The gospel we preach shapes the kind of churches we create.
The kind of church we have shapes the gospel we preach.
Scot McKnight - A Community Called Atonement
Any thoughts?
helping others and each other through prayer
8 hours ago
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Universal Election?
Dr. Thomas Talbott now joins our discussion on election. If the discussion was a puddle, Talbott would be accused of jumping in with both feet.
"Christian universalists insist that election is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature; election is, after all, an expression of God's love for the world, the whole world, and God's love is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature" (Talbott, 207).
Dr. Talbott is quick to point out that universalists would not agree with limited atonement, while at the same time, refusing the idea of conditional election that an Arminian might believe. Talbott argues from the following premises:
1) God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)
2) God is merciful to all (Rom. 11:32)
3) Understanding Romans 9 is based on how one understands Romans 11
4) Paul teaches not for limited atonement but for unconditional election and irresistable grace.
Due to space here, we'll deal with numbers one and two. Next week, we'll discuss premises three and four respectively and the responses.
As for God is love, Talbott points out that John Calvin didn't have much to say about the Johannine statements (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In fact, only in his commentary of 1 John does Calvin mention the verses in passing (nothing in Institutes). Recently, Reformed theologian J.I. Packer has discussed the verses in Knowing God. However, Talbott maintains Packer speaks of God being love not to unbelievers, but to Christians only (211). "Packer has stumbled over a text that he finds difficult to incorporate into his overall theological perspective" (ibid.).
In regards to premise number two, Dr. Talbott maintains Augustine was the first to make a distinction between God's justice and God's mercy. According to Augustine, because all mankind are descendants of Adam, all deserve everlasting punishment. God is a righteous judge but is also a loving Father. Mankind's rebellion seemed to put God in a predicament. He must judge, while loving at the same time. However, Augustine maintains, God selects some to receive mercy, while leaving the others to receive the justice they deserve (222).
Augustine's understanding of limited atonement is hard to understand based on Romans 11:32. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (NRSV) According to Talbott, Augustine was notorious for trying to argue that all didn't necessarily mean all in this passage or in 1 Timothy 2:4. Augustine held the view that all meant some of all people groups and nations but not the entirety of mankind. This argument doesn't seem to hold weight in Romans 5. Talbott maintains Paul meant the entirety of mankind when he mentioned all (231 ff).
Next week, we turn to premises three and four and hear responses from Bruce Ware, Jack Cottrell, Robert Reymond, and Clark Pinnock.
Any thoughts here?
"Christian universalists insist that election is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature; election is, after all, an expression of God's love for the world, the whole world, and God's love is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature" (Talbott, 207).
Dr. Talbott is quick to point out that universalists would not agree with limited atonement, while at the same time, refusing the idea of conditional election that an Arminian might believe. Talbott argues from the following premises:
1) God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)
2) God is merciful to all (Rom. 11:32)
3) Understanding Romans 9 is based on how one understands Romans 11
4) Paul teaches not for limited atonement but for unconditional election and irresistable grace.
Due to space here, we'll deal with numbers one and two. Next week, we'll discuss premises three and four respectively and the responses.
As for God is love, Talbott points out that John Calvin didn't have much to say about the Johannine statements (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In fact, only in his commentary of 1 John does Calvin mention the verses in passing (nothing in Institutes). Recently, Reformed theologian J.I. Packer has discussed the verses in Knowing God. However, Talbott maintains Packer speaks of God being love not to unbelievers, but to Christians only (211). "Packer has stumbled over a text that he finds difficult to incorporate into his overall theological perspective" (ibid.).
In regards to premise number two, Dr. Talbott maintains Augustine was the first to make a distinction between God's justice and God's mercy. According to Augustine, because all mankind are descendants of Adam, all deserve everlasting punishment. God is a righteous judge but is also a loving Father. Mankind's rebellion seemed to put God in a predicament. He must judge, while loving at the same time. However, Augustine maintains, God selects some to receive mercy, while leaving the others to receive the justice they deserve (222).
Augustine's understanding of limited atonement is hard to understand based on Romans 11:32. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (NRSV) According to Talbott, Augustine was notorious for trying to argue that all didn't necessarily mean all in this passage or in 1 Timothy 2:4. Augustine held the view that all meant some of all people groups and nations but not the entirety of mankind. This argument doesn't seem to hold weight in Romans 5. Talbott maintains Paul meant the entirety of mankind when he mentioned all (231 ff).
Next week, we turn to premises three and four and hear responses from Bruce Ware, Jack Cottrell, Robert Reymond, and Clark Pinnock.
Any thoughts here?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
So Long My Gas Station Attendant
Just a few decades ago, I remember places that simply sold gasoline. They had a few snack items inside, but for the most part, they were established to sell petrol, and provide service for the machines we drive (wash the windows, provide oil changes, tire repair, etc.). When a vehicle was driven over the rubber chord, a bell rang, signifying someone needed the gas station attendant to "fill 'er up."
