What the Thunder Said...

Rev. Shane Lems of Sunnyside URC logs in with another theology tid bit, this time from Bavinck on the Covenant of Works.

“Prior to the fall, the state of humanity and of the earth as a whole was a provisional one that could not remain as it was. It was such that it could be raised to a higher glory but in the event of human transgression could also be subjected to futility and decay” (Dogmatics III:182).

“The covenant of works and the covenant of grace stand and fall together” (Dogmatics I: 579)

Read the whole thing to get all the quotes.

This is one of several posts drawing from Rev. Lems, whose has struck before on righteousness and covenant.

Labels: theology

From Gizmodo:

Markus Stoeckl is nicknamed "Hercules," because he is 6'4", weighs 220lbs and travels at 130.7mph on a bicycle. Mr. Stoeckl devastated the previous record by a blistering 14.0mph. The super speed antics took place on a 2000m stretch at a 45 degree run in the Chilean Alps. To prevent his helmet from fogging up, Mr. Stoeckl had to hold his breath for the entire 40s it took to complete the distance.

I think I did this once at band camp...

Labels: City of Man, Events, Gymnasium

Reading: Stewart, Melville The Trinity: East/West Dialogue
Enjoying: coffee on our unusual Autumn day
Listening: vidcasts of the DG conference

From the Cranach blog, regarding one of the regular readers:

But I appreciate SteveG, an agnostic who reads this blog, for weighing in.

SteveG, if the only Christianity I knew was mainstream liberal Protestantism, I would be like you. I'd much rather be an agnostic--or even a "bright"--than a theological liberal. Theological liberals don't believe Christianity either, gutting it of the good parts (the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Gospel) and leaving only religiosity and do-gooderism. I have no respect for that. You are better off leaving, as you did.

As a Lutheran, I confess, in the words of our catechism, that "I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to Him." Luther continues: "but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." Faith is a gift. I can't help having it.

Why do I have it and you don't? I don't know. It is certainly not because I am better than you. It is probably because I am worse than you. I suspect that you consider yourself to be a good person and are fairly satisfied with your life. If so, you are right. Christianity has nothing for you.

If, however, you do not live up to your own standards, if you have known guilt and failure, if you ever feel lost in the cosmos, if you struggle with the meaning of life and death, then the message that God became a human being; that somehow He took into Himself your griefs and transgressions; that God died for you; that He rose from the dead and somehow carries you with Him. All of that can become quite compelling. Not as an intellectual theorem but as something--rather, someone--that possesses you.

I know Christ not just as some idea to be debated, nor even just as a historical fact, nor even as an imaginary friend inside my head. He is outside myself, but really present. I hear His voice everytime I open my Bible or hear good preaching. I can pray to Him and I have the sense that He is listening. I encounter Him, not abstractly, but in His body and blood when He gives Himself to me again in the bread and wine of Holy Communion.

I can't explain this, and I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is a genuine conviction, the evidence of something not seen, a kind of trust and relationship that is faith. Not faith in an emotion or a choice or an idea but faith that has the object of God enfleshed and nailed to a cross.

Labels: blogging, theology

I wanted to apologize for the lack of content lately, as I was preparing for a sermon I recently preached this past Lord's Day. I preached from Jeremiah 23:1 - 8, and I thought it might be helpful to give some comments on some of the works I found helpful.

The following comments are practically meant to only regard the above eight verses, and commentaries may be weaker or stronger elsewhere. Also, I say some things below that make me sound like I'm an expert passing judgment. That is false; I am not the expert, the following are. I'm just trying to call 'em like I see 'em.

Dearman, J. Andrew. Jeremiah and Lamentations ed. T. Muck The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2002).
Dearman's commentary is straightforward and helpful for drawing out explicit applicatory ideas. Due to the nature of the series, he cannot devote too much space to any given pericope. Dearman properly located Jeremiah's prophecy of chapter 23 to the judgment of Judah's leaders, and for the most part gets the broad sweep of Jeremiah. One curious note was how Dearman personalized Jeremiah's prophecies - thus, Jeremiah's tirade against the false prophets isn't so much that the prophets are false ones but that they stood against Jeremiah. Hence, some of the applications seem more individualistic and contemporary. Not a big weakness, but noteworthy. A general, straightforward commentary.

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. Jeremiah ed. J.H. Hayes Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1973).
This delightful little monograph was my dark horse. Achtemeier proved a delight with an amazingly succinct, yet complete discussion of the pericope. Dealing with the text in a loose manner by organizing only broadly by sequence and giving weight to topical content, Jeremiah 23 is discussed directly after ch. 12 and preceding ch. 27. She, more than most, properly exegeted the relationship between kings, prophets, and exile. She also had some good application. Kudos. (I sort of hate it when the liberals get it sooooo right...)

