Thursday Night Theology

Todd Wood on evolution

2009-11-10T03:38:00.000-08:00

Todd Wood has been a professor of biochemistry at Bryan College in the CORE (Center for Origins Research) since the year 2000. He has a blog on which he left an interesting post about evolution. Here is a quote from that post:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

Todd Wood is a young earth creationist who works at Bryan College in Dayton, Ohio. This is the town where the Scopes trial was and the school is of course named after William Jennings Bryan. Interesting perspective.

Tony Campolo and the Birthday Party

2009-09-28T00:52:00.000-07:00

This is probably one of my favorite stories Tony Campolo was at a diner at 3:30 in the morning and a bunch of prostitutes came in . . .

Hurricanes and Blessing

2009-08-08T21:58:00.000-07:00

I was just wondering. A few years ago, we had a lot of hurricanes that ravaged the Gulf Coast and many preachers and prophets told us it was a sign of God's judgment. Can we now take the fact that we have not had a single storm, not even a tropical disturbance, as a sign of God's approval?

The US as Christian Nation - Not

2009-04-15T23:59:00.000-07:00

Here is a perennial favorite, but one that sort of bugs me. It seems to me that evangelical Christians make the status of the USA as a Christian nation too important. It is an unspoken plank in the core of many doctrinal statements. Below I give a quote from a post that was linked to a link where a comment was left. I think that is the way it goes. Anyway, I would be interested in comments on the quote.

"The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when -- as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution -- the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!

In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration's principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney -- he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian -- or even biblical, with the exception of "Creator." The term "providence" is never used of God in the Bible, nor are "nature's God" or "Supreme Judge of the world" ever used in the Bible.

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison's notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources -- but no Scripture verses.

In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution's principles, either -- one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word "God" is used twice -- and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. "Almighty" is used twice and "providence" three times -- but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned."

The link can be found here. By the way, apparently these comments come from an evangelical historian.

Already and Not Yet

2009-02-27T07:01:00.001-08:00

The 'already / not yet' paradigm has been helpful, especially in the are of the theology of the kingdom. I wrote up the table above because I think it can be extended to salvation, and even to individual elements in soteriology. I would appreciate interaction on this.

Some Politics

2009-01-28T21:46:00.000-08:00

Pardon this foray into politics, but to me this is an issue of clear thinking and the presentation of conservatives and Evangelicals in the public sphere. Before the election and now after, conservatives are sounding the alarms. We are coming across as fearful and angry.

One repeated accusation against Obama is that he is a socialist. I hear this often from conservatives still, having heard it during the campaign. In my view this is illegitimate hype. What is socialism? Obama's policies fall way short of socialism. Even the Socialist Party and other socialist types say that Obama is not a socialist. I am just saying we throw words around for rhetorical effect and it doesn't matter whether or not they are true. Well, as an evangelical, I think that truth ought to mean something to us.

Another big fear I hear is that basically Evangelical Christianity will be outlawed. Last January, the conservative news outlet Worldnet Daily published a "Letter from a Future Prisoner". This was set in November 2010 after Hilary's election to the presidency, coming from a Christian who had been arrested. It is pure drama and total hogwash. Obama was/is supposed to be worse than Hilary, so let's wait and see if there will be mass arrests of Christians in America in the next few years.

Could Obama's inauguration in any sense be called 'secular'? Real secularists, atheists, and members of other religions in America are baffled when Christians complain about their 'minority' status and how persecuted Christians in America are. Knowing what I know of persecution in history and around the world I am baffled as well.

We need to stay with the kingdom agenda and get off this whining, "I'm being repressed" mindset that is just ridiculous.

A Question About Methodology

2009-01-08T22:52:00.000-08:00

Last month, I finished John Walton's commentary on Genesis in the NIV Application Commentary series. It's an excellent piece of scholarship and his applications are extremely powerful. Having recently lost Andrei, Walton's words on God's charge to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac were deep and encouraging. He has many unique and fresh insights that help the reader look at the Genesis text in a much more meaningful way than is traditionally done.

This, in fact, leads to my question. One of our Thursday Night Theology members had Walton for a class in seminary and remembers him saying that if he didn't have something new or origianl to contribute, then he wouldn't write. I can testify that this is exactly what Walton did in just about the entirety of his Genesis commentary. Not only were original perspectives shared on some of Genesis' toughest issues, but even noncontroversial passages were given a new spin. Only a miniscule number of verses were free from Walton's "new interpretation rampage."

So, is this a good way to do theology? I'm not saying that Walton published ideas as though he believed them when, in fact, he didn't, simply so that he could say something new. But it sure seems like making a prior decision to only contribute something novel could restrict you from affirming some fundamentally sound and universally agreed upon theological conclusions. The truth needs to be restated regularly and such restatements can often be improved upon. This is hard enough to do without the burden of coming up with new interpretations for everything. For all of the value of Walton's insights — and don't misunderstand me, the value is enormous — there were plenty of times when I closed the book shaking my head over why he felt that such-and-such a passage needed another perspective. It seems like this methodology could lead you down a bad road quicky, sidestepping good, right and wise thoughts so that you can arrive at alternatives.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Zane Hodges Passed Away

2008-12-01T10:11:00.000-08:00

I haven't written in a while, but saw this bit of news and thought I would make a note of it. Zane Hodges passed away a few days ago. Another place to look is here. For those of you who don't know Zane Hodges, I (and probably others of you) interacted with Hodges work on at least two fronts. First of all, he was an exponent of what is called 'free grace' theology. This view of conversion and salvation was opposed by John MacArthur and others who espouse 'lordship salvation'. Zane wrote several books on the idea which can still be found at Amazon. I also interacted with his work on textual issues. Hodges was a strong supporter of the Majority Text and was a big player, as I understand, in the translation of the New King James Version. He put out a Greek text according to the Majority Text that I have found helpful on occasion. His viewpoints are alive and well even though he has gone on to his reward. So people will be interacting with his views for some time to come.