Sometime during my teenage years, the "filling stations" changed somewhat. There were islands closest to the store that were full-service. Customers could expect the same service as always. There were also outside islands marked as "self-service". Those choosing to "fill 'er up" themselves, could save a few pennies. The incentive for the customer was obvious, eventually leading to less employees for the business and the elimination of the full-service islands.
We've since moved to automated machines at the pump and the elimination of filling stations for the most part. Businesses have diversified offering staple items inside, while also offering self-service for gasoline. Many people pull to the pump, process a credit/debit card, fill their tank, and are on their way (all without fear of the interaction with other people). It's much like a NASCAR pitstop. If someone were hired by the store now to provide service to the customer (other than running a cash register) people would surely be skeptical of the motivation of that person or the business.
Society has now moved to self-service in general. "No one can put gas in my vehicle like I can. No one washes my car like I do. I can do this project , without any help, thank you very much!" This kind of "progress" is much to our society's detriment. Many find it difficult to accept anything from anyone else without strings attached.
The proverbial pendulum has definitely swung from one side (living within community) to the other side (the idea of self-sufficiency). We attempt to teach personal responsibility, while also teaching teamwork and counting on our neighbors. It's no wonder that those we lead are confused.
Anything to add/subtract? BTW, post #100 is now in the "books". Thanks to those of you who read and respond, despite the author!
Sometime during my teenage years, the "filling stations" changed somewhat. There were islands closest to the store that were full-service. Customers could expect the same service as always. There were also outside islands marked as "self-service". Those choosing to "fill 'er up" themselves, could save a few pennies. The incentive for the customer was obvious, eventually leading to less employees for the business and the elimination of the full-service islands.
We've since moved to automated machines at the pump and the elimination of filling stations for the most part. Businesses have diversified offering staple items inside, while also offering self-service for gasoline. Many people pull to the pump, process a credit/debit card, fill their tank, and are on their way (all without fear of the interaction with other people). It's much like a NASCAR pitstop. If someone were hired by the store now to provide service to the customer (other than running a cash register) people would surely be skeptical of the motivation of that person or the business.
Society has now moved to self-service in general. "No one can put gas in my vehicle like I can. No one washes my car like I do. I can do this project , without any help, thank you very much!" This kind of "progress" is much to our society's detriment. Many find it difficult to accept anything from anyone else without strings attached.
The proverbial pendulum has definitely swung from one side (living within community) to the other side (the idea of self-sufficiency). We attempt to teach personal responsibility, while also teaching teamwork and counting on our neighbors. It's no wonder that those we lead are confused.
Anything to add/subtract? BTW, post #100 is now in the "books". Thanks to those of you who read and respond, despite the author!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Healthy Addiction?
This week at our small group, we began discussing the "passages of thirst." John 6:35 reads, "Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." This is one of the many verses we chewed on.
The group is growing closer each time we meet. We've had several conversations where opportunity abounds for differences of opinion - all done in love. This time, it was about addiction. Although there are bad addictions (these come to mind quickly), are there any addictions that might be considered good?
Here's my thought: When Jesus speaks of hunger and thirst, He's obviously speaking of those things that sustain and lead to real life. If one is so passionate about living real life, can we say that person has an addiction (this time, healthy) to something God ordained as good?
We sang a song called Breathe, during our corporate worship. The chorus includes phrases like "I'm desperate for you", "This (desire for God) is my daily bread", and "I'm lost without you." These phrases sound somewhat similar to the "hunger and thirst" verses in the New Testament.
The discussion among the group brought up some good questions. 1) Is there anything remote to a healthy addiction?; 2) How does one become so passionate about God and continue to live with their feet "on the ground"?; 3) Is it possible to share that love, passion, or addiction, with those around or do we leave the change up to God/Holy Spirit? ; and 4)If there is something of a healthy addiction for Christ, how does one get his/her fix?
I'm now off to do a word study. Thoughts?
The group is growing closer each time we meet. We've had several conversations where opportunity abounds for differences of opinion - all done in love. This time, it was about addiction. Although there are bad addictions (these come to mind quickly), are there any addictions that might be considered good?
Here's my thought: When Jesus speaks of hunger and thirst, He's obviously speaking of those things that sustain and lead to real life. If one is so passionate about living real life, can we say that person has an addiction (this time, healthy) to something God ordained as good?
We sang a song called Breathe, during our corporate worship. The chorus includes phrases like "I'm desperate for you", "This (desire for God) is my daily bread", and "I'm lost without you." These phrases sound somewhat similar to the "hunger and thirst" verses in the New Testament.