Caulvin, Jean Sermons on Jeremiah tr. B. Reynolds (Dyfed, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).
These are translated sermons by John Calvin on his preaching from Jeremiah. However, the sermons only cover Jeremiah 14:19 - 18:23. So, not exactly germane, but still helpful. Calvin's sermons are succint, immensely applicable and hortatory. Next time, check the table of contents before you check the book out of the library.

Brueggemann, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile & Homecoming (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns Publishing, 1998).
This is actually Brueggemann's second and more recent contribution to Jeremiah. I'm not sure how it stacks up to his previous work, but I assumed that it portrayed any progression he has made himself on the subject. Brueggemann correctly grasps, but is less confident, of the flow of the text. He above all the other commentaries most adequately addresses various scholarly aspects of the text, including various forms of critical reading. His exegesis gives the strongest punch to the narrative thrust. He also interacts critically with Holladay's acclaimed monograph on the same subject. He is not overly cowed by academia, and pushes the text to give solid answers. In my view, Brueggemann is a necessary, but not sufficient, resource to address.

Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah "Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary" (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys Publishing, 2002).
I've already noted one caveat I had with Fretheim. Other than this, however, I think this commentary was my favorite. He was solid historically, linguistically, and exegetically. I really appreciated his skill at biblical theology and working within redemptive history. Fretheim knew the arguments well, and tipped his hand often enough to give the readers time to keep up. Though on the face of it Fretheim is not trying to produce a homiletical commentary, his own insights, rabbit trails, and "Connections" sections give several insights. I was very thankful for this commentary.

In conclusion, I would be remiss not to note that it was Tremper Longman's analysis of OT commentaries that led me to the above monographs. I hope this can be helpful to anyone else studying these passages.

Labels: books, theology

Awhile ago, a slight blogstorm whirled up regarding Christians practicing yoga. As usual, I stuck my fool head into the argument, and this was the result. I'm not sure if I still understand the cult/culture distinction in the same way, but that was what I wrote then.

Recently, two theologian/pastors - united in their ability to deftly comment on seemingly anthing and everything - debated the merits of Christians practicing yoga: John MachArthur and Doug Pagitt. Their debate, though not extensive, is not new, either.

At around the same time, a certain Swami commented on our blog regarding "Christian" yoga. I'm not sure, but I think he's against it. He's even got a Youtube video (medium is the message?).

So what do y'all think? What relationship does Christianity have with yoga? Can we divorce physical actions from spiritual concepts? What does our answer say about gnosticism and Two Kingdoms theology? What's your favorite yoga position?

Let the comments fly!

Labels: theology

A few of us from school are going to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego on Monday. The event is going to be held Natural History Museum. Presumably, there will be 27 scrolls on display, including the War Scroll. Apparently, 10 of them have never been on display before. Don't worry, I'm bringing BDB to crack any codes and decipher what was really going on in 2TJ. Be sure to check back to this blog on Tuesday, since I'll probably have cracked NPP, and NT theology afterwards. All in a days work.

Labels: Events, WtTS Stuff

I'm reading Fretheim's commentary on Jeremiah (ed. Nash, R.S. S&H Bible Commentary Series. [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002]) for a sermon I have to preach next week. Overall, it has been a fantastic commentary, and I would highly recommend it. It is very thorough-going as a commentary, and as regards grammar and technical aspects, it plays quite nicely. Readers looking for a top line scholastic work should probably read Brueggemann's Jeremiah: Exile & Homecoming, but this interacts with his at important points and drives Jeremiah's rhetorical force better than Brueggemann's.

I couldn't believe what I read in his commentary, back to back.

After the analysis and commentary sections of an extended pericope, Fretheim utilizes a "Connections" section, where he deals with various aspects of thought, history, or supporting arguments. I'm not sure if this is unique to Fretheim or is standard for the series. Regardless, after concluding the exegesis of Jeremiah 22:1 - 23:8, Fretheim deals with three sections. The first is on ethics, but the second two deal with God's foreknowledge and divine-human agency, respectively.

Dealing with the conditional that YHWH proposes in Jeremiah 22:1 - 5, Fretheim notes that, "For each of these options to have integrity, God cannot know for sure what will in fact happen, at least at the time this oracle is delivered. If God knows for certain that the negative future will occur, then for God to offer the positive future would be a deception" (p. 329). In order for God to deal honestly, he contends, God must not be able to know what is yet to occur. He concludes, "Yet God, too, moves into a future that is to some extent unknown."

