three parts. 1) Land, 2) Inumerable posterity 3) Blessing to all the inhabitants of the earth via that posterity.
We always should remind ourselves that if God pulls out of that promise, then we are certainly doomed, since we see the promise ultimately consumated in the new heaven and the new earth.
Being a bit tired right now, I will let that sit. Anybody disagree with that outline?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Making little headway,
I am, on the overall topic, but questions are frequently as good as answers. A fundamental question is the issue of implied continuity. The classic scenario is Jewish parents listening to Peter's sermon which told them "this promise is for you and your children . . . ." didn't they recognize the Ab. covenant promise in those words. The Ab. covenant would need to have its mechanics rescinded somewhere along the line. Without an explicit command to cease and desist from giving the sign to your children, it should continue, no?
Anyway, many see it this way today but I suspect many drop the "if you don't apply the sign, their soul will be cut off. . ." part. Why is implied continuity gladly employed as a defense of the idea that baptism is NT circumcision but the warning is conveniently forgotten. Shouldn't implied continuity apply there as well?
A second question is what is suggested by this warning. I offer the following: the sign and that which it signifies are more intimately tied together than those who say its only a sign and nothing more will be comfortable admitting. Doesn't this warning imply that baptism (of infants, don't forget - Baptists can check out on this since they don't buy any connection at all between circumcision and baptism. I guess it is clear that as soon as you admit a connection - equivalence- between circumcision and baptism exists, the you must allow that infant baptism is not just scriptural but commanded) does something. Apparently withholding it has a profound affect on the child. I am not sure it is sufficient to say "you don't have to be baptized to be saved" unless you fully address this warning verse.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me. If so, and if time permits, these questions and others will get answered.
For me, gone are the days when I could just say that I know I am saved so these details are irrelevant. My faith is not strong enough to make it from day-to-day without hearing and engaging the word. (If that sounds pietistic, I assure you I have no piety - just ask my wife - it's more like I am a shark, constantly on the move looking for more food). The result is that I become a pain in the neck for not a few people.
I am, on the overall topic, but questions are frequently as good as answers. A fundamental question is the issue of implied continuity. The classic scenario is Jewish parents listening to Peter's sermon which told them "this promise is for you and your children . . . ." didn't they recognize the Ab. covenant promise in those words. The Ab. covenant would need to have its mechanics rescinded somewhere along the line. Without an explicit command to cease and desist from giving the sign to your children, it should continue, no?
Anyway, many see it this way today but I suspect many drop the "if you don't apply the sign, their soul will be cut off. . ." part. Why is implied continuity gladly employed as a defense of the idea that baptism is NT circumcision but the warning is conveniently forgotten. Shouldn't implied continuity apply there as well?
A second question is what is suggested by this warning. I offer the following: the sign and that which it signifies are more intimately tied together than those who say its only a sign and nothing more will be comfortable admitting. Doesn't this warning imply that baptism (of infants, don't forget - Baptists can check out on this since they don't buy any connection at all between circumcision and baptism. I guess it is clear that as soon as you admit a connection - equivalence- between circumcision and baptism exists, the you must allow that infant baptism is not just scriptural but commanded) does something. Apparently withholding it has a profound affect on the child. I am not sure it is sufficient to say "you don't have to be baptized to be saved" unless you fully address this warning verse.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me. If so, and if time permits, these questions and others will get answered.
For me, gone are the days when I could just say that I know I am saved so these details are irrelevant. My faith is not strong enough to make it from day-to-day without hearing and engaging the word. (If that sounds pietistic, I assure you I have no piety - just ask my wife - it's more like I am a shark, constantly on the move looking for more food). The result is that I become a pain in the neck for not a few people.
Monday, December 12, 2005
I am not going to
dive into this very far except to ask some questions whose answers will help later on.
If you are going to claim that NT baptism is the sign of the Ab. covenant, then you must be conversant on the Ab. Cov.
1) What is the Abrahamic covenant?
2) What was its sign and what did it signify?
3) Did the sign convey or apply any spiritual blessing, result, change or effect?
4) Was there any significance to the sign in the sense that it typified anything that was fulfilled in the NT?
5) Do you believe that there is anything significant about the mechanics of this covenant.
a) Should its sign always be something that can be given to your offspring, i.e. applied externally, as circumcision was?
b) Should the thing signified by the sign stay the same forever.
c) Or is it possible for it to signify one thing in the OT economy and something different later?
d) Same question for the sign itself.
e) If the sign conveyed or applied any spiritual blessing, result etc. , should its NT counterpart do exactly the same or can it change to a different applied result or no result at all?
That's quite a lot right there. The first one is the toughest by far.
Won't get to any answers tonight.
Lest you think I am the guy with answers, I am not. I just know that this is where the action is.
dive into this very far except to ask some questions whose answers will help later on.
If you are going to claim that NT baptism is the sign of the Ab. covenant, then you must be conversant on the Ab. Cov.
1) What is the Abrahamic covenant?
2) What was its sign and what did it signify?
3) Did the sign convey or apply any spiritual blessing, result, change or effect?
4) Was there any significance to the sign in the sense that it typified anything that was fulfilled in the NT?
5) Do you believe that there is anything significant about the mechanics of this covenant.
a) Should its sign always be something that can be given to your offspring, i.e. applied externally, as circumcision was?
b) Should the thing signified by the sign stay the same forever.
c) Or is it possible for it to signify one thing in the OT economy and something different later?
d) Same question for the sign itself.
e) If the sign conveyed or applied any spiritual blessing, result etc. , should its NT counterpart do exactly the same or can it change to a different applied result or no result at all?
That's quite a lot right there. The first one is the toughest by far.
Won't get to any answers tonight.
Lest you think I am the guy with answers, I am not. I just know that this is where the action is.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
I lied,
a little. I have the time now to write more. But not much tonight. I want to tackle infant baptism again. The reason is that I have some grandchildren (half of them, to be exact) who haven't been given the sign of the covenant, and I need to know if I should be bothered by it.
This verse bothers me: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." You can go read the whole Gen 17 passage at length.
I have had two discussions on this topic with guys neither of whom believe that infant baptism is a scriptural practice. Neither discussion went well. It turns out that I am really lousy at theological ping-pong.
It's way too late to get into it but brace yourself for the questions and issues.
a little. I have the time now to write more. But not much tonight. I want to tackle infant baptism again. The reason is that I have some grandchildren (half of them, to be exact) who haven't been given the sign of the covenant, and I need to know if I should be bothered by it.
This verse bothers me: Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." You can go read the whole Gen 17 passage at length.
I have had two discussions on this topic with guys neither of whom believe that infant baptism is a scriptural practice. Neither discussion went well. It turns out that I am really lousy at theological ping-pong.
It's way too late to get into it but brace yourself for the questions and issues.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Saturday, November 26, 2005
The word on the street is
that I will resume blogging next week. Term paper is nearly done, so maybe I can get back to work. In the meantime here are what I will most likely blow $100 on this week:
St. Louis on the road to cover 3 pts against Houston.
Chargers to cover 3 pts on the road vs. the Skins
Raiders to cover 7 pts at home vs. the Dolphins.
that I will resume blogging next week. Term paper is nearly done, so maybe I can get back to work. In the meantime here are what I will most likely blow $100 on this week:
St. Louis on the road to cover 3 pts against Houston.
Chargers to cover 3 pts on the road vs. the Skins
Raiders to cover 7 pts at home vs. the Dolphins.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Just in time
to lose another $100.
Houston to cover 6.5 at home vs. the Chiefs
Pitt to cover 3.5 as road favorites vs. the putrid Ravens.
And for you Ohio folks, Cleveland to cover 2.5 over Miami at home to atone for their being laughed at by all the Steelers on national TV last week.
As for normal blogging, I am getting close. Right now I am writing my term paper for the Ministry of the Word class. I hope to finish it by Thanksgiving. Then I have one book to read and studying for the final. Then I will be cut loose.
to lose another $100.
Houston to cover 6.5 at home vs. the Chiefs
Pitt to cover 3.5 as road favorites vs. the putrid Ravens.
And for you Ohio folks, Cleveland to cover 2.5 over Miami at home to atone for their being laughed at by all the Steelers on national TV last week.
As for normal blogging, I am getting close. Right now I am writing my term paper for the Ministry of the Word class. I hope to finish it by Thanksgiving. Then I have one book to read and studying for the final. Then I will be cut loose.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
My life has not been
reduced to football betting. My big problem right how is that my laptop is dying. It can't stay operative for more the 1 minute so I can't do much with it. That will have to be fixed soon since I have to write a paper on it and I want it done within two weeks. I actually could be writing a lot since the time for the Reformed Worship articles is now. As well as a little more in depth report on my mid-term, which I got back yesterday. I got a hefty B+ on it.
In the meantime, here are my football bets:
Skins over Tampa on the road in a pickem' (no spread) game.
KC over Buffalo on the road to cover 2.5 pts.
Dallas to cover 3 pts on the road against Philly.
reduced to football betting. My big problem right how is that my laptop is dying. It can't stay operative for more the 1 minute so I can't do much with it. That will have to be fixed soon since I have to write a paper on it and I want it done within two weeks. I actually could be writing a lot since the time for the Reformed Worship articles is now. As well as a little more in depth report on my mid-term, which I got back yesterday. I got a hefty B+ on it.
In the meantime, here are my football bets:
Skins over Tampa on the road in a pickem' (no spread) game.
KC over Buffalo on the road to cover 2.5 pts.
Dallas to cover 3 pts on the road against Philly.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Back again to get back
on the winning streak. I am going to abandon my theory of picking the winner of games where the spread is closest to zero. At least in one game. The other operative theory is pick against teams that nobody can believe they are as bad as they are. That would be the Baltimore Ravens. Another theory is pick for teams that nobody can believe they are as good as they are. So I have one of each of these approaches this week:
Pitt to cover 8.5 pts favored over the Ravens
Denver to cover 3 pts favored over the Eagles
Cleveland to win straight up in an even game against the Houston Texans.
My blogging should pick up a bit for a while since I have finished my mid-term. The test was very tough but, of course, very fair. It was tough because we were accountable for a lot of material and that required a lot of studying on my part. Basically I had to go back into each book assigned and hunt for specific sections, assimilate them, summarize them and memorize them. Then the hard part was actually writing essays on the test. Rather than just shoot a brain dump, I tried to actually compose structured prose. So the problem turned out to be that I ran out of time on the test. I also had to leave one question pretty much unanswered because it was on one of the books I hadn't read - I didn't discover I had to read it until two nights before the exam.
However, I have learned that exams and preparing for them is where a large part of the learning is done.
on the winning streak. I am going to abandon my theory of picking the winner of games where the spread is closest to zero. At least in one game. The other operative theory is pick against teams that nobody can believe they are as bad as they are. That would be the Baltimore Ravens. Another theory is pick for teams that nobody can believe they are as good as they are. So I have one of each of these approaches this week:
Pitt to cover 8.5 pts favored over the Ravens
Denver to cover 3 pts favored over the Eagles
Cleveland to win straight up in an even game against the Houston Texans.
My blogging should pick up a bit for a while since I have finished my mid-term. The test was very tough but, of course, very fair. It was tough because we were accountable for a lot of material and that required a lot of studying on my part. Basically I had to go back into each book assigned and hunt for specific sections, assimilate them, summarize them and memorize them. Then the hard part was actually writing essays on the test. Rather than just shoot a brain dump, I tried to actually compose structured prose. So the problem turned out to be that I ran out of time on the test. I also had to leave one question pretty much unanswered because it was on one of the books I hadn't read - I didn't discover I had to read it until two nights before the exam.
However, I have learned that exams and preparing for them is where a large part of the learning is done.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
I am just plain rolling in
the green stuff. Being up $800 now, I am herewith betting $200 on this three teamer:
1) Packers to cover 1.5 as favs against the morally bankrupt Vikes.
2) Bears to cover 1 point as favs against the Ravens.
3) Denver to cover 2 points as road underdogs against the Giants.
Also, this week will prove to be a challenge. I have a Sem. midterm this Friday with a brother and sister-in-law visiting SD. If I succeed in memorizing the Bible by Friday, I should be OK.
the green stuff. Being up $800 now, I am herewith betting $200 on this three teamer:
1) Packers to cover 1.5 as favs against the morally bankrupt Vikes.
2) Bears to cover 1 point as favs against the Ravens.
3) Denver to cover 2 points as road underdogs against the Giants.
Also, this week will prove to be a challenge. I have a Sem. midterm this Friday with a brother and sister-in-law visiting SD. If I succeed in memorizing the Bible by Friday, I should be OK.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Friday, October 14, 2005
Friday
is class day and today's class was good like all the others. It does get a bit sleepy-ish at 2:30 pm (especially since today was in the high 90's and maybe even 100 in Escondido) but what I am learning is exactly what I was hoping for back in August when I decided to sign up.
I will probably write about that stuff some time down the road.
One thing you should know is that I read (or started reading) the book on Reformed Worship, from which I was going to provide a summary of each chapter, about 10 weeks early. That was due to technical problems with the syllabus, which if I had had it I would have known to read it just about last in the course. So, you will have to check back later for the resumption of that topic.
And for those breathlessly waiting for another installment on sanctification, you'll have to wait for that too. I am too busy.