The discussion among the group brought up some good questions. 1) Is there anything remote to a healthy addiction?; 2) How does one become so passionate about God and continue to live with their feet "on the ground"?; 3) Is it possible to share that love, passion, or addiction, with those around or do we leave the change up to God/Holy Spirit? ; and 4)If there is something of a healthy addiction for Christ, how does one get his/her fix?
I'm now off to do a word study. Thoughts?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Friday Fodder
I read church growth articles in several publications - even publications that are entirely devoted to church growth. There are many things that come across my desk claiming to be the "next best thing" to win people to Christ - oh, if I just had 40 days! Church growth companies call from time to time and offer something that will benefit my local church. (These groups are 500-1000 miles away. How do they know what the people need here?) "Everything is included for the low price of $999.99. It's guarunteed to have people beating the doors down to get into your place of worship."
Need a quick fix? Check out Church Marketing Sucks!
So here's the fodder? Lately, many churches have been accused of "selling out" all in the name of reaching people for Christ. In other words, church leaderships have bought into the secular idea of having the newest, freshest, or shiniest whatever. And when the church has the newest, freshest, or shiniest, it just makes sense to tell everyone about it. Paul said, "I have become all things to all people." But did he really mean selling out on the Gospel?
Isn't the Good News still good news? Doesn't the power of the Holy Spirit still work today? And if this is true (I believe that it is!), surely marketing the vision of a local church should still be acceptable. The question is how so?
What's a healthy balance between trusting the power of the Gospel and marketing? Any thoughts?
Need a quick fix? Check out Church Marketing Sucks!
So here's the fodder? Lately, many churches have been accused of "selling out" all in the name of reaching people for Christ. In other words, church leaderships have bought into the secular idea of having the newest, freshest, or shiniest whatever. And when the church has the newest, freshest, or shiniest, it just makes sense to tell everyone about it. Paul said, "I have become all things to all people." But did he really mean selling out on the Gospel?
Isn't the Good News still good news? Doesn't the power of the Holy Spirit still work today? And if this is true (I believe that it is!), surely marketing the vision of a local church should still be acceptable. The question is how so?
What's a healthy balance between trusting the power of the Gospel and marketing? Any thoughts?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
One Reformationist View of Election
Today, we return to Dr. Robert Reymond's view of election. If you haven't noticed, I was corrected (and rightly so) by Frank. Dr. Reymond has a P.H.D. from Bob Jones but is not on the faculty. Again, thanks for the correction Frank.
The last post on election had more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith than I had anticipated. Although Dr. Reymond quoted much from the WCOF, it's now a good time to hear his own commentary.
Dr. Reymond argues from the Reformationist view of Calvinism. He uses the Pauline texts of Ephesians 1, Ephesians 3 (especially verse 11), and Romans 9 to articulate his point of God's election of certain individuals. The doctor attempts to convince the reader of a "logical" order of God's elements of salvation. Reymond also has much to say about the word "foreknew" (proegno) in Romans 8:29, going as far as defining the word as "set his (God's) heart upon" (160).
Dr. Reymond has very little to say regarding the Arminian view of election. The phrase "the Biblically informed Christian" will come to XYZ conclusion (Surprise! It always seems to be his conclusion.) is written time and time again. The essay is written to defend supralapsarian over infralapsarianism within Calvinism.
Dr. Cottrell is the first to address his concerns with Reymond. According to Reymond, every decree is made to serve the eternal purpose of God's salvation of mankind. For Cottrell, this idea sends up a red flag. "This means that God has decreed the fall of Adam and the ensuing sinfulness of the entire human race so that there would be sinners to redeem" (202). Others (the non-elect) are "passed over" or simply not chosen by God. These things happen by God's decrees having an ultimate purpose of God's glorification. Cottrell maintains, "To some Calvinists such a view of God and his decrees may sound like pious and glorious mysteries; but to most non-Calvinists it is the height of irrationality and moral contradiction and approaches blasphemy" (ibid).
Dr. Clark Pinnock offers his opinion as follows: "It would seem that the most important issue here (Reymond's view of God's determinism) is not the doctrine of election as such but the character of God" (203). He goes on to say, "Reymond and I both admire the awesome power of God...It is not the kind of power, spoken of in deterministic theologies, namely, raw power, the power to make everything else surrender...Surely the glory of God consists not in God's all-controlling power but in God's self-sacrificing love" (203-204).
Thoughts? Remember when responding that others will (sometimes passionately) disagree. Please respect those who agree or disagree.
The last post on election had more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith than I had anticipated. Although Dr. Reymond quoted much from the WCOF, it's now a good time to hear his own commentary.