Chafer on Rewards and Salvation

2008-10-15T04:23:00.000-07:00

Continuing with a Chafer theme here, I was also reading about what Chafer has to say about rewards. In vol. 7 of his Systematic Theology, Chafer says this:

(begin Chafer quote)"Having saved a soul on the basis of grace . . . , God recognizes an indebtedness on His part to reward believers for their service to Him. . . What the believer has achieved for God He recognizes in faithfulness with rewards at the judgment seat of Christ."

Chafer then quotes Scofield approveingly, " . . . salvation is invariably spoken of as a free gift (various scriptures listed); while rewards are earned by works (scriptures listed)."

In his little book Salvation (p. 66), Chafer says: "Salvation is God's work for us. Rewards are always connected with the believer's works and merit."

What do you think about the mixture of a "grace" system and a "merit" system in the Christian life? Is there a dichotomy or can the two ideas be synthesized or integrated somehow?

Chafer on Grace

2008-10-13T00:22:00.000-07:00

As some of you know, Lewis S. Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and his Systematic Theology was formational and foundational for dispensational theology. A huge component of this theology is his understanding of grace and it's relationship with law. I discovered a perspective in his theology that included this comment in Volume 4, pages 162-4, under the category "Rules of Life in the Old Testament". To give you some context, he has been saying that God's bringing the people out of Egypt was an expression God's grace. He now continues:

(begin quote from Chafer) "Until that hour they had been sustained in the faithfulness of Jehovah and in spite of their wickedness; His plan and purpose for them had remained unchanged. He had dealt with them according to the unconditional covenant of grace made with Abraham. The marvelous blessedness of that grace-relationship should have appealed to them as the priceless riches of the unfailing mercy of God, which it was. The surrender of the blessings of grace should have been allowed by these people on no condition whatever. Had they said at the hearing of the impossible law, "None of these things can we do. We crave only to remain in that boundless mercy of God, who has loved us, and sought us, and saved us from all our enemies, and who will being us to Himself," it is evident that such an appeal would have reached the very heart of God. And the surpassing glory of His grace would have been extended to them without bounds; . . . In place of the eagles' wings by which they were carried unto God, they confidently chose a covenant of works when they said: "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." They were called upon to face a concrete choice between the mercy of God which had followed them, and a new and hopeless covenant of works. They fell from grace. . . . The children of Israel definitely chose the covenant of works, which is law, as their relationship to God" (end quote from Chafer)

Well, what do you think? When God gave the law to Israel gave the 10 commandments and the rest of the law on Mt. Sinai, was he giving them a choice that He actually hoped they wouldn't accept? Or is law somehow also an expression of grace? Or is there another option?

New Perspective on Paul

2008-09-30T07:49:00.000-07:00

Well, we didn't have the theology group last Thursday. Hopefully some time in the future. I am going to try to put up some posts with either issues or quotes for folks to react to. I thought I would start with the new perspective on Paul.

I have found the NP on Paul helpful and so basically have a positive view toward it. I think that it gives a good corrective in the Christian understanding of Jewish religion both ancient and modern. It has helped me to resolve some tensions in Paul's view of the law. It has helped me make sense of some tough passages. I do not agree with everything that every NP writer proposes, but most of the basic ideas have been helpful.

So do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what are some of your concerns?

Creationism at This Point

2008-08-28T04:25:00.000-07:00

The Sixth International Conference on Creationism was held August 3-7 in Pittsburgh, PA. This is probably the most significant regular gathering of creationist scientists in the world. Andrew Snelling with Answers in Genesis gave a talk there and discussed the present state of the creationist movement and creationist scholarship. Below are two slides from his presentation.

Fairly interesting. These pictures were taken by Jason Rosenhouse (an atheist evolutionist) who wrote several blog post reports as he attended the conference. Interesting perspectives.

Prayer for Fasting

2008-08-17T06:33:00.000-07:00

I would never claim to be good at fasting. I don't do it often, and it has been a while since I did it. But when I was doing it more frequently, I wrote a prayer to recite while I was feeling hungry that helped me to focus on what I was doing and why I was doing it. Hope you find it stimulating if not helpful.

Loving Father,

Thank you for these feelings of hunger and weakness.

Meet me now in this discipline. Let me know the joy of your presence as you save me and change me, and as we fellowship together in this place.

Help me now to recall how Christ suffered these feelings for me so I could be saved; how the saints and martyrs suffered and grew in holiness and love; and how the poor and oppressed suffer this way daily through no fault of their own.

Help me to remember these things, Father, so that in this time of fasting I might grow in my awareness of how weak I am, and how dependent I am on your gifts, so that I might value my life with gratitude, contentment and joy.

Help me to remember these things so that I might grow in endurance and ability to deny myself, so that I might better resist temptations of the flesh.

Help me to remember these things so that I might deepen my relationship with you and others, and deepen my obedience to your commands.

And help me to remember these things so that I might grow in spiritual and mental strength, so that I might serve and obey you with greater clarity and resolve.

I ask for all these things as your will for my life through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

A Thought on Art

2008-06-17T09:15:00.000-07:00

Art is the interpretive removal of something from it's real-life context.

The Glory of the Atonement - Theological Discussion Group Next Thursday!!!

