Some Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.