Dr. Reymond argues from the Reformationist view of Calvinism. He uses the Pauline texts of Ephesians 1, Ephesians 3 (especially verse 11), and Romans 9 to articulate his point of God's election of certain individuals. The doctor attempts to convince the reader of a "logical" order of God's elements of salvation. Reymond also has much to say about the word "foreknew" (proegno) in Romans 8:29, going as far as defining the word as "set his (God's) heart upon"
Dr. Reymond has very little to say regarding the Arminian view of election. The phrase "the Biblically informed Christian" will come to XYZ conclusion (Surprise! It always seems to be his conclusion.) is written time and time again. The essay is written to defend supralapsarian over infralapsarianism within Calvinism.
Dr. Cottrell is the first to address his concerns with Reymond. According to Reymond, every decree is made to serve the eternal purpose of God's salvation of mankind. For Cottrell, this idea sends up a red flag. "This means that God has decreed the fall of Adam and the ensuing sinfulness of the entire human race so that there would be sinners to redeem" (202). Others (the non-elect) are "passed over" or simply not chosen by God. These things happen by God's decrees having an ultimate purpose of God's glorification. Cottrell maintains, "To some Calvinists such a view of God and his decrees may sound like pious and glorious mysteries; but to most non-Calvinists it is the height of irrationality and moral contradiction and approaches blasphemy" (ibid).
Dr. Clark Pinnock offers his opinion as follows: "It would seem that the most important issue here (Reymond's view of God's determinism) is not the doctrine of election as such but the character of God" (203). He goes on to say, "Reymond and I both admire the awesome power of God...It is not the kind of power, spoken of in deterministic theologies, namely, raw power, the power to make everything else surrender...Surely the glory of God consists not in God's all-controlling power but in God's self-sacrificing love" (203-204).
Thoughts? Remember when responding that others will (sometimes passionately) disagree. Please respect those who agree or disagree.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Have You Heard? Do You Care?
I rolled out of a warm bed around 7:15 this morning. My feet landed on new carpet in our home. I made my way to the shower and received warm water to bathe. "Man it's good to have what I have!" I brushed my teeth and eventually made my way to a job where I lead a local church in reaching our community for Christ. Our church meets weekly for corporate worship. The hours are published and easy to see for everyone interested. We gather and serve our community at least monthly. We do these things without fear of persecution.
It's true that some may sneer or think how gullible we are for believing in One we can't see. But physical persecution is something we needn't fear. That's not true for many brothers and sisters throughout the world. Susan Wunderink posted yesterday at Christianity Today regarding the death of a sister. Gayle Williams was killed for serving those around her. It seems she wasn't evangelizing - technically. But the Taliban thought her to be a threat and disposed of her.
The tragedy that I think of includes Gayle. But also tragic is those of us who return to our safe places of ministry, employment, and even recreation, without knowing or caring about a faithful sister who was murdered for serving those different than she. I'm reminded of how much I take for granted, how blessed I am, and how those who God has placed in harm's way need our prayers for God's safekeeping. So tell me. Have you heard? Do you care?
It's true that some may sneer or think how gullible we are for believing in One we can't see. But physical persecution is something we needn't fear. That's not true for many brothers and sisters throughout the world. Susan Wunderink posted yesterday at Christianity Today regarding the death of a sister. Gayle Williams was killed for serving those around her. It seems she wasn't evangelizing - technically. But the Taliban thought her to be a threat and disposed of her.
The tragedy that I think of includes Gayle. But also tragic is those of us who return to our safe places of ministry, employment, and even recreation, without knowing or caring about a faithful sister who was murdered for serving those different than she. I'm reminded of how much I take for granted, how blessed I am, and how those who God has placed in harm's way need our prayers for God's safekeeping. So tell me. Have you heard? Do you care?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Great Word for Scrabble
I've never been much of a Scrabble fan. But I do understand the concept. Of course, the more letters one uses to form words, the more points are rewarded. I have a suggestion for those of you who play...SUPRALAPSARIAN. Sure you would have to have some luck. But you never know. This could be a winner. Of course, before using this word, you might obtain a good theological dictionary. As thorough as Noah Webster was, his editors didn't include this word in the edition I have. For those of you intent on using the word in a conversation, supralapsarian is defined as "the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to recieve eternal life and rejected all others." This according to Theopedia.
Continuing our study through election in Perspectives on Election, we now turn to an essay by Dr. Robert Reymond, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Bob Jones University.
Dr. Jones begins by sharing from the Westminster Confession of Faith. "...for the manifestation his own glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlatsting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death" (III/iii) (153). He continues to quote from the WCOF (1646) time and time again. Because of space, you can find the document here.
The WCOF states that Adam was placed in the Garden and had the ability to obey God or rebel and sin. However, because of mankind's (Adam's) choice to rebel against God in the Garden, the offspring of Adam (all mankind except Jesus) no longer has the same ability. Man is dead in sin (Rom 3:23, 5:12). The WCOF then makes mention of an "effectual call" (Chapter X), stating that only those God has elected (prior to creation) will be saved. The rest of mankind is doomed to damnation (Chapter XXXIII).