2008-05-14T09:53:00.000-07:00

I know that I'm stealing the title of this post from a book by that name, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III, but it says so well what I feel after having spent a week teaching Christology and ending with reflections on the atonement. The beautiful realities of what we have because of Christ's work on our behalf are indeed glorious and Scripture describes those realities in a myriad of ways. It seems to me that God revealed the glory of the atonement with so many images because none of them, standing alone, can capture that glory completely. But not everyone agrees with such an assessment. In my limited investigations, the larger part of contemporary evangelical theology seems to think that one of the images must serve as a controlling paradigm for all the rest. Here are a few examples that show this to be true:

Robert Letham, in his The Work of Christ from the IVP Contours of Christian Theology series, wonderfully describes 9 aspects of the the atonement that illustrate how magnificent was Christ's work on the cross. But only when he comes to the idea of penal substitution does he speak so categorically. "At the heart of the biblical doctrine of atonement is the idea of penal substitution." (p. 132)

In IVP's The Nature of the Atonement, edited by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, three of the four contributing authors promote a different atonement image as the controlling paradigm. Greg Boyd says that the Christus Victor motif should serve that role. "All models of the atonement can be understood as distinctive aspects of one thing: overcoming evil with good ... Yes, Jesus died in our place, brought about or forgiveness, [and did all of the other things that various other atonement models proclaim that he did on the cross]. But, I submit, all these marvelous aspects of Christ's work can be understood, and are best understood, as distinctive aspects of the "rich variety" of God's "secret and hidden" wisdom by which he overcame evil with good and calls us to the same." (p. 45)

In the same work, Joel Green seems to show the promise of a view that would integrate the various models in his "kaleidoscopic view." However, in his other writings, in the formal presentation of his view and in his response to Thomas Schreiner's "penal substitutionary view," Green seems, at times to downplay, at times to reject the penal substitutionary view altogether. He says that the penal substitutionary view doesn't have the support of Church history, is based on an improper understanding of God's wrath, causes the inter-trinitarian life of God to break down, plus a whole host of other weaknesses that leave one thinking that the penal substitutionary view has no warrant being in the kaleidoscope. This integrative theory leaves a bit to be desired.

And so, when we come to next week's theological discussion group, be prepared to discuss which theory of the atonement should have pride of place among the others, if indeed you think that one should. Between now and then I plan to read Henri Blocher's, "Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement" in the December 2004 issue of JETS. I'll be as prepared as possible to propose that a fully integrative atonement theory does the most justice to the glory of the atonement, but I'll be ready to be convinced otherwise. See you next Thursday.

I have been there

2008-05-12T07:22:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have seen this already, but here is a quick video about cross-cultural communication. A pastor guy is preaching and a man from another country is translating. Just a reminder of how silly we Americans behave and how important it is to learn the language of the people we are speaking to.

And just for the grins of it, here is a video from the Expelled movie evolution creation thing that is pretty good. The faces that appear during the song are all famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers and a few more.

The Universe in One Year

2008-04-14T11:21:00.000-07:00

Here is a little thing I did some time ago regarding the age of the universe. The idea comes from Carl Sagan who did it first. The most current estimate of the age of the universe according to secular scientists is 13.7 billion years. I know that some in the group agree with and most probably disagree with this estimate. Please feel free to use this information to argue either for or against the idea. But because 13.7 billion years is such a long time, it is difficult to get a sense of the relationship of early to current history. So I overlay the 13.7 billion on top of a year to get a proportional sense. Please feel free to correct the math if I made a mistake.

Assuming that the earth is 13.7 billion years old:
Then January first at 0:00 midnight begins the time period.

37,534,246.6 years is equivalent to one day.
1,563,926.9 years is equivalent to one hour.
26,065.4 years is equivalent to one minute.
And 434.42 years is equivalent to one second.

In the standard version of universal history, the earth was formed roughly 4.55 billion years ago. On the one-year calendar, that would mean that the earth was formed on September 1^st.

Larger than microscopic animals arose just before the Cambrian period some 542 million years ago, which in our calendar begins on December 18^th.

The dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, which would be during the day on December 30^th.

Jesus died on the cross roughly at 30 AD. On our calendar, that would be on December 31st at 11:59:55 PM.

Augustine lived on that same last day at 11:59:56 PM, and the Reformation was at 11:59:59 PM.

Well, there's a lot here. The most fascinating bits are, of course, that the earth doesn't even arrive on the scene until 8 full months have passed, and anything resembling animals doesn't show up until well into December. People don't show up until around the last 10 to 20 minutes of the last hour of the last day of the year. Crazy.

What would the theological implications of that "empty" time be if this were the true account of creation? Or does this simply show how that this version of the history of the universe cannot possibly be true according to the Bible and Christian theology?

Wright's response to Piper

2008-04-08T13:35:00.000-07:00

Wanted to let folks who did not see it, there is a link on the N. T. Wright web page to an interview Wright gave at Asbury seminary. Ben Witherington was seated next to him along with a moderator and an older man, I think the president of the school or dean or something. Anyway, the interview is great, and in it, Wright responds to Piper's book critiquing Wright's view of justification. You can go to the link by clicking here, and then simply play the video.

Website Copier

2008-03-28T07:44:00.000-07:00

Here is a recommended program that has been helpful to me. I visit some websites that are really archives, large collections of articles, like John Piper's website or the Talkorigins Archive. Slowly over time I check out quite a few of these articles, but there are times when I am not connected to the internet but would still like to be able to read at my own leisure.

Well, there is a program that is free to download that I have used called HTTrack website copier. Go to this link and you can download it. I don't know everything about how to use a lot of its features, but I have downloaded a few collections and it is helpful for me to have. So just a recommendation. Perhaps the more computer savvy could point out something dangerous here, but I have enjoyed using it.