I am now pretending to be a database administrator at work. I am the technical expert on a database IRAD at work now, and I have to, pretty quickly, produce some smoke and mirrors, dogs and ponies, and whatever else it may take, if I want to keep my job. So, I now have a split personality.
When I am at work I am all hopped up for things computer/technical. When I am at Sem. or when reading some of these great books about preaching, I am all hopped up for figuring out a way to whip up a call so I can some day mount a pulpit and be a gospel proclaimer, explicator, and applier.
By the way, I forgot earlier when listing my motives for getting involved at the Sem. that a big one was that I wanted to be an influence over my family, or what's left of it. By that, I mean maybe there is the leave-and-cleave clause that says I have no more influence over my kids. But I am not going to assume that. I want to do what I can to guide them down good paths. If you want to read into that motive the idea that I may be holding the opinion that I did a poor job of that early on, then you would be reading rightly. You also may secretly hold the opinion yourself that I am dreaming if I think I can influence my kids any more. Chances are good that I can't really influence anybody and it is only the holy spirit that can do it. FWIW, I also view my grandchildren as covenant people over whom I may have some influence.
Also, big sis', you might be interested to learn that one of the books used for an upcoming Practical Theology class is 'The Call' by Os Guiness. I took a look at it a bit today at lunch and it looks like it is an early version of 'The Purpose Driven Life' since it is all about finding your purpose. It looked interesting to me, nevertheless, and I plan to check it out of the library sometime around Christmas.
is class day and today's class was good like all the others. It does get a bit sleepy-ish at 2:30 pm (especially since today was in the high 90's and maybe even 100 in Escondido) but what I am learning is exactly what I was hoping for back in August when I decided to sign up.
I will probably write about that stuff some time down the road.
One thing you should know is that I read (or started reading) the book on Reformed Worship, from which I was going to provide a summary of each chapter, about 10 weeks early. That was due to technical problems with the syllabus, which if I had had it I would have known to read it just about last in the course. So, you will have to check back later for the resumption of that topic.
And for those breathlessly waiting for another installment on sanctification, you'll have to wait for that too. I am too busy.
I am now pretending to be a database administrator at work. I am the technical expert on a database IRAD at work now, and I have to, pretty quickly, produce some smoke and mirrors, dogs and ponies, and whatever else it may take, if I want to keep my job. So, I now have a split personality.
When I am at work I am all hopped up for things computer/technical. When I am at Sem. or when reading some of these great books about preaching, I am all hopped up for figuring out a way to whip up a call so I can some day mount a pulpit and be a gospel proclaimer, explicator, and applier.
By the way, I forgot earlier when listing my motives for getting involved at the Sem. that a big one was that I wanted to be an influence over my family, or what's left of it. By that, I mean maybe there is the leave-and-cleave clause that says I have no more influence over my kids. But I am not going to assume that. I want to do what I can to guide them down good paths. If you want to read into that motive the idea that I may be holding the opinion that I did a poor job of that early on, then you would be reading rightly. You also may secretly hold the opinion yourself that I am dreaming if I think I can influence my kids any more. Chances are good that I can't really influence anybody and it is only the holy spirit that can do it. FWIW, I also view my grandchildren as covenant people over whom I may have some influence.
Also, big sis', you might be interested to learn that one of the books used for an upcoming Practical Theology class is 'The Call' by Os Guiness. I took a look at it a bit today at lunch and it looks like it is an early version of 'The Purpose Driven Life' since it is all about finding your purpose. It looked interesting to me, nevertheless, and I plan to check it out of the library sometime around Christmas.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Let me quickly explain
the business of the previous post (as well as commenting on some of the comments) before I get back to reading. First, the form is not designed to weed anyone out. The seminary is a serious place where everyone there (except myself) belongs there. The form is simply a way for the director of field education to be in direct contact with the sems WRT their internships. If there is any step taken to do any weeding, it is the teaching about how the reformed church views the inward call. It exposes some interesting things.
My rambling on the subject is this: First, if you haven't got one (an inward call), then talking to someone about one is impossible in the sense that I (not having one) wouldn't have anything to say about something which I haven't experienced. It's just like faith. For someone who has no faith to complain about or in any way deride a person who has faith is plain stupid. Without faith it is impossible to discuss it, since merely reading in a dictionary a definition for faith is not enough to enable or entitle you to carry on about it. Same with the call. Those that have it can talk about it; describe it; preach it; say you must have it. That's fine. Maybe I'm the only honest one around. I am not going to say I have a call.
Second, the inward call is confirmed by the church by the extending of an external call. They recognize by your gifts that you have an inward call. Every inward call is accompanied by a gifting that God gives you. Well, unfortunately for me, I think it works or has worked bass-ackwardly.(I put that in there just so I could imagine my sister saying the word 'bass-ackwardly'). I know I have a skill (and this was my thought) that if I studied for it, worked on it, put all my energy into it I would be a very beneficial tool in - yes, say it, brother- God's hands. But no. I need the burning of the bosom - and why not call it that, since it is internal, why can't it take that form. Axiom #1 "If you have the call, it is wrong not to pursue it". Axiom #2 "With only skill and no call, it is wrong to pursue it".
Thirdly, my motivation is highly questionable. Actually, it's worse than that. My motivation originally was a backlash at the non-denominational evangelical approach for ordination which was that the guy who already has the paper gets to pass it on to whomever he wants to pass it on to. This hand-off is based on, guess what, and to be fair, in most cases recognizing an inward call which is confirmed by an outward call. Only the difference is, any rigorous training under a denominational institution is not required. In fact it would be a deterrent. I wanted to prove/show the way of truth. Many of my friends didn't even know what a seminary was. Some thought it was a monastery. Some, college. Some thought it meant I was turning Roman Catholic.
Further, my original motivation was polemical with respect to Biblical understanding. I am slowly getting that out of my system. (Not that I still don't think I am right on everything).
But the real issue is faith. How can someone who has come to see most of his religious belief as a nice theory constructed in my very imaginative mind be qualified to, on the one hand, believe in an inward call, or on the other, be entrusted to a body of innocent believers? There is the future, however. In ten years, things may have changed.
Son1 asked if simply having a 'passion for the word' didn't constitute a call. I don't know. I don't have a passion for the word. Sounds good, though. The truth is I don't have a clue about the 'Word'. I am getting off to a late start on it - getting a clue, that is. The honest motivation for delving into the word is that it is a good distraction. It keeps my mind from wandering too far into areas I want to avoid. (Although, in the end, the word pushes me there anyway).There are lots of ways to distract yourself. This is just the one that works best for me.
I'll close with the last line in 'Candide': "Any questions?"
the business of the previous post (as well as commenting on some of the comments) before I get back to reading. First, the form is not designed to weed anyone out. The seminary is a serious place where everyone there (except myself) belongs there. The form is simply a way for the director of field education to be in direct contact with the sems WRT their internships. If there is any step taken to do any weeding, it is the teaching about how the reformed church views the inward call. It exposes some interesting things.
My rambling on the subject is this: First, if you haven't got one (an inward call), then talking to someone about one is impossible in the sense that I (not having one) wouldn't have anything to say about something which I haven't experienced. It's just like faith. For someone who has no faith to complain about or in any way deride a person who has faith is plain stupid. Without faith it is impossible to discuss it, since merely reading in a dictionary a definition for faith is not enough to enable or entitle you to carry on about it. Same with the call. Those that have it can talk about it; describe it; preach it; say you must have it. That's fine. Maybe I'm the only honest one around. I am not going to say I have a call.
Second, the inward call is confirmed by the church by the extending of an external call. They recognize by your gifts that you have an inward call. Every inward call is accompanied by a gifting that God gives you. Well, unfortunately for me, I think it works or has worked bass-ackwardly.(I put that in there just so I could imagine my sister saying the word 'bass-ackwardly'). I know I have a skill (and this was my thought) that if I studied for it, worked on it, put all my energy into it I would be a very beneficial tool in - yes, say it, brother- God's hands. But no. I need the burning of the bosom - and why not call it that, since it is internal, why can't it take that form. Axiom #1 "If you have the call, it is wrong not to pursue it". Axiom #2 "With only skill and no call, it is wrong to pursue it".
Thirdly, my motivation is highly questionable. Actually, it's worse than that. My motivation originally was a backlash at the non-denominational evangelical approach for ordination which was that the guy who already has the paper gets to pass it on to whomever he wants to pass it on to. This hand-off is based on, guess what, and to be fair, in most cases recognizing an inward call which is confirmed by an outward call. Only the difference is, any rigorous training under a denominational institution is not required. In fact it would be a deterrent. I wanted to prove/show the way of truth. Many of my friends didn't even know what a seminary was. Some thought it was a monastery. Some, college. Some thought it meant I was turning Roman Catholic.
Further, my original motivation was polemical with respect to Biblical understanding. I am slowly getting that out of my system. (Not that I still don't think I am right on everything).
But the real issue is faith. How can someone who has come to see most of his religious belief as a nice theory constructed in my very imaginative mind be qualified to, on the one hand, believe in an inward call, or on the other, be entrusted to a body of innocent believers? There is the future, however. In ten years, things may have changed.
Son1 asked if simply having a 'passion for the word' didn't constitute a call. I don't know. I don't have a passion for the word. Sounds good, though. The truth is I don't have a clue about the 'Word'. I am getting off to a late start on it - getting a clue, that is. The honest motivation for delving into the word is that it is a good distraction. It keeps my mind from wandering too far into areas I want to avoid. (Although, in the end, the word pushes me there anyway).There are lots of ways to distract yourself. This is just the one that works best for me.
I'll close with the last line in 'Candide': "Any questions?"
Sunday, October 09, 2005
So,
take note everyone: I just won $600 putting me ahead by $200 for the season.
I will now come out of the closet and give you a quick update on seminary. My class is "Ministry of the Word". This class is in the 'Practical Theology' dept. So, the gist of this class is the meeting of the rubber to the road. Here, then, is the problem. It is pointed to the actual working of a person as a preacher/pastor. A big aspect of this (very big, actually) is the calling. I have no calling. Without the inward calling, you don't belong in the role of pastor/preacher. So I am out until I get such a calling.
What brings this reality into sharp focus is this form I have to fill out for review by the head of field education at the seminary. He is the one in charge of monitoring your work as an intern at some church.
This is the form:
Expected year of graduation:______
Your denominational affiliation:_______
Name of your home church:___________ (Most guys are here from out of town)
Yes/No are you under care of a Presbytery or formal supervision of an ecclesiastical body?
Yes/No do you plan to be ordained in your present denom?
If 'no' please explain.
Yes/No Do you have a copy of your denom's requirements for licensure/ordination?
Name of the local church you are presently attending:________
What are you expectations of the field education program?_________
Currently, what is your ministry objective: Pastor, missionary, teacher, other:_______
Name three persons who have been most influential in your Christian development and the quality each one possesses:_____________
Please describe one experience in your life that brought deep satisfaction and why:________
Church in which you expect to do your field education:___________
Name of the pastor or other person who will be supervising your work:_________
Denominational affiliation of the church or pastor:____________
This form then is reviewed in an interview with the head guy. Not having a calling combined with the contents of what I write on this form is going yield an interesting interview.
take note everyone: I just won $600 putting me ahead by $200 for the season.
I will now come out of the closet and give you a quick update on seminary. My class is "Ministry of the Word". This class is in the 'Practical Theology' dept. So, the gist of this class is the meeting of the rubber to the road. Here, then, is the problem. It is pointed to the actual working of a person as a preacher/pastor. A big aspect of this (very big, actually) is the calling. I have no calling. Without the inward calling, you don't belong in the role of pastor/preacher. So I am out until I get such a calling.
What brings this reality into sharp focus is this form I have to fill out for review by the head of field education at the seminary. He is the one in charge of monitoring your work as an intern at some church.
This is the form:
Expected year of graduation:______
Your denominational affiliation:_______
Name of your home church:___________ (Most guys are here from out of town)
Yes/No are you under care of a Presbytery or formal supervision of an ecclesiastical body?
Yes/No do you plan to be ordained in your present denom?
If 'no' please explain.
Yes/No Do you have a copy of your denom's requirements for licensure/ordination?
Name of the local church you are presently attending:________
What are you expectations of the field education program?_________
Currently, what is your ministry objective: Pastor, missionary, teacher, other:_______
Name three persons who have been most influential in your Christian development and the quality each one possesses:_____________
Please describe one experience in your life that brought deep satisfaction and why:________
Church in which you expect to do your field education:___________
Name of the pastor or other person who will be supervising your work:_________
Denominational affiliation of the church or pastor:____________
This form then is reviewed in an interview with the head guy. Not having a calling combined with the contents of what I write on this form is going yield an interesting interview.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
A brief hiatus is possibly
beginning, although I have quite a bit on the "tip of my pen". I, along with many others, are casualties of a major work re-shuffle which is resulting in an unexpected career shakeup for yours truly. So, I have begun studying computer related stuff in order to secure employment for more years to come.
In fact, the day the hammer dropped on my work prospects is the same day I wrote out the $1K check for my class at sem. Probably shoulda' dropped out, since I will have to be a yeoman at work rather than a slacker, for the forseeable future.