This post is not intended to be a treatise on the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, Dr. Reymond continues to move point by point through the document, while staking his claim. I intend to hear more from Dr. Reymond next time, rather than hearing again from the WCOF.
By the way, when making his arguments, Dr. Reymond continues to preface his statements with the phrase "the bibically informed Christian will conclude..." Does this bother anyone except me?
What are your thoughts?
Continuing our study through election in Perspectives on Election, we now turn to an essay by Dr. Robert Reymond, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Bob Jones University.
Dr. Jones begins by sharing from the Westminster Confession of Faith. "...for the manifestation his own glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlatsting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death" (III/iii) (153). He continues to quote from the WCOF (1646) time and time again. Because of space, you can find the document here.
The WCOF states that Adam was placed in the Garden and had the ability to obey God or rebel and sin. However, because of mankind's (Adam's) choice to rebel against God in the Garden, the offspring of Adam (all mankind except Jesus) no longer has the same ability. Man is dead in sin (Rom 3:23, 5:12). The WCOF then makes mention of an "effectual call" (Chapter X), stating that only those God has elected (prior to creation) will be saved. The rest of mankind is doomed to damnation (Chapter XXXIII).
This post is not intended to be a treatise on the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, Dr. Reymond continues to move point by point through the document, while staking his claim. I intend to hear more from Dr. Reymond next time, rather than hearing again from the WCOF.
By the way, when making his arguments, Dr. Reymond continues to preface his statements with the phrase "the bibically informed Christian will conclude..." Does this bother anyone except me?
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My Problem With Mission Statements
Yesterday, a good friend and I had the opportunity to drive to Albuquerque and hear Brian Jones, pastor of Christ Church of the Valley in Philly. Brian had many good things to say. Perhaps I'll blog about a few in the coming weeks. If you ever get a chance to hear him, don't hesitate. Sadly, he's called it quits on the blog (although he was encouraged to begin again yesterday :).
One of the things I was struck with yesterday was how important we make mission statements in the local church. It seems the church always has to have the latest and "greatest" mission statment. The leadership provides some catchy saying in an attempt to get others to understand what the church is all about. What hit me yesterday is: Why do we (as the Church) use such things to market who we are? If we're being the church, hasn't our mission statement already been established?
Don't get me wrong. I've bought into the necessity of mission statement before. In the churches I've pastored, we've used A Real Church In a Real World serving a Real God, Reaching Up Reaching Out Reaching In, and now At the Heart of the Community with the Community at Heart.
Here's the problem: If we're trying to be the church and not allow the corporate world to inundate what we're doing, why do we need to establish a catchy saying so that it will sound cool and look good with our logo? Why not return to what we're supposed to be about? Why not have a mission simple enough so that everyone remembers and understands, while at the same time, it's not something we've created? Wasn't it Jesus who established His mission statement (and ours) as Love God and Love Others?
Sounds like a pretty good mission statement to me. What are your thoughts?
One of the things I was struck with yesterday was how important we make mission statements in the local church. It seems the church always has to have the latest and "greatest" mission statment. The leadership provides some catchy saying in an attempt to get others to understand what the church is all about. What hit me yesterday is: Why do we (as the Church) use such things to market who we are? If we're being the church, hasn't our mission statement already been established?
Don't get me wrong. I've bought into the necessity of mission statement before. In the churches I've pastored, we've used A Real Church In a Real World serving a Real God, Reaching Up Reaching Out Reaching In, and now At the Heart of the Community with the Community at Heart.
Here's the problem: If we're trying to be the church and not allow the corporate world to inundate what we're doing, why do we need to establish a catchy saying so that it will sound cool and look good with our logo? Why not return to what we're supposed to be about? Why not have a mission simple enough so that everyone remembers and understands, while at the same time, it's not something we've created? Wasn't it Jesus who established His mission statement (and ours) as Love God and Love Others?
Sounds like a pretty good mission statement to me. What are your thoughts?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Blue Parakeet (Part 4)
McKnight moves from writing about discernment (Section 3) to giving an example - in this case, women in ministry. Again, the reader is encouraged to visit the question Do I read the Bible through tradition or with tradition? The answer will surely lead to certain outcomes.
In this case, McKnight makes the argument that the Church has read through tradition. In other words, God's principles were established and were never intended to change from the original (even within a culture or a time period). For that reason, McKnight maintains women in the church have never had a "fair shot" when it came to pastoring or teaching (especially holding authority over men). McKnight is quick to point out that instead of reading through tradition, one should read through Story (refer to Section 1). According to McKnight, reading through Story leads one to restoration/redemption/the way things were intended. He refers the reader back to the Garden when man and woman had a mutual relationship with God (cf Galatians 3:28).