Larry Norman

2008-02-29T11:17:00.000-08:00

I don't know how meaningful this will be to many of you, but I was a little saddened to learn that Larry Norman died last Sunday night. He had apparently been sick for some time. I have listened to Larry Norman since I was very young, from "I wish we'd all been ready" to "Watch what you're doin'". He was kinda wild, a little wierd (especially after the accident and head injury), but he was a pioneer in Christian music. I am glad he is home with his Lord.

Hermeneutics Quiz

2008-02-29T09:49:00.000-08:00

Here is a hermeneutics quiz that I saw over at Scot McKnight's blog called the Jesus Creed. You can go to it by clicking here.

Wrestling in Prayer

2008-01-15T12:25:00.000-08:00

I hope all of you are having a good new year. I wish I could be there with you all, this Thursday, at least for the snacks. But I am not sure I would feel comfortable at a meeting that was openly discussing liberalism. Just doesn't seem right.

So I had a question that I genuinely am not sure of the answer to. I am wanting to better understand prayer, and would like to preach on it. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.

Colossians 4:12 says: "Epaphras . . . is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything God wills."

My questions are: if we can boldly come before the throne of grace (Heb 4), why is he wrestling? Who or what is he wrestling against? What does wrestling mean in this context? Is he wrestling against God, himself, the devil, something else? Do they wrestle back? Why does he always do it?

Any insight you have on this would be greatly appreciated. I believe it is very important for our prayer lives, but am not sure how to understand it.

Postliberalism, Here We Come!

2008-01-09T07:10:00.000-08:00

Hello all!

We will be meeting next Thursday at the Oldenburg apartment to discuss postliberalism. Alister has been hard at work collecting materials to prepare us for the discussion. I will send an email with most of the materials attached, but he also had some commentary on some of the articles and some links to which I thought it would be helpful for all of us to have access. In any case, get reading and come ready to discuss.

First, a definition from the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Postliberalism: The late-twentieth-century theological movement that refutes the reliance on human experience displayed by the older liberalism and restores the idea of a community's tradition as a controlling influence in theology. Postliberalism was initially associated with thinkers such as George Lindbeck, who rejected both the fundamentalist and liberal understandings of the nature of doctrine (as either objectively true propositions or expressions of subjective religious experience) in favor of the view that sees doctrine as the "ground rules" of a religious community.

Now I'll list the articles and links that I'll be sending by email with any of Alister's comments underneath.

1. "The Origins of Postliberalism" by Gary Dorrien

"read what you need to get a feel for what postliberalism is." -Alister

2. "Community & Relationships: A Theological Take" Interview with Stanley Grenz

3. "Discipleship as a Craft, Church as a Disciplined Community" by Stanley Hauerwas

4. "Re-Imagining the Princeton Mind: Postconservative Evangelicalism, Old Princeton, and the Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism" by Paul Kjoss Helseth

"I'm in two minds about whether or not to recommend this - On the one hand its long and may seem very narrowly focused and even perhaps to some irrelevant to the discussion, BUT on the other its probably the most likely to provoke discussion AND I think it goes right to the root of one of the reasons for the emergence of postliberalism/postconservative/narrative theology, all of which in one way or another would I think its fair to says define themselves to some extent against evangelicalism insofar as they would say it is infected by such things as 'modern' rationalism and allegiance to propositional truth. The consensus until recently amongst many has been that this rationalist bent in evangelicalism (as evidenced they would say by such doctrines as 'inerrancy') was inherited (via early 20th fundamentalism) from Old Princeton. The tack has usually been to say that Old Princeton and Reformed Scholasticism is characterised by philosophical rationalism and therefore not very Christian, hence we should get away from this and the doctrines inherited from it. This is where this article comes in - basically it argues that the thesis that Hodge/Warfield et al were so rationalistic just doesn't stand up. Hence..... postconservatism (which shares much in common with postliberalism) has been defining themselves against a position which didn't exist." -Alister

5. "Postliberalism and its Implications for Evangelical Theology" by David Arndt

"presents an open/pro position toward postliberalism" -Alister

6. "Is Propositional Theology Passé?" by Josué Pérez

"a cautious/contra position" -Alister

Happy reading and we'll see you next Thursday at 7:00 PM!

Is Post-modernism dying?

2008-01-08T11:55:00.000-08:00

Hey, everyone. I appreciated the words on the Psalter. I have been doing my own explorations and was thrilled to see a canonical approach in the articles. I would love to have participated in that discussion.

Well, I tend to look at various blogs, many of them from atheists. I saw an article (check it out here) that I thought might be interesting because of the theme of post-modernism. He asks the question as to whether P-m may have run its course. Obviously he is speaking only in certain circles, such as some areas of academia. Just like with all philosophy, the trends in academia are not felt in society until much later. But it seems like an interesting possibility. At the very least it shows that not all non-believers are post-modernists.

I sincerely hope that you all enjoy the closeness of the Lord's presence and grace in the new year.

The Riches of the Psalter

2007-12-02T09:34:00.000-08:00

We had an excellent evening of discussion last Thursday with a record setting four of us present. We've added one person per month since the start of this academic year, which means that by May we should have 9 participants (we're skipping a December meeting)! I don't know where they'll all come from, however, with so many of you in the States. No matter the final tally, we're growing and the discussion is more and more lively the more people we add.