Also, I am cancelling my gum surgery indefinitely. The surgeon doesn't use my dental insurance company, so my portion of the $5K is nearly all of it. I am coming up with plan B.
On thing you can look forward to is some cool photos. Check back tomorrow.
beginning, although I have quite a bit on the "tip of my pen". I, along with many others, are casualties of a major work re-shuffle which is resulting in an unexpected career shakeup for yours truly. So, I have begun studying computer related stuff in order to secure employment for more years to come.
In fact, the day the hammer dropped on my work prospects is the same day I wrote out the $1K check for my class at sem. Probably shoulda' dropped out, since I will have to be a yeoman at work rather than a slacker, for the forseeable future.
Also, I am cancelling my gum surgery indefinitely. The surgeon doesn't use my dental insurance company, so my portion of the $5K is nearly all of it. I am coming up with plan B.
On thing you can look forward to is some cool photos. Check back tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Today was a
breakthrough day in one respect. For the first time, I edited some Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. I don't even remember what the article was that I edited. You owe yourself, if you haven't already, to get in the habit of using this great resource for your intellectual growth. It is a great tool and shows how society can work fairly well.
In fact, while typing this brief article, I went to Wikipedia and entered in the search box "Brian Nichols". You know who he is. He's is the PDL poster boy who reportedly has had a conversion experience. No, not that one - this one - he has converted to Islam while behind bars.
Anyway, while reading about Nichols, I saw one of those typo/grammatical errors that just bugs a guy. So I fixed this entry. You can even see the trail of my edit.
breakthrough day in one respect. For the first time, I edited some Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. I don't even remember what the article was that I edited. You owe yourself, if you haven't already, to get in the habit of using this great resource for your intellectual growth. It is a great tool and shows how society can work fairly well.
In fact, while typing this brief article, I went to Wikipedia and entered in the search box "Brian Nichols". You know who he is. He's is the PDL poster boy who reportedly has had a conversion experience. No, not that one - this one - he has converted to Islam while behind bars.
Anyway, while reading about Nichols, I saw one of those typo/grammatical errors that just bugs a guy. So I fixed this entry. You can even see the trail of my edit.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Reading again for my
class the assigned text "Preachers and Preaching" I learned about something that I have never heard of in all my 57 years: the heresy of Sandemanianism. Here is how it works, in case you wanted to get on board. "The bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God." (You can find that quote inscribed on Robert Sandeman's tombstone). Reading from wikipedia's entry on Sandemanianism we learn that Sandeman may have tempered that line a bit. He apparently maintained that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony. Well, R. Sandeman isn't around to defend his view, having died in the 18th century. But I would like to ask him how a "simple assent" is somehow not a thought.
Be that as it may*, his idea may be worth bouncing around a little. If you know me, you'll know that I never met a heresy I didn't like. As you also know, St. Paul was the chief of sinners. And he didn't do a single thing to "get saved". He was converted entirely without his permission having been granted. No thought, no deed did Paul do, none. And when he resumed walking along the Damascus road, there can be no question that he was the Lord's possesion. So, at least Sandeman can point to an example of his "heresy". Leaving Paul aside, since his conversion is not normative (or is it?) let me ask if it's a problem with Sandemanianism that it teaches entry level faith, the new Christian's "I believe", to be sufficient for salvation?
This issue pops up in a few ways. Does your faith entail a mere agreement with a checklist of doctrines? Is your Christian life a matter of doing the Christian thing out of duty, tradition, habit? Are you a Christian because you have the mistaken notion that your salvation will occur because of it, not because of Christ? (A bit of a twist there - is there a difference between faith as the simple assent in the testimony of Christ or are you trusting in your faith?)
One thing that I wrestle with is that critics of this heresy enjoy pointing out that Christianity can't be merely a mental thing. But I claim that, first, they came to that conclusion entirely by thinking about it, and second, I can think of no other way to get out of the mind game than by thinking my way out of it. (Do you want to get into salvation by deeds?) So, until further notice, I claim that Christianity is a mental thing.
Furthermore, while no-Lordship salvation is one of the hallmarks of Sandemanianism, Lordship salvation is just as much "it's all in my head".
In the final analysis, there are plenty of believers running around that make a living out of practicing their own brand of no-Lordship salvation, but none of us would actually foist it onto our brothers as a safe way to go. That is what Sandeman did.
*First time ever in print I wrote "Be that as it may".
class the assigned text "Preachers and Preaching" I learned about something that I have never heard of in all my 57 years: the heresy of Sandemanianism. Here is how it works, in case you wanted to get on board. "The bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God." (You can find that quote inscribed on Robert Sandeman's tombstone). Reading from wikipedia's entry on Sandemanianism we learn that Sandeman may have tempered that line a bit. He apparently maintained that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony. Well, R. Sandeman isn't around to defend his view, having died in the 18th century. But I would like to ask him how a "simple assent" is somehow not a thought.
Be that as it may*, his idea may be worth bouncing around a little. If you know me, you'll know that I never met a heresy I didn't like. As you also know, St. Paul was the chief of sinners. And he didn't do a single thing to "get saved". He was converted entirely without his permission having been granted. No thought, no deed did Paul do, none. And when he resumed walking along the Damascus road, there can be no question that he was the Lord's possesion. So, at least Sandeman can point to an example of his "heresy". Leaving Paul aside, since his conversion is not normative (or is it?) let me ask if it's a problem with Sandemanianism that it teaches entry level faith, the new Christian's "I believe", to be sufficient for salvation?
This issue pops up in a few ways. Does your faith entail a mere agreement with a checklist of doctrines? Is your Christian life a matter of doing the Christian thing out of duty, tradition, habit? Are you a Christian because you have the mistaken notion that your salvation will occur because of it, not because of Christ? (A bit of a twist there - is there a difference between faith as the simple assent in the testimony of Christ or are you trusting in your faith?)
One thing that I wrestle with is that critics of this heresy enjoy pointing out that Christianity can't be merely a mental thing. But I claim that, first, they came to that conclusion entirely by thinking about it, and second, I can think of no other way to get out of the mind game than by thinking my way out of it. (Do you want to get into salvation by deeds?) So, until further notice, I claim that Christianity is a mental thing.
Furthermore, while no-Lordship salvation is one of the hallmarks of Sandemanianism, Lordship salvation is just as much "it's all in my head".
In the final analysis, there are plenty of believers running around that make a living out of practicing their own brand of no-Lordship salvation, but none of us would actually foist it onto our brothers as a safe way to go. That is what Sandeman did.
*First time ever in print I wrote "Be that as it may".
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Saturday, September 24, 2005
One of the books
I have to read for my Sem. class is one called The Preacher and Preaching. It has about 15 articles on various aspects of pastoring and being a preacher written by a collection of luminaries in the reformed world. One chapter called "The Preacher and Piety", written by a guy named Erroll Hulse has a paragraph that pretty much blew me out of the water. The paragraph is in a section that deals with pastors that break down and lose their effectiveness or, worse, their entire ministry. Hulse talks about what a lack of self-denial can do.
Here it is: "The practice of self-denial for the Christian means that his feelings, desires and comforts take second place to the Lord's will. Self-denial applies to possessions as well. There is no limit to what can be spent on luxuries such as stereos, furnishings and recreational equipment."
So, reading that I reflected on the $65,000 stereo system I heard in a salon in Point Loma a while back. And said, "there but for the grace of God (and the want of 65Gs) go I." And I feel good about myself knowing that I have a cheap stereo. (OK, two cheap stereos).
I recall the case of the Lord's anointed who didn't bother with the stereo and got himself his own minstrel. It seems he had his troubles that only hearing sweet music day after day could assuage. I can only guess what it would cost me to go and hire the Chicago Symphony (and chorus) to drive the demons out. Mr. Hulse would be proud of my keeping the costs as low as I can.
I have to read for my Sem. class is one called The Preacher and Preaching. It has about 15 articles on various aspects of pastoring and being a preacher written by a collection of luminaries in the reformed world. One chapter called "The Preacher and Piety", written by a guy named Erroll Hulse has a paragraph that pretty much blew me out of the water. The paragraph is in a section that deals with pastors that break down and lose their effectiveness or, worse, their entire ministry. Hulse talks about what a lack of self-denial can do.
Here it is: "The practice of self-denial for the Christian means that his feelings, desires and comforts take second place to the Lord's will. Self-denial applies to possessions as well. There is no limit to what can be spent on luxuries such as stereos, furnishings and recreational equipment."
So, reading that I reflected on the $65,000 stereo system I heard in a salon in Point Loma a while back. And said, "there but for the grace of God (and the want of 65Gs) go I." And I feel good about myself knowing that I have a cheap stereo. (OK, two cheap stereos).
I recall the case of the Lord's anointed who didn't bother with the stereo and got himself his own minstrel. It seems he had his troubles that only hearing sweet music day after day could assuage. I can only guess what it would cost me to go and hire the Chicago Symphony (and chorus) to drive the demons out. Mr. Hulse would be proud of my keeping the costs as low as I can.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
After the preliminaries,
baptism takes the primo spot in the Hughes Old's book about reformed worship. He put it first because baptism is "our entrance into the church".
The chapter tackles this topic by looking at scripture, by detailing the practice of baptism as it transpired throughout the history of the church, and by discussing a little of the theology of baptism as it has emerged in various ages of church history. Old sees John's baptism as taking on additional significance by the fact that it took place in the wilderness and in the Jordan river. He claims that this points to a "new entry into the promised land . . . and a reconstituting of Israel and the establishment of the long-promised kingdom of God". While baptism at that time was symbolic of washing away of sin (accompanied by repentance) John's baptism pointed to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29). Old makes the somewhat startling claim that Jesus, through John's baptism "entered into the kingdom of God"; as did the disciples as they followed Jesus into it.
Old highlights the baptism of Jesus by John - elevating its significance - by reminding us that it was at his baptism that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus. There Jesus was proclaimed to be God's beloved son. So to, is our own baptism a sign that we are sons of God.
Jesus' baptism (the one you experienced) is commissioned to be pronounced in the trinitarian name, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, signifying our adoption by the Father; the Son, signifying that we are joined to Christ in his death, burial and resurrection; the Holy Spirit signifying a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Jesus' baptism is also commissioned to be carried out to all nations. The Abrahamic covenant promise is thus being fulfilled in that all nations of the earth should be blessed. By receiving the covenant sign of baptism, we become participants in this New covenant, we become children of the kingdom, we become members of the church.
Old unravels some Pauline theology regarding baptism in order to bolster these previous claims. As such, he reiterates that Paul's view of baptism is covenantal. As you know, a key half of the covenants are the promises associated with them. Here, the promises are the benefits of participating in Christ's death and resurrection. As members of the covenant community the benefits are freedom over sin, victory over death and eternal life. Old says that the sign of baptism is not magic, but a means of grace. God uses the sign to strengthen our faith and to produce holiness in us.
Old briefly discusses the word 'baptism' itself. As much as I like Greek, I will skip over the technicals and leave you with the idea that the essence of the word baptism had become 'wash' rather than dunk, dip, sprinkle, pour etc.
Old then traces the practice of baptism in the church starting around 100 AD when it was a simple, plain event; 300 AD, when it involved liturgical drama which was delayed as long as possible in the believers life, some even wating till their deathbed; 400 AD when Augustine implored the church to baptise as early as possible. Baptism of infants was encouraged because Augustine felt doing so demonstrated that salvation is a gracious gift of God. Baptism is a divine work and without it no human work would avail for our salvation; 500 AD until the reformation when baptism became viewed as magic - midwives were baptising infants the instant they emerged from the womb along with exorcisms and anointings; 1500 AD when the reformers saw the need to straighten this out.
Here, Old presents the marriage of covenant theology with baptism as it took shape during the reformation. Old brings up the claim that the reformers stopped short of reforming the church as it related to the sacrament of baptism. Credo-baptists are fond of charging the reformers of leaving alone the Catholic church's unbiblical practice of infant baptism. On the contrary, Old states that the reformers wrestled with this issue endlessly. The reformers saw the relationship between the covenant, the church, and the families that made it up. Prior to the reformation, the church had, as you know, seven sacraments. In that scheme, baptism washed away sin, but the sacrament of confirmation was when the Holy Spirit was conferred on the person. Reformers rejected a system where baptism with water was one thing and baptism of the Holy Spirit was something else. Their view saw baptism with water as the outward sign of baptism with the Holy Spirit, which was an inward grace.
It was during the reformation that the church (the reformed church) saw the need to catechize children. This is a natural outgrowth of the idea that children, as members of the covenant community, need to be instructed in the teachings of the Bible.
The Anabaptist movement caused a bit of a speed bump to the reformed church. They contended that baptism must be reserved for confessing believers only and who had had a conversion experience. They understood baptism as a symbolic confession of faith on the part of someone who was already a Christian and who had already been cleansed from sin. A reformer who may not be on everyone's list of church hall of fame, John Oecolampadius, pointed to passages in the writings of Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian which indicated that the church had baptized infants from the earliest times of the church, that it was taken for granted and that it went back to apostolic times.
This whole discussion relates to these three: baptismal regeneration (Catholic and Lutheran), decisional regeneration (Anabaptist), or the reformed position which is that the Holy Spirit regenerates at his will and time.