When one asks the question "What did women do?" in the New Testament, he is obligated to study the influence of women such as Deborah, Esther, Mary, Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe. According to McKnight, reading about these women in the Church (through tradition in lieu of with tradition) has been minimal and created a "Blue Parakeet".
McKnight then takes his readers (and a group of students) through a case study on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. His point is clear: We choose to adhere to some of Paul's commands and not others. Dr. McKnight then summarizes his thoughts reminding readers of Gen. 3:16 "... he (man) will rule over you", 2 Cor. 5:17 "... a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!", and arguing for the mutuality of relationship. Again, it seems imperative to read the Bible as Story.
As a good professor/writer does, Dr. McKnight then summarizes each section of the book and how they interact with one another. "Reading the Bible as Story teaches us to go back to that story so we know how to go forward in our world ... The story of the Bible is not only the story of our past, it is the story of our future." (212).
A Few Things:
I really enjoyed this read. McKnight is easy to read. His points are coherent and clear. He writes in a way that challenges the reader to think, while at the same time, writing in such a way that the reader is prevented from perceiving any arrogance on the part of the author. I would recommend the Blue Parakeet to any serious Bible student. The book is released November 1.
In this case, McKnight makes the argument that the Church has read through tradition. In other words, God's principles were established and were never intended to change from the original (even within a culture or a time period). For that reason, McKnight maintains women in the church have never had a "fair shot" when it came to pastoring or teaching (especially holding authority over men). McKnight is quick to point out that instead of reading through tradition, one should read through Story (refer to Section 1). According to McKnight, reading through Story leads one to restoration/redemption/the way things were intended. He refers the reader back to the Garden when man and woman had a mutual relationship with God (cf Galatians 3:28).
When one asks the question "What did women do?" in the New Testament, he is obligated to study the influence of women such as Deborah, Esther, Mary, Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe. According to McKnight, reading about these women in the Church (through tradition in lieu of with tradition) has been minimal and created a "Blue Parakeet".
McKnight then takes his readers (and a group of students) through a case study on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. His point is clear: We choose to adhere to some of Paul's commands and not others. Dr. McKnight then summarizes his thoughts reminding readers of Gen. 3:16 "... he (man) will rule over you", 2 Cor. 5:17 "... a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!", and arguing for the mutuality of relationship. Again, it seems imperative to read the Bible as Story.
As a good professor/writer does, Dr. McKnight then summarizes each section of the book and how they interact with one another. "Reading the Bible as Story teaches us to go back to that story so we know how to go forward in our world ... The story of the Bible is not only the story of our past, it is the story of our future." (212).
A Few Things:
I really enjoyed this read. McKnight is easy to read. His points are coherent and clear. He writes in a way that challenges the reader to think, while at the same time, writing in such a way that the reader is prevented from perceiving any arrogance on the part of the author. I would recommend the Blue Parakeet to any serious Bible student. The book is released November 1.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
General Call (vocatio externa) or...?
What a wild week. Thanks for your patience. The Fodder typically posted on Fridays will be replaced with the last of the McKnight Blue Parakeet reviews. Now, on to election.
Last week, we observed Dr. Ware's thoughts of election specifically through Ephesians 1. Today, we move on to what Ware (and others) term "effectual call." In other words, Ware is quick to mention a general call (vocatio externa) from God "extended to all people everywhere, that whoever hears the gospel is invited to come to Christ and be saved" (15). He even goes to the trouble of footnoting passages such as Isaiah 45:22, 55:1; Matthew 11:28, 22:2-14; John 7:37; and Revelation 22:17.
Ware then mentions a "special" (his term) call "... because 1) it is a call to salvation directed only to some people, not all, and 2) it is a call that always succeeds in bringing people to saving faith in Christ" (16). This special call would be synonymous with an effectual call (vocatio interna).
In an attempt to make his point of the effectual call, Dr. Ware then returns to Romans 8:28-30. According to Ware's interpretation of this passage, the calling of God to be saved here is extended only to some and not to all - those he predestined. Thus, this call is not extended to all people everywhere but only to a certain subset of the whole of humanity, viz., only to the predestined" (ibid). Ware goes on to maintain, "If God unconditionally elected just certain specific persons to be saved, and if this election is grounded only in the good pleasure and will of God and does not consider the characters, actions, or choices of these individuals, and if this election of God is certain so that those individuals cannot fail to be saved, then it follows that God must so work in them particularly such that they, but not others, are surely and certainly saved" (17-18).
Suffice it to say that we'll return to the conversation of effectual call in later posts. As for now, any thoughts on what Ware has to say or on the Romans 8 passage?
Last week, we observed Dr. Ware's thoughts of election specifically through Ephesians 1. Today, we move on to what Ware (and others) term "effectual call." In other words, Ware is quick to mention a general call (vocatio externa) from God "extended to all people everywhere, that whoever hears the gospel is invited to come to Christ and be saved" (15). He even goes to the trouble of footnoting passages such as Isaiah 45:22, 55:1; Matthew 11:28, 22:2-14; John 7:37; and Revelation 22:17.