Seriously though, Andy, Denis, Alister and I spent the whole time trying to get a good handle on the canonical approach to the Psalter. Denis is well-versed in recent Psalms studies and most of the time was spent listening to his clear and convincing proposals. We didn't discuss the Leslie McFall article that I sent out mostly because Denis didn't like it as it was counter to his theories. Alister added insights from the academy, being the most recent of us to have graduated from seminary. Andy and I listened and asked clarification questions, being the least familiar with the canonical approach. It would have been nice to have Jon and Rick with us as they are in-the-know — Jon especially when it comes to the Psalms.

I must admit that my question is still unanswered. Being that the Psalter, as we have it, was ordered after the Psalms were composed (soon or long after does not matter), how exactly are we supposed to apply the results of the canonical approach when we study, teach and preach the Psalms? I'm especially concerned with this for two reasons. Firstly, it seems that Denis' presentation of the canonical approach, McFall's article, which contradicts the canonical approach in a number of ways and the admission that canonical theologians don't all agree with one another leaves us with a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the purpose of the order of the Psalter, as we have it. [Aside: I apologize for my misuse of terminology on Thursday. I made it seem like there was uncertainty about the order of the Psalms. Of course there isn't. The canonical order is the order we have. The uncertainty exists in determining the intent of the complier(s).] If there is such uncertainty, I find it hard to apply the fruits of the approach in my hermeneutics and exposition, especially in light of the fact that we're not even dealing with the Psalms themselves, only their order.

Which leads to my second concern. Denis, and apparently others in the canonical school (if I'm understanding them correctly) seem to propose that we can know very little ("next to nothing") of the historical setting of the individual Psalms, thus making it necessary to focus on each Psalm's place in the Canon to determine how we should study, interpret and preach it. This seems to fly in the face of the authorial intent that we've been placing a high priority on in this blog and that I consider crucial to any legitimate hermeneutic. Now we're talking about compiler intent and I have a much harder time applying my own understanding of the inspiration, inerrancy, clarity and authority of Scripture to a compiler. I'd like to hear a little more on this issue before I could embrace the canonical approach in my own research.

But now to the point. No matter which view one takes, we all come away with true and deep riches from the Psalms that are divinely used to encourage, challenge, rebuke and comfort us. This doesn't mean that we should become relativists as far as the Psalms are concerned. By no means! I think we'd all agree that we should continue to strive for truth and integrity in our Psalms study. But in that striving God is gracious and patient with us simpletons as we humbly try to find the truth that He intends for us, His people.

2007-11-22T05:32:00.000-08:00

Here is Dilbert's contribution to the authorial intent issue. Click on the comic to make it bigger. I hope you all have a nice Thanksgiving.

From the Shroud to the Psalms

2007-11-19T05:36:00.000-08:00

The three of us who met last month had a great time discussing the merits of the Shroud of Turin, the merits of the arguments put forth by Habermas and the Basingers as well as the merits of several criticisms of the Shroud's authenticity. We also watched an intriguing film on the Shroud that Jason conveniently had in his collection. Way to go Jason!

[side note 1: You get tons of extra credit for Theological Discussion Group if you can bring video to go with the discussion. However, if you bring video and it is boring then you have to bring the snacks to the following meeting. Choose carefully!]

In any case, the articles, film and discussion left me hungry for more, albeit with no time to spend feasting on all of the relevant materials. I find myself fairly convinced of the Shroud's authenticity but I am still uncertain as to how I would go about integrating it into any sort of apologetic presentation. We all seemed to have a little different take on whether and how to do so.

For anyone wanting more to chew on regarding the Shroud, you must visit this site. For anyone familiar with the common objections to the Shroud's authenticity, you should read this article specifically. I was floored by how much material is on this site and I was thoroughly impressed by how reasonable Sorensen's article is and by how convincing his answers are to the many objections that have been raised against the Shroud. If you prefer the "inference to the best explanation" approach to defending Christianity, this article will appeal to you.

[side note 2: You will be surprised at how widely accepted and promoted the popular criticisms of the Shroud are when, in fact, many of them have been revealed to be based on false claims. Shroud "experts" put forth bad evidence against the Shroud that actual Shroud experts dismissed 20 years ago or more.]

But now we move to the Psalms. My teaching gig in L'vov last week and the American Thanksgiving holiday this week require that we meet on Thursday, November 29. You all should have Denis' article on the Psalms to read for that meeting. It is still my goal to get another article out for us to consider. Look for it in the next few days. In the meantime practice your Russian on Denis' article, I'm sure it will require the best from each of us (except for the native speakers, of course). And we can never study the Psalms too much so, if you find something that you want to add to the discussion, get it to me to pass out or simply bring it with you next Thursday. May the result be that we are as honest and honoring as are the Psalmists when we converse with our amazing God.

Thoughts on the Scriptorium Daily

2007-10-23T09:41:00.000-07:00

Evening all!

Eric awhile back recommended the Scriptorium Daily as a good blog, and one related to Biola. So I have looked at it occasionally. There are some good articles, interesting thoughts. I wanted to react to two articles briefly. First, by John Mark Reynolds regarding J. K. Rowlings revelation that Dumbledor in the Harry Potter books was gay.

The first comment I would make was my surprise about how Christian he felt like the books are in overall structure and theme. I have not read the books, but know people who have. And the ending of the seventh book especially has some strong Christian parallels. It's just that, after hearing the books so demonized, to have him say that was surprising. I do not necessarily disagree, and this is in no way a protest. I am just saying I was surprised.

However, another comment he made was about the relationship between J. K. Rowling and her books at the present time caught my attention. Reynolds said this:

"No offense to an excellent author, but Dumbledore no longer belongs only to Rowling. He also belongs to her readers who have been given a series of books in which Rowling was free to say what she wanted to say. She wrote about Christianity openly by Book Seven, but if Dumbledore was gay, she decided to hide it. She hid it so well that there is no evidence of it."