I will conclude this overly long treatise with the following summary of baptism from the reformed perspective:
"Baptism is a prophetic sign at the beginning of the Christian life which continues to unfold throughout the whole of life. The sign of baptism claims for us the washing away of sins and calls us to newness of life. The sign of baptism calls us to repentance and to the profession of Christian faith. Baptism is not something that is done once and then is finished and over. It is something that shapes the whole of the Christian life. Baptism is a means of grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives that brings about and fulfills what the sign of baptism has promised. That inward working of the Holy Spirit takes place through the whole of life until at last we die in Christ and are raised in Christ."
My personal footnote here is that my baptism explains my earlier comment that I never chose to believe. In fact, I can try as hard as I want to chose not to believe but it is, and has proven to be, simply impossible for me to not believe.
I can also, provisionally, promise that none of the forthcoming chapter summaries will be as long as this one.
baptism takes the primo spot in the Hughes Old's book about reformed worship. He put it first because baptism is "our entrance into the church".
The chapter tackles this topic by looking at scripture, by detailing the practice of baptism as it transpired throughout the history of the church, and by discussing a little of the theology of baptism as it has emerged in various ages of church history. Old sees John's baptism as taking on additional significance by the fact that it took place in the wilderness and in the Jordan river. He claims that this points to a "new entry into the promised land . . . and a reconstituting of Israel and the establishment of the long-promised kingdom of God". While baptism at that time was symbolic of washing away of sin (accompanied by repentance) John's baptism pointed to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29). Old makes the somewhat startling claim that Jesus, through John's baptism "entered into the kingdom of God"; as did the disciples as they followed Jesus into it.
Old highlights the baptism of Jesus by John - elevating its significance - by reminding us that it was at his baptism that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus. There Jesus was proclaimed to be God's beloved son. So to, is our own baptism a sign that we are sons of God.
Jesus' baptism (the one you experienced) is commissioned to be pronounced in the trinitarian name, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, signifying our adoption by the Father; the Son, signifying that we are joined to Christ in his death, burial and resurrection; the Holy Spirit signifying a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Jesus' baptism is also commissioned to be carried out to all nations. The Abrahamic covenant promise is thus being fulfilled in that all nations of the earth should be blessed. By receiving the covenant sign of baptism, we become participants in this New covenant, we become children of the kingdom, we become members of the church.
Old unravels some Pauline theology regarding baptism in order to bolster these previous claims. As such, he reiterates that Paul's view of baptism is covenantal. As you know, a key half of the covenants are the promises associated with them. Here, the promises are the benefits of participating in Christ's death and resurrection. As members of the covenant community the benefits are freedom over sin, victory over death and eternal life. Old says that the sign of baptism is not magic, but a means of grace. God uses the sign to strengthen our faith and to produce holiness in us.
Old briefly discusses the word 'baptism' itself. As much as I like Greek, I will skip over the technicals and leave you with the idea that the essence of the word baptism had become 'wash' rather than dunk, dip, sprinkle, pour etc.
Old then traces the practice of baptism in the church starting around 100 AD when it was a simple, plain event; 300 AD, when it involved liturgical drama which was delayed as long as possible in the believers life, some even wating till their deathbed; 400 AD when Augustine implored the church to baptise as early as possible. Baptism of infants was encouraged because Augustine felt doing so demonstrated that salvation is a gracious gift of God. Baptism is a divine work and without it no human work would avail for our salvation; 500 AD until the reformation when baptism became viewed as magic - midwives were baptising infants the instant they emerged from the womb along with exorcisms and anointings; 1500 AD when the reformers saw the need to straighten this out.
Here, Old presents the marriage of covenant theology with baptism as it took shape during the reformation. Old brings up the claim that the reformers stopped short of reforming the church as it related to the sacrament of baptism. Credo-baptists are fond of charging the reformers of leaving alone the Catholic church's unbiblical practice of infant baptism. On the contrary, Old states that the reformers wrestled with this issue endlessly. The reformers saw the relationship between the covenant, the church, and the families that made it up. Prior to the reformation, the church had, as you know, seven sacraments. In that scheme, baptism washed away sin, but the sacrament of confirmation was when the Holy Spirit was conferred on the person. Reformers rejected a system where baptism with water was one thing and baptism of the Holy Spirit was something else. Their view saw baptism with water as the outward sign of baptism with the Holy Spirit, which was an inward grace.
It was during the reformation that the church (the reformed church) saw the need to catechize children. This is a natural outgrowth of the idea that children, as members of the covenant community, need to be instructed in the teachings of the Bible.
The Anabaptist movement caused a bit of a speed bump to the reformed church. They contended that baptism must be reserved for confessing believers only and who had had a conversion experience. They understood baptism as a symbolic confession of faith on the part of someone who was already a Christian and who had already been cleansed from sin. A reformer who may not be on everyone's list of church hall of fame, John Oecolampadius, pointed to passages in the writings of Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian which indicated that the church had baptized infants from the earliest times of the church, that it was taken for granted and that it went back to apostolic times.
This whole discussion relates to these three: baptismal regeneration (Catholic and Lutheran), decisional regeneration (Anabaptist), or the reformed position which is that the Holy Spirit regenerates at his will and time.
I will conclude this overly long treatise with the following summary of baptism from the reformed perspective:
"Baptism is a prophetic sign at the beginning of the Christian life which continues to unfold throughout the whole of life. The sign of baptism claims for us the washing away of sins and calls us to newness of life. The sign of baptism calls us to repentance and to the profession of Christian faith. Baptism is not something that is done once and then is finished and over. It is something that shapes the whole of the Christian life. Baptism is a means of grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives that brings about and fulfills what the sign of baptism has promised. That inward working of the Holy Spirit takes place through the whole of life until at last we die in Christ and are raised in Christ."
My personal footnote here is that my baptism explains my earlier comment that I never chose to believe. In fact, I can try as hard as I want to chose not to believe but it is, and has proven to be, simply impossible for me to not believe.
I can also, provisionally, promise that none of the forthcoming chapter summaries will be as long as this one.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
With this post
on a sanctification view, I will reach the half way point. That is, I expect to do about eight of them. This one has a distinctive doctrine that if I don't mention it, it won't be complete, and if I do, you should be able to identify its label easily. (But maybe not).
Here goes:
- Positional sanctification, also referred to as instantaneous sanctification. At the time we are born again, we are set apart from the world to follow Jesus and so become saints. Our life of holiness is possible only because of Christ's work. This initial step is necessary before we can begin to live a sanctified life. Heb. 10:10 is a key as it is for most all of these views: "And by that will [of God] we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
- Progressive sanctification - an obvious necessity since the Bible describe the Corinthian church members as saints in the same breath it describes them as utter failures.
Our part (from verses with which you are all familiar) a. "grow in grace" b. "each of you should learn to control his own body" c. "put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature" d. you have been "taught with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self". And others.
God's part. His appointed means to make this feasible. His blood ("and the blood of Jesus purifies us from every sin" 1 John 1:7), the Holy Spirit ("through the sanctifying work of the Spirit" 2 Thess 2:13) and the Word ("Sanctify them by the truth, your word is truth" John 17:17).
There is, then, a cooperation between us and God in achieving the progress toward sanctification.
- Entire sanctification - a life of victory over temptations to sin. The power of sin is a dominating force no longer. Through the Holy Spirit we are able not to sin even though we never come to a place where we are not able to sin.
- The Spirit's role - There must be a true reliance on the Holy Spirit to make one holy. Holiness is the result of an indwelling, living Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must do the whole work or none of it. He will not share the work with man. The Holy Spirit serves as the agent to make Christ our sanctification by seeking to bring about a complete and perfect union of Christ and the believer.
- Distinctive - Recognizes that it is the Spirit's work not only to give us life but also to baptize us into the body of Christ. That is, after the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ, we are then saturated or filled with the Spirit; the baptism of the Spirit is thus a distinct experience after conversion.
- Comment - Quite orthodox until the distinctive arrives on the scene. Hard to substantiate from scripture, though they obviously make a concerted attempt to do so. Resolving this distinctive hinges on what many would think is elementary exegesis of scripture along with some fairly basic Greek knowledge.
on a sanctification view, I will reach the half way point. That is, I expect to do about eight of them. This one has a distinctive doctrine that if I don't mention it, it won't be complete, and if I do, you should be able to identify its label easily. (But maybe not).
Here goes:
- Positional sanctification, also referred to as instantaneous sanctification. At the time we are born again, we are set apart from the world to follow Jesus and so become saints. Our life of holiness is possible only because of Christ's work. This initial step is necessary before we can begin to live a sanctified life. Heb. 10:10 is a key as it is for most all of these views: "And by that will [of God] we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
- Progressive sanctification - an obvious necessity since the Bible describe the Corinthian church members as saints in the same breath it describes them as utter failures.
Our part (from verses with which you are all familiar) a. "grow in grace" b. "each of you should learn to control his own body" c. "put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature" d. you have been "taught with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self". And others.
God's part. His appointed means to make this feasible. His blood ("and the blood of Jesus purifies us from every sin" 1 John 1:7), the Holy Spirit ("through the sanctifying work of the Spirit" 2 Thess 2:13) and the Word ("Sanctify them by the truth, your word is truth" John 17:17).
There is, then, a cooperation between us and God in achieving the progress toward sanctification.
- Entire sanctification - a life of victory over temptations to sin. The power of sin is a dominating force no longer. Through the Holy Spirit we are able not to sin even though we never come to a place where we are not able to sin.
- The Spirit's role - There must be a true reliance on the Holy Spirit to make one holy. Holiness is the result of an indwelling, living Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must do the whole work or none of it. He will not share the work with man. The Holy Spirit serves as the agent to make Christ our sanctification by seeking to bring about a complete and perfect union of Christ and the believer.
- Distinctive - Recognizes that it is the Spirit's work not only to give us life but also to baptize us into the body of Christ. That is, after the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ, we are then saturated or filled with the Spirit; the baptism of the Spirit is thus a distinct experience after conversion.
- Comment - Quite orthodox until the distinctive arrives on the scene. Hard to substantiate from scripture, though they obviously make a concerted attempt to do so. Resolving this distinctive hinges on what many would think is elementary exegesis of scripture along with some fairly basic Greek knowledge.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Regulars around here
will know that I don't put up many links to other web sites. But this one was just too good to pass up. If this was the only church in town would you show up once a week? And which service you would you pick?
A while back, Mike S. asked a question about Col 1:24. It seems this verse is used by Roman Catholics to defend the re-sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or merely that the atonement is not complete. A very plausible answer to that question first of all is the rule of faith, which is that scripture must be proved by scripture. On that basis alone, we have to conclude that what Paul wrote here cannot possible infer an incomplete atonement.
A second answer for any problems posed by this verse is that Paul was refering to the application of the atonement, not the accomplishment of the atonement. (BTW, a great book on the subject which really opened my eyes to the gospel is "Redemption, Accomplished and Applied" by John Murray). The idea is that the working out of our salvation involves a great deal of trial, tribulation and suffering. In fact, Jesus says that our sufferings (at least those whcih result from persecution) are actually experienced by Jesus directly. Paul knew this because when he was persecuting the church, Jesus asked him why he, Paul, was persecuting him. The church really is the body of Christ.
will know that I don't put up many links to other web sites. But this one was just too good to pass up. If this was the only church in town would you show up once a week? And which service you would you pick?
A while back, Mike S. asked a question about Col 1:24. It seems this verse is used by Roman Catholics to defend the re-sacrifice of Christ in the Mass or merely that the atonement is not complete. A very plausible answer to that question first of all is the rule of faith, which is that scripture must be proved by scripture. On that basis alone, we have to conclude that what Paul wrote here cannot possible infer an incomplete atonement.
A second answer for any problems posed by this verse is that Paul was refering to the application of the atonement, not the accomplishment of the atonement. (BTW, a great book on the subject which really opened my eyes to the gospel is "Redemption, Accomplished and Applied" by John Murray). The idea is that the working out of our salvation involves a great deal of trial, tribulation and suffering. In fact, Jesus says that our sufferings (at least those whcih result from persecution) are actually experienced by Jesus directly. Paul knew this because when he was persecuting the church, Jesus asked him why he, Paul, was persecuting him. The church really is the body of Christ.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Here I am
to dash off a quick sketch of the introduction to Hughes Old's book "Worship Reformed according to Scripture". First of all, this is a new book, written in 2002. So, presumably, the author is in tune with the current state of the church overall, to some degree.
Old makes the claim that we worship God primarily for two reasons. First, we were created for this reason. In fact all creation exists for this reason. It is with this in mind that we strive to glorify God when we worship Him. The second reason that we worship Him is that we are commanded to do so. Old rightly sees the first four of the ten commandments specifically pointing to worship. (He holds the reformed position, that Deut 5:7 is the first commandment and 5:8 is the second, whereas Lutherans and the Roman Catholic church holds those two verses as one commandment. They arrive at ten by splitting the 10th commandment into two.)
The first commandment is really what worship is all about. Loving God supremely. (Piece of cake, right?). The second addresses specifics about what goes in and on in worship. Desire for fine expressions of art, entertainment or excitement in worship are misdirected and a violation of the second commandment. The third commandment, in adjuring us not to use God's name in vain, says we must worship honestly and sincerely (here is worship in spirit and truth). The fourth commandment ties the first three to real life; that this worship is to take place in our real lives on a real day, namely the sabbath.