Ware then mentions a "special" (his term) call "... because 1) it is a call to salvation directed only to some people, not all, and 2) it is a call that always succeeds in bringing people to saving faith in Christ" (16). This special call would be synonymous with an effectual call (vocatio interna).
In an attempt to make his point of the effectual call, Dr. Ware then returns to Romans 8:28-30. According to Ware's interpretation of this passage, the calling of God to be saved here is extended only to some and not to all - those he predestined. Thus, this call is not extended to all people everywhere but only to a certain subset of the whole of humanity, viz., only to the predestined" (ibid). Ware goes on to maintain, "If God unconditionally elected just certain specific persons to be saved, and if this election is grounded only in the good pleasure and will of God and does not consider the characters, actions, or choices of these individuals, and if this election of God is certain so that those individuals cannot fail to be saved, then it follows that God must so work in them particularly such that they, but not others, are surely and certainly saved" (17-18).
Suffice it to say that we'll return to the conversation of effectual call in later posts. As for now, any thoughts on what Ware has to say or on the Romans 8 passage?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Friday Fodder
As you know, today our House of Representatives will debate (and possibly vote) for the second time, regarding a "buyout" costing $700,000,000,000. The first fell short by 13 votes on Monday causing a dip on Wall Street. On Wednesday, the Senate passed a plan including the previous amount + $120,000,000 of tax breaks etc.
Although I'm interested in politics, As The Crow is not the time and place. Just a couple of things today:
1. Pundits have said the legislation passing or failing to pass is a "life or death situation" for our economy. In other words, passing this law will save us or failing to act will cause the economy to go into a tailspin and lead us into similar situations as the Great Depression. Someone needs to cue the Chicken Little music here. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! If one listens to our leaders, it seems that success or failure is based on what we do or don't do. Do you ever get the sense that God is just shaking his head? Isn't it time that we place our faith in God rather than man?
2. Our society has become a place where victims are rampant. In other words, there is no personal responsibility for anything that goes south in my life. "It's the way I was raised, my co-workers, or just bad luck that has caused all of my problems." In the case above, we blame the creditors, the "players" on Wall Street, or the government. When does it become my responsibility to refuse a credit card, a mortgage I can't afford, etc.
Just a few things to chew on. I'll be glad to hear what you have to say.
Although I'm interested in politics, As The Crow is not the time and place. Just a couple of things today:
1. Pundits have said the legislation passing or failing to pass is a "life or death situation" for our economy. In other words, passing this law will save us or failing to act will cause the economy to go into a tailspin and lead us into similar situations as the Great Depression. Someone needs to cue the Chicken Little music here. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! If one listens to our leaders, it seems that success or failure is based on what we do or don't do. Do you ever get the sense that God is just shaking his head? Isn't it time that we place our faith in God rather than man?
2. Our society has become a place where victims are rampant. In other words, there is no personal responsibility for anything that goes south in my life. "It's the way I was raised, my co-workers, or just bad luck that has caused all of my problems." In the case above, we blame the creditors, the "players" on Wall Street, or the government. When does it become my responsibility to refuse a credit card, a mortgage I can't afford, etc.
Just a few things to chew on. I'll be glad to hear what you have to say.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Election in Ephesians 1
Our survey of Perspectives on Election continues by turning to Ephesians 1. This particular chapter has been part of the heated debate regarding election for some time.
Dr. Ware focuses most of his attention on verses 4, 5, and 11. He is quick to state, "Paul brings to his mind and lips specific reasons for why God should by blessed, the first and second items he recalls and celebrates are our election in Christ (1:4) and our predestination to be adopted children through Christ (1:5)... the primary purpose for including this detail, it seems, establishes the fact that election of those whom God will save is God's choice pure and simple, a choice with which we had nothing to do and could have had nothing to do" (italics mine 13). I would be remiss if I didn't list a summary from Dr. Ware. "God works everything according to His will, but notice that nothing is said here (1:3-14) about God working things out according to our wills! In other words, all that God chooses is unconditional, including his predestination and election of us" (14).
Dr. Cottrell accuses Ware of using the "usual Calvinist spin" (61). Of course, Cottrell offers another interpretation of election - namely that Paul is speaking of a predestination of Jews and Gentiles. "I base this case on two facts: 1) the sudden shift from first person plural to second person plural in 1:13; and 2) the underlying theme of the letter in 2:11-3:21 i.e., God's eternal purpose of uniting Jews and Gentiles together through Jesus Christ in to a single body, the Church" (ibid).