Reynolds goes on to talk briefly about the obvious implications for Scriptural interpretation and authorial intent, but I don't think he addresses fully the problems that he is creating. To simply say that because there is no explicit evidence of Dumbledore's homosexuality in the books, therefore it doesn't matter what the author now says, to me overlooks the inherent ambiguity in many texts. It is simply a fact that some texts can be read from two very different perspectives, and in fact it is only the clearly expressed authorial intent that can settle it. For instance, we don't know against whom Paul was writing in his letters to the Romans, the Colossians, or in the Pastorals. There are verses where a better understanding of the enemy could better inform us as to his meaning and emphasis. I feel like the lack of clear evidence in a text one way or the other leaves options open rather than closing them. And authorial intent leaves them certain. I say that books still belong to Rowling, just like Paul's still belong to him. And yes, I am against homosexuality.

Now, the second article I wanted to comment on is the article called "Faith is Nothing," by Matt Jenson. I disagree. I think faith is something. I see his argument as a futile philosophical reduction that ignores both the Biblical text (see all of Romans 4, not just the beginning) and the theology of what the goal of salvation actually is. I think faith is something, and that it's being something is no way a threat to God's work, sovereignty or anything else. And I think that Luther, Calvin and Edwards (not to mention Paul) would agree with me.

Shrouded in Methodology

2007-10-17T14:08:00.000-07:00

If you've read the articles I sent out by Gary Habermas and the Basingers regarding the Shroud of Turin, you now know that their discussion isn't about the general authenticity of the Shroud, as I had hoped. Rather, their discussion is about how certain we can be the that the Shroud is the actual Shroud of Jesus — or whether it belongs to some other beaten, crowned with thorns, forced to carry his cross, crucified and stabbed first-century guy who escaped from the cloth without it being unwrapped or torn away from his bloody skin and who left a light/heat imprint of his face on it — and whether it should make any difference in our resurrection apologetic. Nonetheless, we'll talk in depth about who's made the better case on Thursday, October 18, 7:00 PM, at the Oldenburg apartment. Hopefully, Jason will provide us with a video on the Shroud that can provide some controversy and intruigue.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from our combatants:

"When the scientific shroud evidence is combined with the previously and independently validated gospels, the result is more than the probable identification of Jesus with the man of the shroud."
-Gary R. Habermas

"Scientific evidence is relevant to Christian belief, but the move from scientific evidence to significant religious conslusions is more difficult than Habermas seems to recognize."
-Randall and David Basinger

See you tomorrow!

Monty Python - International Philosophy

2007-10-10T15:22:00.001-07:00

Some of us in our studies are needing to wrestle with philosophy. I don't feel like we have plumbed the depths of the philosophical issues, however. Take a look at this contest between German and Greek philosophy. It certainly deepened my understanding of the ontology of football. Enjoy!

Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered ...

2007-10-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

We had a small group on Thursday (just Jason and I) but that doesn't mean we didn't enjoy ourselves. For one thing, it meant that we were able to consume all that we desired of my wife's delicious baked goods , still having some left over to enjoy the next day. It would have been nice to have more people but, I don't think we would have covered as much theological ground if there were more. We talked about the creation/evolution controversy, Paul's theology of mission, why so many bad books get translated into Russian when there are so many great ones yet to be translated, and more. We also had plenty of time to share personal stories that may or may not have had much to do with the above themes. So, for all who couldn't make it, we think you missed out on a good time and hope that you can join us for our October meeting. Let's get back on the 3rd Thursday of the month schedule and meet on the 19th. I'll try to get something out to y'all soon. Maybe I'll follow up on Mark's post regarding atonement theory. Or feel free to email me if you have a burning issue to discuss and we can make that top priority. Have a great month!

September '07 Meeting

2007-09-25T12:47:00.000-07:00

I hope all who are able will come ready to share from their theological musings this summer as we gather at 7:00 PM this Thursday, September 27, at the Oldenburg apartment. If no one has anything to say (like that's even a possibility) we can at least try to come up with a name for our group. We tried to figure that out at the beginning of last year but it didn't get very far. I had proposed, after our discussion on epistemology, that we be called the C.S.C.E. (Christian Society for a Combinationalist Epistemology) but I was hardly serious. I promised to make T-shirts but their absence proves my commitment level to the idea. In any case, come if you can and, if you can't, then come next time. See you there.

Atonement and Ransom

2007-09-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

Here is something about the atonement that I have blogged about elsewhere, but thought I would throw it out here. In my studies about the early church fathers, I run across the idea of the ‘Ransom to Satan’ theory of the atonement. As a good evangelical I know that is totally bogus, but as a curious weirdo, I can’t let go of the thing. So here is a proposal as to how the ‘ransom to Satan’ and vicarious atonement propitiation can actually fit together. Please understand that I am not simply interested in trying to reconcile everything. I genuinely feel that our evangelical theory of the atonement needs some supplement. The doctrine of redemption where Jesus pays the penalty for our sins is pretty solid in the Scriptures. I have no objection to it. But I feel like there is more. Anyway, here goes.

God has said that whoever sins will be punished, usually with death. Who does the punishing? Often we feel lke God does it. But I noticed a pattern in Scripture. God usually has an angel do the job. Often both God and the angel are given credit for the task. But the angel actually does the deed. In Exodus 12:21, 29 it says that God killed the first-born. But in Exodus 12:23, it says that ‘the Lord will pass over your door and not allow the destroyer to enter.’