Old then lays out three simple and clear principles of reformed worship. They are:
- It is according to Scripture
- It is done in the name of Christ. Baptism, gathering, prayer, preaching, teaching, alms giving and more are all done in the name of Christ.
- It is the work of the Holy Spirit. Praying, singing, preaching and testifying are all done in the Spirit. Any time the Holy Spirit is involved, holiness on the part of the covenant community is also an issue. Unification into one body, sanctification, edification, transformation and salvation are all the products of worship.
Up next, Baptism.
to dash off a quick sketch of the introduction to Hughes Old's book "Worship Reformed according to Scripture". First of all, this is a new book, written in 2002. So, presumably, the author is in tune with the current state of the church overall, to some degree.
Old makes the claim that we worship God primarily for two reasons. First, we were created for this reason. In fact all creation exists for this reason. It is with this in mind that we strive to glorify God when we worship Him. The second reason that we worship Him is that we are commanded to do so. Old rightly sees the first four of the ten commandments specifically pointing to worship. (He holds the reformed position, that Deut 5:7 is the first commandment and 5:8 is the second, whereas Lutherans and the Roman Catholic church holds those two verses as one commandment. They arrive at ten by splitting the 10th commandment into two.)
The first commandment is really what worship is all about. Loving God supremely. (Piece of cake, right?). The second addresses specifics about what goes in and on in worship. Desire for fine expressions of art, entertainment or excitement in worship are misdirected and a violation of the second commandment. The third commandment, in adjuring us not to use God's name in vain, says we must worship honestly and sincerely (here is worship in spirit and truth). The fourth commandment ties the first three to real life; that this worship is to take place in our real lives on a real day, namely the sabbath.
Old then lays out three simple and clear principles of reformed worship. They are:
- It is according to Scripture
- It is done in the name of Christ. Baptism, gathering, prayer, preaching, teaching, alms giving and more are all done in the name of Christ.
- It is the work of the Holy Spirit. Praying, singing, preaching and testifying are all done in the Spirit. Any time the Holy Spirit is involved, holiness on the part of the covenant community is also an issue. Unification into one body, sanctification, edification, transformation and salvation are all the products of worship.
Up next, Baptism.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
It's saturday night
again. Time for my extra income drive. Last week set me back $100. (But I did get 1 of 3 right). Not to worry. A couple of good weeks and I am way ahead.
So, here are my bets:
Patriots to win and cover 3 pts. on the road against Carolina.
Miami on the road to come within 6 pts of the Jets.
Jacksonville on the road to come within 9 pts of the Colts.
again. Time for my extra income drive. Last week set me back $100. (But I did get 1 of 3 right). Not to worry. A couple of good weeks and I am way ahead.
So, here are my bets:
Patriots to win and cover 3 pts. on the road against Carolina.
Miami on the road to come within 6 pts of the Jets.
Jacksonville on the road to come within 9 pts of the Colts.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Get your Bible
out. I have class on Fridays and this quick article addresses the mind blowing gem I heard today. It's periferally about a statement I made to Deb 18 months ago when, holding up my leather bound New King James (Nelson Pub.), I told her that the thing I was holding wasn't the Bible. And it wasn't infallible, or inerrant or any of those nice things we have always been told it was. She put up quite a fight.
My argument was that the true scripture can only be found in what manuscripts we have available. That is, in the case of the N.T., only the original Greek is infallible. This is true regardless of the fact that many of the manuscripts don't agree and the originals can't be found. It is our job to sort them out and arrive at which parts of which manuscripts constitute the truth. The truth is in there nevertheless.
But the leather bound thing in my hand is not inerrant simply because it is an English translation performed by imperfect humans.
I am here, tonight, to show you a beautiful example of this.
Without presenting any context, consider Romans 10:13-14, but specifically, verse 14.
Rom 10:13 - For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
What follows here is a handful of translations of verse 14.
ASV How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
ESV But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
KJV How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
NAS How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
NIV How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
RSV But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
Read those six versions of verse 14 carefully.
Two of those six is significantly different from all the others. The difference is enormous. If you haven't spotted it, it is probably because textually it is minute and you may be looking for something monumental. The version that is substantially different in meaning and impact is the American Standard Version, ASV and its updated equivalent, NAS. So, armed with this info, reread it, along with any other one, and let how the NAS translators have translated Paul sink in. "How can they believe in Jesus, whom they have not heard." The other four have it "of whom (or in whom) they have not heard."
At this point, it is fair to address whether or not the ASV/NAS translators got it right. The answer, of course is, yes. The others got it wrong, with the resulting impoverishment of the church.
You may not think that is much of a difference, but in effect, he is saying that you or I have to actually hear Jesus speak to believe in him. "How is it possible to believe in Jesus unless you actually have heard him speak?" is the question. And then Paul goes on to answer the question with another question which in essence says, "By hearing a preacher, you are hearing Jesus speak."
This verse, by the way, is the backing for the often heard claim made in Reformed churches, that in the sermon, you hear "God speak to us through his Word"even though preachers are mere men, and not remotely in the same category as Apostles.
The analysis of the Greek that backs up the NAS translation is simply that the "whom" in this text is a genitive pronoun that functions as a direct object. This is because the verb "hear" is unique (along with some others) in that it takes a genitive direct object when what is heard is a person, and an accusative direct object when what is heard is a thing. Therefore, there is no warrant for translating it "of whom" or "in whom".
So, this example serves to demonstrate that your leather bound KJV is not the Bible, although it is close enough for jazz and government work.
out. I have class on Fridays and this quick article addresses the mind blowing gem I heard today. It's periferally about a statement I made to Deb 18 months ago when, holding up my leather bound New King James (Nelson Pub.), I told her that the thing I was holding wasn't the Bible. And it wasn't infallible, or inerrant or any of those nice things we have always been told it was. She put up quite a fight.
My argument was that the true scripture can only be found in what manuscripts we have available. That is, in the case of the N.T., only the original Greek is infallible. This is true regardless of the fact that many of the manuscripts don't agree and the originals can't be found. It is our job to sort them out and arrive at which parts of which manuscripts constitute the truth. The truth is in there nevertheless.
But the leather bound thing in my hand is not inerrant simply because it is an English translation performed by imperfect humans.
I am here, tonight, to show you a beautiful example of this.
Without presenting any context, consider Romans 10:13-14, but specifically, verse 14.
Rom 10:13 - For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
What follows here is a handful of translations of verse 14.
ASV How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
ESV But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
KJV How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
NAS How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
NIV How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
RSV But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
Read those six versions of verse 14 carefully.
Two of those six is significantly different from all the others. The difference is enormous. If you haven't spotted it, it is probably because textually it is minute and you may be looking for something monumental. The version that is substantially different in meaning and impact is the American Standard Version, ASV and its updated equivalent, NAS. So, armed with this info, reread it, along with any other one, and let how the NAS translators have translated Paul sink in. "How can they believe in Jesus, whom they have not heard." The other four have it "of whom (or in whom) they have not heard."
At this point, it is fair to address whether or not the ASV/NAS translators got it right. The answer, of course is, yes. The others got it wrong, with the resulting impoverishment of the church.
You may not think that is much of a difference, but in effect, he is saying that you or I have to actually hear Jesus speak to believe in him. "How is it possible to believe in Jesus unless you actually have heard him speak?" is the question. And then Paul goes on to answer the question with another question which in essence says, "By hearing a preacher, you are hearing Jesus speak."
This verse, by the way, is the backing for the often heard claim made in Reformed churches, that in the sermon, you hear "God speak to us through his Word"even though preachers are mere men, and not remotely in the same category as Apostles.
The analysis of the Greek that backs up the NAS translation is simply that the "whom" in this text is a genitive pronoun that functions as a direct object. This is because the verb "hear" is unique (along with some others) in that it takes a genitive direct object when what is heard is a person, and an accusative direct object when what is heard is a thing. Therefore, there is no warrant for translating it "of whom" or "in whom".
So, this example serves to demonstrate that your leather bound KJV is not the Bible, although it is close enough for jazz and government work.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Before I start with
brief summaries of the chapters on reformed worship, I must get on with a sanctification view. If I delay it much longer, the mo-jo will die out completely and I will be deemed a total failure. So, without further adieu, I present sanctification view number 3. Please bear with me in this review since bulletizing hasn't worked very well. I expect only the most keen readers (meaning those that actually give a fig) to read this. Blue, bold text is the Cliff notes version of this report. By all means, read at least that much. Also, due to lack of time, the verses listed here are not linked, sorry.
1) Normal christians are Christ like. By that is meant the normal Christian is characterized by loving responses to ingratitude and indifference, even hostility, and is filled with joy in the midst of unhappy circumstances and peace when everything is going wrong. The normal Christian overcomes in the battle with temptation, consistently obeys the laws of God, and grows in self control, contentment, humility and courage. Thought processes are so under the control of the Holy Spirit and instructed by Scripture that the normal Christian authentically reflects the attitudes and behavior of Jesus Christ. God has first place in his life, and the welfare of others takes precedence over personal desires. The normal Christian has power not only for godly living but for effective service in the church. Above all, he or she has the joy of constant companionship with the Lord.
2) However, the average christian is decent enough but there is nothing supernatural about him. When confronted by temptation he succumbs. He is characterized by self-interest.
Ed. note: If you are not in bullet one, but more like bullet two, then we can get you in 1) if you just follow the following easy steps.
3) Immediate abandonment of every known sin, doubt, indulgence, or conscious hindrance to holy living. Rom. 6:12-14; 8:12-14; 14:21-2 and Heb. 12:1-2.
4) Surrender of the will and the whole being to Jesus Christ as not only savior, but master and Lord, in loving and complete obedience. Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3.
5) Appropriation by faith of God’s promise and power for holy and righteous living. Rom. 4:20-25; 6:2, 2 Peter 1:4 and Heb 8:10
6) voluntary renunciation and mortification of the self-life, which centers in self-indulgence and self-dependence, that God may be all in all. Gal.2:19-20; 4:24,25; Col 3:5; 2 Cor 5:15.
7) Enduement with power and infilling with the Spirit. Lk. 24:49, Acts 1:8; Eph 5:18
This view holds a strong view of sin, however. Sin is an offense to God, a ruling principle in man. Man is totally depraved. The power of sin is so intense that it is never broken. Sin is a spiritual disease. Sin is an indwelling tendency that remains throughout life. This view explicitly disavows eradication of the sin nature. Its answer to this is its doctrine of counteraction. It is by the power of the Spirit that the power of sin is counteracted. The tendency to sin remains with the believer, but is the greater force of the spirit dispels this darkness of sin. If one walks in the Spirit the Spirit carries the burden of Sin. If one sins, the Spirit no longer counteracts the tendency to sin and the believer is caught in a spiral of sin. He has no more help in overcoming sin than the unbeliever.
brief summaries of the chapters on reformed worship, I must get on with a sanctification view. If I delay it much longer, the mo-jo will die out completely and I will be deemed a total failure. So, without further adieu, I present sanctification view number 3. Please bear with me in this review since bulletizing hasn't worked very well. I expect only the most keen readers (meaning those that actually give a fig) to read this. Blue, bold text is the Cliff notes version of this report. By all means, read at least that much. Also, due to lack of time, the verses listed here are not linked, sorry.
1) Normal christians are Christ like. By that is meant the normal Christian is characterized by loving responses to ingratitude and indifference, even hostility, and is filled with joy in the midst of unhappy circumstances and peace when everything is going wrong. The normal Christian overcomes in the battle with temptation, consistently obeys the laws of God, and grows in self control, contentment, humility and courage. Thought processes are so under the control of the Holy Spirit and instructed by Scripture that the normal Christian authentically reflects the attitudes and behavior of Jesus Christ. God has first place in his life, and the welfare of others takes precedence over personal desires. The normal Christian has power not only for godly living but for effective service in the church. Above all, he or she has the joy of constant companionship with the Lord.
2) However, the average christian is decent enough but there is nothing supernatural about him. When confronted by temptation he succumbs. He is characterized by self-interest.
Ed. note: If you are not in bullet one, but more like bullet two, then we can get you in 1) if you just follow the following easy steps.
3) Immediate abandonment of every known sin, doubt, indulgence, or conscious hindrance to holy living. Rom. 6:12-14; 8:12-14; 14:21-2 and Heb. 12:1-2.
4) Surrender of the will and the whole being to Jesus Christ as not only savior, but master and Lord, in loving and complete obedience. Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3.
5) Appropriation by faith of God’s promise and power for holy and righteous living. Rom. 4:20-25; 6:2, 2 Peter 1:4 and Heb 8:10
6) voluntary renunciation and mortification of the self-life, which centers in self-indulgence and self-dependence, that God may be all in all. Gal.2:19-20; 4:24,25; Col 3:5; 2 Cor 5:15.
7) Enduement with power and infilling with the Spirit. Lk. 24:49, Acts 1:8; Eph 5:18
This view holds a strong view of sin, however. Sin is an offense to God, a ruling principle in man. Man is totally depraved. The power of sin is so intense that it is never broken. Sin is a spiritual disease. Sin is an indwelling tendency that remains throughout life. This view explicitly disavows eradication of the sin nature. Its answer to this is its doctrine of counteraction. It is by the power of the Spirit that the power of sin is counteracted. The tendency to sin remains with the believer, but is the greater force of the spirit dispels this darkness of sin. If one walks in the Spirit the Spirit carries the burden of Sin. If one sins, the Spirit no longer counteracts the tendency to sin and the believer is caught in a spiral of sin. He has no more help in overcoming sin than the unbeliever.