Personal Observation
Dr. Ware maintains his argument of unconditional election based on verses 6, 12, and 14. However, he overlooks verse 13, despite 1:3-14 being one complete sentence. According to the NRSV, verse 13 reads, "In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;" (emphasis mine). Now is not the time and place to debate the participle use of "believed". However, it seems the seal of the Holy Spirit is based upon one acting on their knowledge - something Dr. Ware conveniently overlooks.
Any thoughts or disagreements?
Dr. Ware focuses most of his attention on verses 4, 5, and 11. He is quick to state, "Paul brings to his mind and lips specific reasons for why God should by blessed, the first and second items he recalls and celebrates are our election in Christ (1:4) and our predestination to be adopted children through Christ (1:5)... the primary purpose for including this detail, it seems, establishes the fact that election of those whom God will save is God's choice pure and simple, a choice with which we had nothing to do and could have had nothing to do" (italics mine 13). I would be remiss if I didn't list a summary from Dr. Ware. "God works everything according to His will, but notice that nothing is said here (1:3-14) about God working things out according to our wills! In other words, all that God chooses is unconditional, including his predestination and election of us" (14).
Dr. Cottrell accuses Ware of using the "usual Calvinist spin" (61). Of course, Cottrell offers another interpretation of election - namely that Paul is speaking of a predestination of Jews and Gentiles. "I base this case on two facts: 1) the sudden shift from first person plural to second person plural in 1:13; and 2) the underlying theme of the letter in 2:11-3:21 i.e., God's eternal purpose of uniting Jews and Gentiles together through Jesus Christ in to a single body, the Church" (ibid).
Personal Observation
Dr. Ware maintains his argument of unconditional election based on verses 6, 12, and 14. However, he overlooks verse 13, despite 1:3-14 being one complete sentence. According to the NRSV, verse 13 reads, "In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;" (emphasis mine). Now is not the time and place to debate the participle use of "believed". However, it seems the seal of the Holy Spirit is based upon one acting on their knowledge - something Dr. Ware conveniently overlooks.
Any thoughts or disagreements?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Blue Parakeet (Parts 2 and 3)
Part 2 Listening
After discussing reading the Bible as Story, McKnight then encourages his readers to hear God within the Story. In other words, reading the black or red words on the white page is not enough. The things read should be meditated on and the questions "So what?" or "What does God want me to do?" should be asked. Only when one considers what is heard can they love God, through listening and ultimately acting on what they've heard.
McKnight chooses to describe the listening one does to God's Word as "missional listening". The purpose of listening to Story is not just for information. The information must lead one through a process of spiritual growth and following the model of Jesus Christ (serving God and serving others). This is only accomplished through and with the Holy Spirit.
Part 3 Discerning
Following the teachings of Jesus within the context of Scripture is where things get a little muddled. In other words, does one follow every commandment in Scripture or pick and choose what to follow? According to McKnight, the Church has picked and chosen what to follow (and what not to follow) from its inception. He encourages his readers to own up to picking and choosing what commandments they adhere to for their own benefit.
The section includes examples of controversial subjects such as divorce, what role women play in the church, speaking in tongues, etc. According to McKnight, "All genuine biblical faith takes the gospel message and 'incarnates' it in a context...We can be firmer: it is unlikely, since it is clear that each of these persons adapted the Plot and Story for their day, that their message or manner of life will be precisely the same as our message and our manner of life" (143).
Next week: The Role of Women in Today's Church (Part 4 0f Blue Parakeet)
Any thoughts regarding parts 2 and 3?
After discussing reading the Bible as Story, McKnight then encourages his readers to hear God within the Story. In other words, reading the black or red words on the white page is not enough. The things read should be meditated on and the questions "So what?" or "What does God want me to do?" should be asked. Only when one considers what is heard can they love God, through listening and ultimately acting on what they've heard.
McKnight chooses to describe the listening one does to God's Word as "missional listening". The purpose of listening to Story is not just for information. The information must lead one through a process of spiritual growth and following the model of Jesus Christ (serving God and serving others). This is only accomplished through and with the Holy Spirit.
Part 3 Discerning
Following the teachings of Jesus within the context of Scripture is where things get a little muddled. In other words, does one follow every commandment in Scripture or pick and choose what to follow? According to McKnight, the Church has picked and chosen what to follow (and what not to follow) from its inception. He encourages his readers to own up to picking and choosing what commandments they adhere to for their own benefit.
The section includes examples of controversial subjects such as divorce, what role women play in the church, speaking in tongues, etc. According to McKnight, "All genuine biblical faith takes the gospel message and 'incarnates' it in a context...We can be firmer: it is unlikely, since it is clear that each of these persons adapted the Plot and Story for their day, that their message or manner of life will be precisely the same as our message and our manner of life" (143).
Next week: The Role of Women in Today's Church (Part 4 0f Blue Parakeet)
Any thoughts regarding parts 2 and 3?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