In church discipline, Paul turns someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. 5:5. The scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16 is very interesting on this score. Two goats are at the center of this Day of Atonement ritual. One goat is sacrificed and its blood shed. The other is set aside. The priest places his hands on the live goat and transfers all the sins of the people onto the goat’s head, Lev. 16:21. Then, they will send the live goat out into the desert to Azazel, Lev. 16:8, 22. Many commentators, including Keil and Delitzsch believe this refers to a demon in the wilderness, who takes the goat with the sins. They are sending the sins back to where they come from, namely, the devil.

Now, Hebrews 2:14 says that Satan held the power of death, and that Christ set us free from him. What if that power were delegated to Satan? Therefore, in order to pay for our sins, the Father turned Jesus over to Satan to be killed, to pay the penalty we deserved. This might make Lewis’s Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe make more sense. In order to pay for Edmund’s sin, Aslan was not turned over to his father, the emporer across the sea. What does the witch say? ‘Traitors belong to me?’ Maybe she is right, and that that ownership was given to her, just as to Satan. So when a person becomes a believer, they are transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, Col. 1:14. They are set free from the devil who has taken them captive, 2 Tim 2:26. Well, it is something to think about.

The World is Not So Compartmentalized

2007-07-19T03:44:00.000-07:00

Before Mark left for Texas he gave me a link to a debate on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. I hadn't read the debate but, I think, if memory serves, we agreed - Craig being a philosopher and Ehrman an historian - that the two by and large talked past one another. After some interaction about the debate I made that assessment and Mark affirmed it.

I recently had the occasion to read the debate and can now talk about it more knowledgeably. I won't completely revise my original assessment but I'll make 3 points, a few of which will alter the original significantly. Those who wish to read the debate for themselves can do so here.

Caveat: I am a huge William Lane Craig fan and consider him an outstanding debater. I admire his overall clarity and unswerving commitment to evangelical Christianity and am jealous of his intellectual rigor. His concise manner of debate and the ability to directly address issues keep a debate on focus (as far as it is in his ability to do so). Maybe I think he won the debate because I like him when, in fact, Ehrman was the clear winner. I am open to that possibility ... but I don't think it is probable.

Point 1 - I'll start with my one criticism of Craig. I mentioned above that he likes to keep a debate focussed. A few times in the debate Ehrman brought out his methodological trump card, "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say that it probably occurred." This is a claim about historical methodology. Craig rightly pointed out that this is a methodological claim and does not directly deal with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Ehrman talked extensively about this, time which could have been better spent dealing with the evidence. I know much more about Ehrman's methodology after the debate than about what he thinks about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. This is not to say that he didn't deal with the evidence, but he could have done a better job.

My criticism of Craig is that he seems to have hid behind his ability to stick to the point in order to avoid dealing with a question about inerrancy that Ehrman raised. Granted, the question was loaded - Ehrman proposed that if you believe a historical document contains no errors then you have forfeited critical objectivity - but Craig could have answered it rather than ignoring it because it was off topic. We all hate debates that are unfocused but, if a question comes up, you should do your best to answer it. Ehrman's bold claim deserved at least an attempt at refutation.

Point 2 - Craig made some sharp remarks directed at Ehrman (i.e., naming his criticisms of Ehrman, "Ehrman's Egregious Error" and "Bart's Blunder") but they were nothing compared to Ehrman's personal disparagements of Craig. At one point Ehrman said, "Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus, and he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end." Ouch! That sounds like the sophisticated way of calling someone a "poser". Not very respectful, academic or accurate considering that Craig has devoted much of his career to researching the historical evidence for the resurrection. Then, in the question and answer period, Ehrman attacked Christian philosophy as a whole.

Ehrman: I am sorry. I have trouble believing that we are having a serious conversation about the statistical probability of the resurrection or the statistical probability of the existence of God. I think in any university setting in the country, if we were in front of a group of academics, we would be howled off the stage -

Craig: That's not true.

Ehrman: Well, that may not be true a the school you teach at, but at the research institution I teach at -

Craig: Well, what about Oxford University, where Professor Swinburne teaches?

Ehrman: Well, Swinburne has shown that there's a 0.97 percent probability. And how many people has he convinced of this exactly? These are the kinds of arguments that are convincing for people who want to be convinced. They're not serious arguments to be taken by people so they can actually say, "Oh yes, now I am going to believe because there's 0.97 probability factor!" In fact that's nonsense; you can't demonstrate the existence of the supernatural by statistical models.

From this exchange - the sophisticated way of calling a whole academic discipline a "poser" - we see that Ehrman thinks that no respectful university in the country would put up with an academic dialogue about the statistical probability of anything supernatural. Yet, I think it is safe to say, that it is only in an academic setting where such dialogues are taking place. It is academically embarrassing to mock a whole discipline, and those engaging in serious research in that discipline, just because you don't happen to know anything about it or because it doesn't fit into the confines of your own discipline.

From these two examples, I propose that one of the reasons Ehrman lost the debate is because he had to resort to name calling, albeit in a sophisticated form. If you refute an argument by demeaning the arguer (ad hominem) you at least leave open the possibility that you can't deal with the argument itself.

Point 3 - This one is simple, but it is my main point. Throughout the debate, Ehrman basically made distinctions between what we can know historically and what we can know theologically. This distinction fuels his idea stated above that we can't know if a miracle happened historically because history deals with probability and thus miracles, being improbable, can't be known historically. Similarly, God, being supernatural, cannot be addressed by the historian because history deals only with the natural. These are all reasons whey Ehrman believes that the resurrection is not historical. It may be true theologically but, it can't be true historically.