Four clear cut phases of sanctification in this view are:
a. positional sanctification - 1 Cor 1:30.
b. day to day transformation which begins at regeneration and continues throughout this life.
c. By a deliberate and decisive act of faith, one may step into his rightful heritage of sustained victory over known sin; constant defeat, grinding bondage and restless worry can be exchanged for a life of ‘perfect peace’. The Bible shows that in Christ there is liberty and rest. This is to be obtained not by a lifetime of struggle, but by surrender to the Spirit of God.
At the time of the above crisis comes a realization that Christ is our Sanctification. (1 Cor 1:30) Ed. note: same verse here as in the text for positional sanctification. He must be accepted as such by an act of faith.
Christ must be definitely accepted as our sanctification; if we wish to make any progress in holiness, we have to give up belief in the value of self-effort in holiness. The gift of holiness must be worked out in our daily life, but we work from holiness, not to holiness. To become holy we must possess the holy one. It must be Christ in us.
4.Transformation into the likeness of Christ after death.
There are two more key areas that this view focuses on.
The first is an act of consecration. By this is meant full surrender. As a result of this surrender all areas of life are changed. Through this experience the power of God will begin to flow in the life of the believer. This full surrender is necessary because the self is totally sinful and worthless. We must hate and utterly lose our own life. So long as I myself am still something, Jesus cannot be everything. When your life is cast out, God will fill you; your life must be expelled.
This view has an understanding of human nature in which the regenerate man is dualistic. There exists the old nature which is totally sinful and is to be identified with the self. Along side the Old nature there dwells the new nature which is the part of the individual which has communion with God.
The final key piece to this view of sanctification is the filling of the Holy Spirit. This emphasis flows from consecration. The understanding of the filing of the spirit is rooted in Ephesians 5:18 as seen through the exegetical lens of human sinfulness and absolute surrender. This is what or how the filling of the Holy Spirit works: We try to imitate Christ, struggling after perfect obedience. but at every turn we fail. Finally we give up. Then God gives us the vision of the indwelling Christ. He will unite himself to us, blending his life with ours. Christ will think through our minds. Christ will keep the law within us! He will destroy the dominion of sin and dethrone self in us.
My comments: This is a formulaic view. The crisis step (c above) is a second and necessary step that occurs post conversion. The dualistic view of the human soul is a distinctive of this view of sanctification.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
I have started reading
the book on reformed worship by Hughes Old. These are the chapter headings: 1) Basic principles 2) Baptism 3) The Lord's Day 4) The Ministry of Praise 5) The Ministry of the Word 6) The Ministry of Prayer 7) The Lord's Supper 8) Daily Prayer 9) Alms 10) Tradition and Practice. This list highlights the major elements. Ancillary details such as the 'call to worship' the doxology and the benediction aren't, I am guessing here, even mentioned in the book.
For twenty plus years (since '79) having heard the term "worship leader" refer to the song leader, this list of what worship entails is hard to get used to. In fact, prior to 1979, there was no song leader in my Christian experience either. Even in public 'hymn sings' the only guy leading anything was Norbel Reems on the piano. That guy could play a mean evangelical piano.
So, then in 1979, when I stepped (dived) into evangelicalism, I thought elevating the song leader's title to worship leader was a good thing. The truth is that we knew worship was more than just singing. We also held that worship was more than praising. But in general praising was the real deal - effectively treated as a sacrament and your fervor in its participation was a sign of your spiritual condition. We were taught that there were 9 ways to express praise. E.g. standing, kneeling, clapping, singing, shouting, dancing, bowing, lifting hands and uh, uh, being forgetful.
This list has gone for quite a while without being taught - at least in my recollection, some readers here may correct me on that, since I have been out in left field for a few years. (I may be out of line, but encouraging congregational free form dancing is not on the church growth movement's list of 'ten things that will build your church really big, really fast').
But the idea that baptism of infants is a hugely integral part of worship is plainly foreign to my thinking for the last 25 years. I am excited to begin reading this book. I anticipate a liberating change in my viewpoint toward corporate worship.
I plan to, as I finish each chapter, give you a thumbnail sketch of the salient points. (Be thankful that I don't plan to do this with each book in my class).
the book on reformed worship by Hughes Old. These are the chapter headings: 1) Basic principles 2) Baptism 3) The Lord's Day 4) The Ministry of Praise 5) The Ministry of the Word 6) The Ministry of Prayer 7) The Lord's Supper 8) Daily Prayer 9) Alms 10) Tradition and Practice. This list highlights the major elements. Ancillary details such as the 'call to worship' the doxology and the benediction aren't, I am guessing here, even mentioned in the book.
For twenty plus years (since '79) having heard the term "worship leader" refer to the song leader, this list of what worship entails is hard to get used to. In fact, prior to 1979, there was no song leader in my Christian experience either. Even in public 'hymn sings' the only guy leading anything was Norbel Reems on the piano. That guy could play a mean evangelical piano.
So, then in 1979, when I stepped (dived) into evangelicalism, I thought elevating the song leader's title to worship leader was a good thing. The truth is that we knew worship was more than just singing. We also held that worship was more than praising. But in general praising was the real deal - effectively treated as a sacrament and your fervor in its participation was a sign of your spiritual condition. We were taught that there were 9 ways to express praise. E.g. standing, kneeling, clapping, singing, shouting, dancing, bowing, lifting hands and uh, uh, being forgetful.
This list has gone for quite a while without being taught - at least in my recollection, some readers here may correct me on that, since I have been out in left field for a few years. (I may be out of line, but encouraging congregational free form dancing is not on the church growth movement's list of 'ten things that will build your church really big, really fast').
But the idea that baptism of infants is a hugely integral part of worship is plainly foreign to my thinking for the last 25 years. I am excited to begin reading this book. I anticipate a liberating change in my viewpoint toward corporate worship.
I plan to, as I finish each chapter, give you a thumbnail sketch of the salient points. (Be thankful that I don't plan to do this with each book in my class).
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
Earlier, I promised
to pass along stuff from the Ministry of the Word class, which has met twice now. The majority of the time spent in the class has focused on Col 1:24-2:7. This passage comprises a good description of what is involved in ministry of the word. Here is the passage:
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, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
Dr. Johnson spent several hours of class lecture time elaborating seven themes contained in this passage.
They were:
Content - The content of Paul's message is Christ. This comes through pretty loud and clear in this passage.
Listeners - Paul's audience is the gentiles.
Purpose - Paul's purpose in ministry is 'that we may present everyone mature in Christ'. The word 'mature' here is teleios which is also translated elsewhere as perfect(morally), complete.
Method - Paul's primary method is to teach and to warn (admonish).
Price - The price Paul pays for his ministry is toil and struggle, (and elsewhere, suffering from opposition, as is well known and struggling with his own sin).
Resource - Jesus e.g. "struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me".
Master - Paul viewed the gospel, the church, and God as that for which he was a slave.
A personal note on the class is that the general tone is geared for those who are called to pastor a group of believers. That leaves me out. So it is a little awkward at times. Although it was good to be back in class. I had a revelation of sorts; okay, not a revelation, more like a thought or a resolve. I see that there is no compelling thing behind me finishing this coursework. My attitude is that I shall show up for one class at a time as long as the sem. lets me and as long as my job will allow it. What comes of it all is TBD.
Coming, maybe not so soon but probably by the end of the week is a sanctification view. The problem is to sort out the distinctives of each view where there is a fair amount of overlap. The last one presented was easy because it was so distinctly unique. But the one I am working on now is tough.
to pass along stuff from the Ministry of the Word class, which has met twice now. The majority of the time spent in the class has focused on Col 1:24-2:7. This passage comprises a good description of what is involved in ministry of the word. Here is the passage:
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, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me. For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
Dr. Johnson spent several hours of class lecture time elaborating seven themes contained in this passage.
They were:
Content - The content of Paul's message is Christ. This comes through pretty loud and clear in this passage.
Listeners - Paul's audience is the gentiles.
Purpose - Paul's purpose in ministry is 'that we may present everyone mature in Christ'. The word 'mature' here is teleios which is also translated elsewhere as perfect(morally), complete.
Method - Paul's primary method is to teach and to warn (admonish).
Price - The price Paul pays for his ministry is toil and struggle, (and elsewhere, suffering from opposition, as is well known and struggling with his own sin).
Resource - Jesus e.g. "struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me".
Master - Paul viewed the gospel, the church, and God as that for which he was a slave.
A personal note on the class is that the general tone is geared for those who are called to pastor a group of believers. That leaves me out. So it is a little awkward at times. Although it was good to be back in class. I had a revelation of sorts; okay, not a revelation, more like a thought or a resolve. I see that there is no compelling thing behind me finishing this coursework. My attitude is that I shall show up for one class at a time as long as the sem. lets me and as long as my job will allow it. What comes of it all is TBD.
Coming, maybe not so soon but probably by the end of the week is a sanctification view. The problem is to sort out the distinctives of each view where there is a fair amount of overlap. The last one presented was easy because it was so distinctly unique. But the one I am working on now is tough.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
If I put
$100 on a three team parlay against the Las Vegas NFL spreads this weekend, and win, I will make $600 (plus get my $100 back). This kind of money is too good to pass up. So, in order to raise the $3000 I need by Nov. 1 for my gum surgery, my hundred bucks this week, would go on:
St. Louis Rams to beat the Niners by more than 5.5 points,
Denver Broncos to beat the Dolphins by more than 4 points, and
Da Bears to cover the Skins, favorites by 5.5
$100 on a three team parlay against the Las Vegas NFL spreads this weekend, and win, I will make $600 (plus get my $100 back). This kind of money is too good to pass up. So, in order to raise the $3000 I need by Nov. 1 for my gum surgery, my hundred bucks this week, would go on:
St. Louis Rams to beat the Niners by more than 5.5 points,
Denver Broncos to beat the Dolphins by more than 4 points, and
Da Bears to cover the Skins, favorites by 5.5
I can't seem to get any of
the regular commenters to bite on the real question. More on that in a second.
If you are a Jew, then the correct answer is d, Jesus did not pay the price for any sins of anyone. In fact, the whole enterprise of Christ as some kind of a God is entirely discredited by the fact that he was cursed - i.e. hung on a tree outside the camp.
If you are an Arminian, then the correct answer is d, provisionally. That is, on the cross he did not pay the price for my sin but must wait until I play my part in the transaction. Until then, he only made it possible for my sins to be paid for. This view is provocative in that it allows for a scenario that no-one might have been atoned for. Since God doesn't force anyone to believe, God gambled that some would accept the free offer of salvation. Now we have God as the dependent variable in the equation.
If you are a universalist, then the correct answer is a. He paid the price for all sins of all men. John 12:32 "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself" seems to suggest that very thing. What makes this game fun to play is that those who believe in God's sovereignty WRT salvation have trouble with the passage in 1 Tim 2:1-4 "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." They dodge what appears in this verse to be a defeater of particular or limited atonement (i.e. all people) by saying that this refers to all sorts of people, not just the Jews. That is, Jesus came as not just a Jewish messiah, but the savior of the whole world. Arminians don't want any of that logic. The fun part is that it must be sorely tempting for the Arminian to defeat the universalist argument in John 12:32 by playing their own "all sorts of people" card. But they can't.
So was Stalin drawn to Jesus? Pol Pot? McVeigh? (We know he used to be an altar boy in the RC). How about Charles Manson, Michael Moore, Sean Penn?
Maybe the way to put the universalists to bed, esp. WRT John 12:32 is by the "draw" cop out. Draw merely means "woo". As in "you can woo a horse to water but you can't make 'em drink". In other words, Jesus does in fact in some way woo everybody, just as the verse says. The problem is that draw doesn't mean woo. It means "pull by force", or "drag" as in Acts 21:30 "Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut" or as in James 2:6 "But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?" Same Greek word here for drag as draw in John 12:32. (A way out of the conundrum caused by this verse is actually very simple. Is it not plausible that Jesus will drag some to belief and drag some to judgment? A solution obviously in line with choosing b.)
What about c, Christ paid for some of the sins of all men? This doesn't work at all. Unless you are able to envision a heaven with nobody in it. All your sin must be atoned for.
One more scenario. And it causes problems. How about b but where all of the sins of some men includes their sin of unbelief, or even of rejection of Christ. That certainly would be a sin. But b says that this sin is forgiven, atoned for. (Isn't this how far you have to go to hold to the belief in unconditional election? I guess it must bring irresistible grace into play!)
What starts out as a simple puzzle can disintegrate into absurdity. But the puzzle seemed at the outset to be totally fair and rational. We certainly didn't overlook any significant permutations.
Is it possible that we shouldn't expect logic to work in some areas of religion? Is it possible that God doesn't want us to mess around with his business? I somehow doubt that is true at all. God has invited us to reason together with Him. So we have done a bit of it here.
the regular commenters to bite on the real question. More on that in a second.
If you are a Jew, then the correct answer is d, Jesus did not pay the price for any sins of anyone. In fact, the whole enterprise of Christ as some kind of a God is entirely discredited by the fact that he was cursed - i.e. hung on a tree outside the camp.
If you are an Arminian, then the correct answer is d, provisionally. That is, on the cross he did not pay the price for my sin but must wait until I play my part in the transaction. Until then, he only made it possible for my sins to be paid for. This view is provocative in that it allows for a scenario that no-one might have been atoned for. Since God doesn't force anyone to believe, God gambled that some would accept the free offer of salvation. Now we have God as the dependent variable in the equation.
If you are a universalist, then the correct answer is a. He paid the price for all sins of all men. John 12:32 "and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself" seems to suggest that very thing. What makes this game fun to play is that those who believe in God's sovereignty WRT salvation have trouble with the passage in 1 Tim 2:1-4 "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." They dodge what appears in this verse to be a defeater of particular or limited atonement (i.e. all people) by saying that this refers to all sorts of people, not just the Jews. That is, Jesus came as not just a Jewish messiah, but the savior of the whole world. Arminians don't want any of that logic. The fun part is that it must be sorely tempting for the Arminian to defeat the universalist argument in John 12:32 by playing their own "all sorts of people" card. But they can't.
So was Stalin drawn to Jesus? Pol Pot? McVeigh? (We know he used to be an altar boy in the RC). How about Charles Manson, Michael Moore, Sean Penn?
Maybe the way to put the universalists to bed, esp. WRT John 12:32 is by the "draw" cop out. Draw merely means "woo". As in "you can woo a horse to water but you can't make 'em drink". In other words, Jesus does in fact in some way woo everybody, just as the verse says. The problem is that draw doesn't mean woo. It means "pull by force", or "drag" as in Acts 21:30 "Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut" or as in James 2:6 "But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?" Same Greek word here for drag as draw in John 12:32. (A way out of the conundrum caused by this verse is actually very simple. Is it not plausible that Jesus will drag some to belief and drag some to judgment? A solution obviously in line with choosing b.)
What about c, Christ paid for some of the sins of all men? This doesn't work at all. Unless you are able to envision a heaven with nobody in it. All your sin must be atoned for.
One more scenario. And it causes problems. How about b but where all of the sins of some men includes their sin of unbelief, or even of rejection of Christ. That certainly would be a sin. But b says that this sin is forgiven, atoned for. (Isn't this how far you have to go to hold to the belief in unconditional election? I guess it must bring irresistible grace into play!)
What starts out as a simple puzzle can disintegrate into absurdity. But the puzzle seemed at the outset to be totally fair and rational. We certainly didn't overlook any significant permutations.
Is it possible that we shouldn't expect logic to work in some areas of religion? Is it possible that God doesn't want us to mess around with his business? I somehow doubt that is true at all. God has invited us to reason together with Him. So we have done a bit of it here.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Quite a while ago,
I became seriously puzzled by the question of what Christ did for me personally, on the cross. I couldn't grasp the idea that he actually atoned for my sin then and there. If that was true, then my sins were forgiven then and there.
As I began to reflect deeper, I started to worry that the modern view might be seriously flawed. The modern view is that Christ didn't actually atone for anyone at that moment. His atonement only becomes effectual when a person does something, whether that be believing or accepting Jesus in their heart or being baptized or whatever. Then I stumbled upon this puzzle which directly addresses what, if anything, actually occured on the cross.
If you don't want to play, then maybe you can state reasons why this game is unfair, or rigged. Is there something about this puzzle that you don't think is square?
BTW, I added some material to the sanctification view of Sept. 7. Take a look.
I became seriously puzzled by the question of what Christ did for me personally, on the cross. I couldn't grasp the idea that he actually atoned for my sin then and there. If that was true, then my sins were forgiven then and there.
As I began to reflect deeper, I started to worry that the modern view might be seriously flawed. The modern view is that Christ didn't actually atone for anyone at that moment. His atonement only becomes effectual when a person does something, whether that be believing or accepting Jesus in their heart or being baptized or whatever. Then I stumbled upon this puzzle which directly addresses what, if anything, actually occured on the cross.
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
If you don't want to play, then maybe you can state reasons why this game is unfair, or rigged. Is there something about this puzzle that you don't think is square?
BTW, I added some material to the sanctification view of Sept. 7. Take a look.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
I thought I would
knock out a quick sanctification view. I am coming back early with this report simply because this view is easy to relate to my readers. Note the added feature of the scripture verses now being links. Here goes:
Bullets:
o Sanctification = spiritual growth and development
o Emphasizes personal experience over theological precision
o Obedience to God is central concern
o Concerned with the radical transformation of persons through a gradual process requiring a step by step surrender and abandonment to God
o We may see God or be united with God, albeit fleetingly, while we are still earthbound
o The secret to achieving this is purity of heart
o Purity of heart is obtained by surrender, abandonment of self, submitting, yielding, humbling of self
o We cannot transform the impure into the pure. God alone can do that. If we surrender, love will come in and cleanse, purify and transform
o Three planks to achieve this purification
1) Suffering - suffering uproots ingratitude and opens us to God
2) Love - God loves you, love God back.
3) Prayer - which itself has four steps
a Use of the cognitive faculties i.e. your mind to know God - including study of scripture
b Meditation by which your imagination is used to acquire the mind of Christ
c Letting yourself go, meaning your cognitive faculites begin to recede as if nearly asleep
dThe mind is stolen from itself and is rapt, remaining out of itself there to enjoy the Word
Quote:
"The message is that whether you understand or not, God loves you, is present in you, lives in you, dwells in you, calls you, saves you, and offers you an understanding and light which are nothing you ever found in books or heard in sermons."
These hymns among many others express the common sentiments of this view:
Key verses:
Mt 5:8 Mt 7:18; Acts 17:28; Ps 42:1,2; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 12:1-10
Comment:
The claim is that you can have these experiences if God gives you the grace to perform the works listed. Notice that the key word is found in this teaching: purification. This is a method of achieving purification that occurs not by trying hard to be sinless, but by exercising discplines the result of which is a purification that is verified by the internal witness of spiritual rapture.
knock out a quick sanctification view. I am coming back early with this report simply because this view is easy to relate to my readers. Note the added feature of the scripture verses now being links. Here goes:
Bullets:
o Sanctification = spiritual growth and development
o Emphasizes personal experience over theological precision
o Obedience to God is central concern
o Concerned with the radical transformation of persons through a gradual process requiring a step by step surrender and abandonment to God
o We may see God or be united with God, albeit fleetingly, while we are still earthbound
o The secret to achieving this is purity of heart
o Purity of heart is obtained by surrender, abandonment of self, submitting, yielding, humbling of self
o We cannot transform the impure into the pure. God alone can do that. If we surrender, love will come in and cleanse, purify and transform
o Three planks to achieve this purification
1) Suffering - suffering uproots ingratitude and opens us to God
2) Love - God loves you, love God back.
3) Prayer - which itself has four steps
a Use of the cognitive faculties i.e. your mind to know God - including study of scripture
b Meditation by which your imagination is used to acquire the mind of Christ
c Letting yourself go, meaning your cognitive faculites begin to recede as if nearly asleep
dThe mind is stolen from itself and is rapt, remaining out of itself there to enjoy the Word
Quote:
"The message is that whether you understand or not, God loves you, is present in you, lives in you, dwells in you, calls you, saves you, and offers you an understanding and light which are nothing you ever found in books or heard in sermons."
These hymns among many others express the common sentiments of this view:
Jesus, the very thought of Thee
With sweetness fills the breast;
But sweeter far Thy face to see,
And in Thy presence rest.
Jesus, our only joy be Thou,
As Thou our prize will be;
Jesus be Thou our glory now,
And through eternity.
All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.
I surrender all, I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.
All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.
All to Jesus, I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.
All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.
All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!
Key verses:
Mt 5:8 Mt 7:18; Acts 17:28; Ps 42:1,2; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 12:1-10
Comment:
The claim is that you can have these experiences if God gives you the grace to perform the works listed. Notice that the key word is found in this teaching: purification. This is a method of achieving purification that occurs not by trying hard to be sinless, but by exercising discplines the result of which is a purification that is verified by the internal witness of spiritual rapture.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Reading ahead,
as I have been doing, in my sources for articles on sanctification, I can see a problem looming. I can address this problem tangentially by inserting a brief discussion on what sanctification is. I don't mean to define it, actually, as that would undercut some of the views on which I am going to report. This is so because in some cases a representative view is tied up in the meaning of the word. It appears that folks don't see the word's meaning at all in the same way. The result is that some views seem to be talking about something entirely different from sanctification.
So rather than define sanctification, I want to write a little about the word itself. It really is quite simple. Sanctification, a noun, and sanctify, a verb, share the same root. That word is the word 'holy', an adjective. Somehow we don't have in English the words 'holyfied' and 'holyfication'. But we could. And there is warrant from the Greek to think exactly this way. So all you have to do is figure out what 'holy' means. For the sake of simplicity, and not being smart enough to elaborate much further, let's leave it here: holy means both 'set apart' and 'pure'.
- end of brief discussion
(It is worth thinking about how or why the Greeks had a use for such a word. For it is clear that they had this word for 'set apart' and 'pure' and the writers of the NT, 75 a.d. and writers of the LXX, approx 300 b.c. or a little later both used their word. But, I am too lazy to delve into that very deeply).
as I have been doing, in my sources for articles on sanctification, I can see a problem looming. I can address this problem tangentially by inserting a brief discussion on what sanctification is. I don't mean to define it, actually, as that would undercut some of the views on which I am going to report. This is so because in some cases a representative view is tied up in the meaning of the word. It appears that folks don't see the word's meaning at all in the same way. The result is that some views seem to be talking about something entirely different from sanctification.
So rather than define sanctification, I want to write a little about the word itself. It really is quite simple. Sanctification, a noun, and sanctify, a verb, share the same root. That word is the word 'holy', an adjective. Somehow we don't have in English the words 'holyfied' and 'holyfication'. But we could. And there is warrant from the Greek to think exactly this way. So all you have to do is figure out what 'holy' means. For the sake of simplicity, and not being smart enough to elaborate much further, let's leave it here: holy means both 'set apart' and 'pure'.
- end of brief discussion
(It is worth thinking about how or why the Greeks had a use for such a word. For it is clear that they had this word for 'set apart' and 'pure' and the writers of the NT, 75 a.d. and writers of the LXX, approx 300 b.c. or a little later both used their word. But, I am too lazy to delve into that very deeply).
Let me
clear up a little confusion regarding my brief article(s) on sanctification. Nothing of what I am writing here is a critique of the view presented. The bullets are paraphrases of lines taken from my sources. The comment section is also not a critique. It is merely my attempt to summarize the view. I am not trying to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of a view. If I do it right, no one should be able to discern any clues from me as to the source of the view.
clear up a little confusion regarding my brief article(s) on sanctification. Nothing of what I am writing here is a critique of the view presented. The bullets are paraphrases of lines taken from my sources. The comment section is also not a critique. It is merely my attempt to summarize the view. I am not trying to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of a view. If I do it right, no one should be able to discern any clues from me as to the source of the view.
Monday, September 05, 2005
After a weekend hiatus
during which the first meeting of my Ministry of the Word class was held and attending two fantasy football drafts, I am ready to toss out for your edification a description of one of eight, or so,views of sanctification.
Since this is the first one, I ask you to bear with me a bit. I am not sure this will work. The bullets approach is probably okay if I write the right bullets. The danger I face is giving a false representation of any specific view. Here goes with view #1.
Bullets:
+ Sanctification is not our work, it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
+ It is not something added to justification.
+ Equating sanctification with living a moral life is a mistake.
+ Trying to live a moral life according to some scheme is what we are delivered from as we are brought out of the Adamic nature into justification life.
+ It makes no sense to believe we are justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law and at the same time to hold on to a conditional scheme that proposes "if only I could live morally perfectly, then I could be sanctified".
+ When this approach is pushed, justification becomes a theory, and sanctification becomes your task to achieve.
+ It is impossible to put God's unconditional act of justifying sinners for Jesus' sake alone together with our ideas of progress via conditional sanctification. It doesn't work logically or in practice.
+ We need to see that we are simultaneously justified and sinners (simul justus et peccator)
+ This means that seeing our justification is an antidote to our sin, and failures. But it also means that if we see ourselves as becoming morally perfect we will assuredly begin to think we don't require unconditional justification.
+ This means that it is safer to be unaware of your own sanctification. It is God's secret work or transformation in you that you will be largely unaware of. (When you give to the needy, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Then your father, who sees what is done in secret will reward you.)
Verse support:
Mt 6:3,4. 1 Cor 1:28-31. 2 Thess 2:13. Heb 10:10. Rom 6:1-11. Mt 23:27. Gal 6:15
Comment:
This view has a very high view of the new creation. It is God's work. He finished off the old man and puts to death all our efforts to make ourselves acceptable in His sight. It sees the danger in allowing ourselves any wiggle room for self credit as we stand before God.
Note: I plan to withhold which view this (and all others) is until the end, so don't let the cats out of the bag. They are hard to round up and put back in.
during which the first meeting of my Ministry of the Word class was held and attending two fantasy football drafts, I am ready to toss out for your edification a description of one of eight, or so,views of sanctification.