All I'll say is that our world is just too interconnected for that. To decide the parameters of a discipline is one thing. To say that I can't know something (no matter how much relevance, influence, evidence and interconnectedness there might happen to be between that thing and a discipline) because my particularly defined version of the discipline methodologically won't allow for it is a sign that a methodological revolution is in order. "The resurrection isn't historically true because I have methodologically ruled it out a priori." If I weren't trying to be so sophisticated, I think I might be inclined to use the "p" word.

Church and State cont.

2007-05-25T02:54:00.000-07:00

I had a fairly sleepless night after our discussion (no, I do not think the two were related; it was more likely related to the Detroit Tigers slaughtering my Anaheim Angels 12-0) so I did some reading on the question. I came across the following series of blog posts by John Mark Reynolds that I think are outstanding. They center around the upcoming U.S. presidential primaries (if you can consider something still so far in the future, "upcoming") but he addresses many of the things we touched on. I find a lot of commonalities between Mark's position that the government's job is to manage and Reynolds position that the government's job is to administer justice and uphold freedom. I'm certain that there are many dissimilarities between their positions but as you read you will see what I mean. If it is safe to say, as Mark himself did last night, that his position maintains a distinction between Christian personal ethics and a broader citizen ethic, Reynolds' position maintains a closer connection between the two that I am more comfortable with and, in fact, agree with wholeheartedly. Although we just touched the surface last night, my initial reaction to Mark's position is that the line of demarcation between Christian and citizen ethics is too strong. And I don't think it allows general revelation and natural theology (and hence, natural law) enough of a place. But that is a discussion for another time. Here I am intending to give you access to Reynolds' thoughts. The posts are long but quite interesting, even for our Slavic brothers who may be bored by U.S. politics. To such bothers, I suggest reading them due to the fact that Reynolds, a member of an Orthodox Church and quite familiar with Slavic history, makes several comments on these topics that broaden the discussion beyond the U.S. context. Happy reading ...

This Next Presidential Election 1 of 6:
Voting as We Pray

This Next Presidential Election 2 of 6:
Direct and Dispose the Hearts of all Christian Rulers

This Next Presidential Election 3 of 6:
Truly and Impartially Administer Justice
(or Why Mitt Romney Should Never Be King of England!)

This Next Presidential Election 4 of 6:
The Punishment of Wickedness and Vice

This Next Presidential Election 5 of 6:
Maintenance of True Religion and Virtue

This Next Presidential Election 6 of 6:
Peace in Our Time- Looking for Lincoln and Reagan

Worship on Thursday Night

2007-05-05T00:31:00.000-07:00

I decided to open up the blog because some folks were having trouble viewing it. I am not certain that many people are looking at the blog anyway, so the chances of anyone else looking at it are probably slim. But if anyone wants me to change it back, we can. I have made the other authors for the blog administrators who can make changes, so I am not the only one.
I wanted to quote something from Kevin Vanhoozer's Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible on "Worship" (p. 857), under the heading "Corporate Gatherings":

There is every reason to understand the theological dynamic of "whole-life worship" as intrinsic to the regular, corporate and public gatherings of the church. To hold that mutual edification was the piviotal center of such gatherings in the NT (Richardson) is unconvincing (Thompson; Campbell). These occasions - in both OT and NT - are best interpreted as events when "whole-life" worship is concentrated in relation to God in a conscious and directed way, when the people of God are realigned with God and his purposes, and through this realignment, with each other. More fully, in Christian terms, the church faces and engages with God directly, being built up as a fellowship by sharing in the worship of Christ through the Spirit's endwelling.

I would want to say, as I tried to say Thursday night, that what makes this "concentrated" form of worship a sub-species of the "whole-life" worship is not the fact that it is a corporate gathering. There is private "concentrated" worship. Rather the distinctive aspect of it is it's "direct" nature; that the people of God are concentrating on God in a direct way, facing and engaging directly with God in a way that is not typical of daily life. I would be interested in any thoughts on his words.

Christology 101

2007-04-09T23:45:00.000-07:00

This question is directed more toward our Slavic brothers. I will be teaching Christology in the fall and am trying to figure out which Russian texts would be good to assign the students. Could a few of you recommend some solid texts that might be available beyond the standard chapters in the systematics? Unfortunately, I'm not fluent enough to read Russian in a timely manner so, it would need to be something that is also available in English. I'm not simply asking for a list of books that have been translated from English into Russian, rather, for books that address issues relevant to the Ukrainian culture and context. Your help here will be greatly appreciated.

As a motivator for discussion (since asking for book recommendations is not really a discussion initiator) what are the Christological issues that the Church faces here. Is there such a transcendent focus on Christ's divinity that He isn't seen as one of us. Or do they so emphasize His manhood that He is not thought of or related to as fully God? Because there are questions that have confronted the Church since Its early centuries, I will not accept that answer that these are "western" questions. Что вы думаете?

Getting Started

2007-04-02T01:11:00.000-07:00

Well friends, I want to welcome you to our theology blog. I have set things up a certain way, and if we don't like the way it has been done we can change it. At this point, only we can contribute or even see the blog. A password is required, as I understand it, to even read the blog. Some had concerns about students or others reading about some of our ramblings. This is a place where we can discuss issues and interact in a way we wouldn't normally in our classrooms or churches. We can change that if it is not an issue. But we are wanting on a blog to try to capture some of what we have been so blessed to enjoy at the (sometimes) once a month gatherings.

Please any of you feel free to post at any time on any topic. I have started the blog, but I do not intend to do any great monitering or editing, unless absolutely necessary. We can discuss topics we spoke about on Thursday nights, or you can introduce new topics. Hopefully enough of us will have a few moments to respond and interact. The blog will obviously help especially those who want to participate, but who are not in Kiev at the moment.

We will also try to post articles that will be used as the basis for future discussions. So welcome, everyone, and enjoy!