Since this is the first one, I ask you to bear with me a bit. I am not sure this will work. The bullets approach is probably okay if I write the right bullets. The danger I face is giving a false representation of any specific view. Here goes with view #1.
Bullets:
+ Sanctification is not our work, it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
+ It is not something added to justification.
+ Equating sanctification with living a moral life is a mistake.
+ Trying to live a moral life according to some scheme is what we are delivered from as we are brought out of the Adamic nature into justification life.
+ It makes no sense to believe we are justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law and at the same time to hold on to a conditional scheme that proposes "if only I could live morally perfectly, then I could be sanctified".
+ When this approach is pushed, justification becomes a theory, and sanctification becomes your task to achieve.
+ It is impossible to put God's unconditional act of justifying sinners for Jesus' sake alone together with our ideas of progress via conditional sanctification. It doesn't work logically or in practice.
+ We need to see that we are simultaneously justified and sinners (simul justus et peccator)
+ This means that seeing our justification is an antidote to our sin, and failures. But it also means that if we see ourselves as becoming morally perfect we will assuredly begin to think we don't require unconditional justification.
+ This means that it is safer to be unaware of your own sanctification. It is God's secret work or transformation in you that you will be largely unaware of. (When you give to the needy, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Then your father, who sees what is done in secret will reward you.)
Verse support:
Mt 6:3,4. 1 Cor 1:28-31. 2 Thess 2:13. Heb 10:10. Rom 6:1-11. Mt 23:27. Gal 6:15
Comment:
This view has a very high view of the new creation. It is God's work. He finished off the old man and puts to death all our efforts to make ourselves acceptable in His sight. It sees the danger in allowing ourselves any wiggle room for self credit as we stand before God.
Note: I plan to withhold which view this (and all others) is until the end, so don't let the cats out of the bag. They are hard to round up and put back in.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Deb and I just got a
visit from a friend who lived for many years in Bay St. Louis, Miss. (25 miles east of N.O.) and we got a second hand account of the events in the gulf area.
Here are the salient points:
- His son is a police officer in Waveland, Miss., a town that adjoins Bay St. Louis. He last heard from him Sunday morning. That morning, Jeremy, the son, was headed in to the PD (police dept) for emergency duty. He just heard from him again today and learned the following: He was in the station with 15 or so other officers when the two 30 foot walls of water hit. When the water level filled up the first floor, they all took off their boots, ditched their weapons, and jumped out the window. They then swam for their lives for the next four hours. He survived as did all the other officers.
- Jeremy is now dealing with picking out bodies of his friends in what is left of Waveland, which is essentially nothing. He has lived in that town of 9,000 for 20 years and knows (knew) most everybody in the town.
- My friend fears that many of his friends in Bay St. Louis - he was a church pastor there for 20 years - may be dead, as there is not much left of either Waveland or Bay St. Louis.
- His observations about N.O. cleared some things up for me. 70% of N.O. is black. Half of those are clearly in the lower echelons of black society. (Most of the upper echelon black folk left N.O. long ago). He makes the claim (which sounds most plausible to me) that what you see on TV of the chaos on the streets is the result of the "projects" being let loose on the streets. The projects are black housing where anarchy has reigned for 20 years. He said that 20 years ago, he wouldn't go in them in daylight unless he was armed. He said he wouldn't venture in them at night under any condition. The N.O. police have had a hands off policy in the projects for years. They are unable to administer any kind of law enforcement in them and so they leave them be. Now, they are free to do whatever they want since there is no way to stop their actions. It is what you clearly see on TV.
- He made the claim that there was (and still is) a simple solution for the able bodied that are stuck in the mess in N.O. They can walk north on the levee. 70 miles to Baton Rouge if necessary. There are other towns along the way to B.R. He expressed frustration in that, rather than taking that initiative, they insist on standing around asking for deliverance. His opinion may sound harsh to you, but his judgment sounds good to me. (Some who favor a welfare state may not agree with the implication that it brings a systemic problem, in that people eventually lose any native notion of self-determination.)
- I asked him for his theological take on the disaster. Especially regarding the opinion of some who say that this disaster is God's judgment on a morally corrupt city. His answer was simply to begin listing the churches he knows of that have been destroyed, and parishoners who have died.
- He pointed to the garden of Eden and what transpired there to explain in general why these disasters happen. We live in a cursed place.
- He also expressed the opinion, contrary to some that N.O. should be leveled and forgotten, that the city would be rebuilt, mostly because N.O. is an extremely important (to the U.S) port city and a major energy cog for the country. It needs to be rebuilt.
- He spoke with us for an hour and was clearly shaken but is also very thankful that his son is alive and well, and coming to SD for his wedding next week.
visit from a friend who lived for many years in Bay St. Louis, Miss. (25 miles east of N.O.) and we got a second hand account of the events in the gulf area.
Here are the salient points:
- His son is a police officer in Waveland, Miss., a town that adjoins Bay St. Louis. He last heard from him Sunday morning. That morning, Jeremy, the son, was headed in to the PD (police dept) for emergency duty. He just heard from him again today and learned the following: He was in the station with 15 or so other officers when the two 30 foot walls of water hit. When the water level filled up the first floor, they all took off their boots, ditched their weapons, and jumped out the window. They then swam for their lives for the next four hours. He survived as did all the other officers.
- Jeremy is now dealing with picking out bodies of his friends in what is left of Waveland, which is essentially nothing. He has lived in that town of 9,000 for 20 years and knows (knew) most everybody in the town.
- My friend fears that many of his friends in Bay St. Louis - he was a church pastor there for 20 years - may be dead, as there is not much left of either Waveland or Bay St. Louis.
- His observations about N.O. cleared some things up for me. 70% of N.O. is black. Half of those are clearly in the lower echelons of black society. (Most of the upper echelon black folk left N.O. long ago). He makes the claim (which sounds most plausible to me) that what you see on TV of the chaos on the streets is the result of the "projects" being let loose on the streets. The projects are black housing where anarchy has reigned for 20 years. He said that 20 years ago, he wouldn't go in them in daylight unless he was armed. He said he wouldn't venture in them at night under any condition. The N.O. police have had a hands off policy in the projects for years. They are unable to administer any kind of law enforcement in them and so they leave them be. Now, they are free to do whatever they want since there is no way to stop their actions. It is what you clearly see on TV.
- He made the claim that there was (and still is) a simple solution for the able bodied that are stuck in the mess in N.O. They can walk north on the levee. 70 miles to Baton Rouge if necessary. There are other towns along the way to B.R. He expressed frustration in that, rather than taking that initiative, they insist on standing around asking for deliverance. His opinion may sound harsh to you, but his judgment sounds good to me. (Some who favor a welfare state may not agree with the implication that it brings a systemic problem, in that people eventually lose any native notion of self-determination.)
- I asked him for his theological take on the disaster. Especially regarding the opinion of some who say that this disaster is God's judgment on a morally corrupt city. His answer was simply to begin listing the churches he knows of that have been destroyed, and parishoners who have died.
- He pointed to the garden of Eden and what transpired there to explain in general why these disasters happen. We live in a cursed place.
- He also expressed the opinion, contrary to some that N.O. should be leveled and forgotten, that the city would be rebuilt, mostly because N.O. is an extremely important (to the U.S) port city and a major energy cog for the country. It needs to be rebuilt.
- He spoke with us for an hour and was clearly shaken but is also very thankful that his son is alive and well, and coming to SD for his wedding next week.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
I'll interrupt my research (hah)
to interject this comment, in the form of a question. How much revenue loss do local charities suffer when a big disaster occurs? There has to be some (probably significant) funneling away from local charities when a major city is destroyed, eh? So, do you feel that you should think twice before you send your relief check? Maybe you should be the one to remember the locals who need a constant inflow of cash regardless what is happening around the globe.
On a somewhat related note, the AFLAC insurance corp. recently offered the following donation to New Orleans. They are giving a 90 day grace period on insurance premiums to N.O. residents. That causes me to wonder how many N.O. residents even have health insurance.
Back to work.
to interject this comment, in the form of a question. How much revenue loss do local charities suffer when a big disaster occurs? There has to be some (probably significant) funneling away from local charities when a major city is destroyed, eh? So, do you feel that you should think twice before you send your relief check? Maybe you should be the one to remember the locals who need a constant inflow of cash regardless what is happening around the globe.
On a somewhat related note, the AFLAC insurance corp. recently offered the following donation to New Orleans. They are giving a 90 day grace period on insurance premiums to N.O. residents. That causes me to wonder how many N.O. residents even have health insurance.
Back to work.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
I am heading
back to school. Eight months off is a long time. The old joke about taking 5 years to thaw out after graduating from a Reformed Seminary is as far off base as ever. I need to hurry back in there before I fall away into permanent perdition.
The class I am about to take is called 'Ministry of the Word'. It is a prereq. class for the entire preaching sequence. So it is mandatory if I ever hope to finish up the M.Div.
If you like you can take a look at the books I will be reading for this class:
Augustine, On Christian Teaching
Richard Baxter, Reformed Pastor
Charles Bridges, Christian Ministry (One of the top 602,176 Amazon sellers!)
Edmund Clowney, Called to the Ministry
Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible
Samuel Logan, The Preacher and Preaching
Hughes Old, Guide to the Reformed Tradition
William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying
If and when I latch onto some eye-opening stuff in this class, I assure you, my readers, that you will be the first to know the scoop.
back to school. Eight months off is a long time. The old joke about taking 5 years to thaw out after graduating from a Reformed Seminary is as far off base as ever. I need to hurry back in there before I fall away into permanent perdition.
The class I am about to take is called 'Ministry of the Word'. It is a prereq. class for the entire preaching sequence. So it is mandatory if I ever hope to finish up the M.Div.
If you like you can take a look at the books I will be reading for this class:
Augustine, On Christian Teaching
Richard Baxter, Reformed Pastor
Charles Bridges, Christian Ministry (One of the top 602,176 Amazon sellers!)
Edmund Clowney, Called to the Ministry
Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible
Samuel Logan, The Preacher and Preaching
Hughes Old, Guide to the Reformed Tradition
William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying
If and when I latch onto some eye-opening stuff in this class, I assure you, my readers, that you will be the first to know the scoop.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Starting soon, probably
before the week is out, I am going to launch a series on sanctification. It will, I reckon, consist of one post per week. Each entry will cover one of the primary views on sanctification. In order for this effort to not be too much of a burden to myself, I will format the content in a bulletized fashion with the addition of a key quote, a key verse, and a comment by myself. With each entry, I will withhold the source (denomination, sect or label) of the view I am presenting. The purpose for this approach is for your benefit. You will be prevented from bringing your own biases that get triggered by labels when reading the material. Obviously, you can defeat this if you already know these positions.
The reason I am embarking on this research is, in the first place, for my own edification. Of late, I have been the recipient of much preaching which has had the effect of beating me up spiritually. For weeks on end,I have been told, in so many words, that I am not good enough. I am not mature enough. I am not disciplined enough. That my Christianity is a routine designed just to make me feel good about myself. That I am more like a Pharisee than a Christ follower. That my prayer of confession is a ruse on my part that I employ merely to clear the path for my next bout of selfish sinning.
I need a quick pick-me-up. I would rather be told that I am holy, quite frankly. I had been led to believe that the Bible tells me that very thing. Or does it? Hence my quest.
The second reason for this post is that I believe an overview of this topic could stimulate Biblical thinking on your part, always a good thing. I have the sneaking suspicion that a large part of the modern evangelical church is drifting away from doctrinal issues such as this. Even though this may not be true in the case of any of the readers of this blog, I want to counter this tendency.
Naturally, I have sources for this research. I will also withhold these sources until the end. (Don't want you reading ahead).
before the week is out, I am going to launch a series on sanctification. It will, I reckon, consist of one post per week. Each entry will cover one of the primary views on sanctification. In order for this effort to not be too much of a burden to myself, I will format the content in a bulletized fashion with the addition of a key quote, a key verse, and a comment by myself. With each entry, I will withhold the source (denomination, sect or label) of the view I am presenting. The purpose for this approach is for your benefit. You will be prevented from bringing your own biases that get triggered by labels when reading the material. Obviously, you can defeat this if you already know these positions.
The reason I am embarking on this research is, in the first place, for my own edification. Of late, I have been the recipient of much preaching which has had the effect of beating me up spiritually. For weeks on end,I have been told, in so many words, that I am not good enough. I am not mature enough. I am not disciplined enough. That my Christianity is a routine designed just to make me feel good about myself. That I am more like a Pharisee than a Christ follower. That my prayer of confession is a ruse on my part that I employ merely to clear the path for my next bout of selfish sinning.
I need a quick pick-me-up. I would rather be told that I am holy, quite frankly. I had been led to believe that the Bible tells me that very thing. Or does it? Hence my quest.
The second reason for this post is that I believe an overview of this topic could stimulate Biblical thinking on your part, always a good thing. I have the sneaking suspicion that a large part of the modern evangelical church is drifting away from doctrinal issues such as this. Even though this may not be true in the case of any of the readers of this blog, I want to counter this tendency.
Naturally, I have sources for this research. I will also withhold these sources until the end. (Don't want you reading ahead).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)