The next section deals with divine agency. In Jeremiah 23:2, the "shepherds" are blamed for driving the people/remnant into exile, while the following verse attributes this to God. Is this a problem for our borderline-open-theist Fretheim? Not at all. Bucking the scholarly consent (he dismisses Holladay's celebrated Fortress Press commentary and insight), Fretheim notes that "readers are not being asked to choose among these statements, as if only one of them could be correct" and that "agency is here conceived in a complex sense..." (330). While acknowledging that the evil shepherds, the Babylonians, and the people are all responsible agents for their various actions, it is actually that "God uses them to mediate His judgment." There you have it: a complex, nuanced, exegetical description of compatibilism.

I couldn't believe what I had just read. I wish you could see how close these two sections are to each other on paper. If ever I was a fan of redaction criticism, it would have to be now redacting between the older Calvinist Fretheim and the newer open theist Fretheim. I'm not sure how the two halves of his brain function so closely together: blatant Open Theism and compatibilist Augustinianism put side by side!

Of course, the best part is that Jeremiah's own texts go on to corroborate the prophecies of ch. 22 that Fretheim is certain show that YHWH's future is open. Apparently that doesn't phase his earlier (or later!) exegesis.

"The Pretender"
Echoes Silence Patience & Grace
Foo Fighters

Labels: Art | Culture

Is it sad that I think these are hilarious?

Labels: Art | Culture, City of Man

For the quarter finals, Federer and Djokovic are sure wins. I think Tommy Haas is going to upset, and if Ferrer can maintain his momentum after shocking Nadal, he could win his match as well. It is difficult to decide if Nadal was imploding and his knees were breaking, or if Ferrer was playing out of his mind.

I'm not sure that matters all that much, because it is difficult to imagine the semi-finals without Federer and Djokovic winning again. Regardless of who they play, it seems these two are destined to clash in the finals.

So who walks away from NYC the victor? While there has been much (rightful) talk of Djokovic the up and coming, I'm not sure he's arrived yet. Secondly, I don't think Federer is anywhere near being on his way down. His mental toughness won't stop until after he's won his 15 Slams; only then is there any hope of him relaxing and letting up a bit.

Who do you plan to see serving under the lights? Who walks away victorious?

Labels: Events, Gymnasium

A Christian view of everything?

A Christian view of everything.

I need to go back over these.

Labels: City of Man, theology

Nice work on the reading list, Mr. Michael Thate.

Labels: books, theology

Dr. Roger Olson, of Truett Seminary, recently penned his reaction to the I-35 Bridge collapse in MN, along with his reaction to other reactions, most noticeably certain Calvinists. Chris Coleman thinks about the fallout for worship. Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks Dr. Olson is asking the wrong questions and that the smart aleck answer is the correct answer. Macht gives a neo-calvinist take on articulating sovereignty and idolatry. Justin Taylor quoted choice tidbits. One commenter (leaping to Olson's defense!) noted that:

Olson's point in this sentence, is nothing different than what Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and every other classical Arminian like them have been saying for centuries... Olson thinks like an Arminian.

And this is all, I'm sure, a fairly good thing, since the man who penned this book ought to think like an Arminian.

But I do have a question that I need some help with. Yes, Dr. Olson did pen the above mentioned book, but I have a question of Arminian theology that maybe someone can illuminate for me.

First, Dr. Olson says, "The pastor and the band are Christian determinists." The pastor he is referring to is John Piper, and I don't care know who the band is. However, if he is talking philosophically, Piper is a form of Christian compatibilist, not determinist. I think Dr. Olson knows this full well, and it isn't hard to demonize compatibilists, so why the wrong label?

Secondly, Dr. Olson seems to imply a limitation on God's part. I infer this from quotes like the following:

Is God, then, the author of evil? Most Calvinists don't want to say it. But logic seems to demand it. If God plans something and renders it certain, how is he not culpable for it? ... Many conservative Christians wince at the idea that God is limited. But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?

Now here's where things get sticky for me. As I understand it, one of the main tenets of classic Arminianism (which Dr. Olson subscribes to and defends) is God's complete foreknowledge of all things. If this were not the case, then God could not look down through the corridor of history and elect individuals based on their faith; the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. So - 1) Dr. Olson claims God limits Himself, and 2) classic Arminian theology acknowledges God's complete (fore)knowledge of the future. This leads me to believe, then, that Dr. Olson thinks God is either limiting His desire or His ability to act in these situations. Since God completely knew every detail of the bridge's collapse, He could have limited His desire or will to save the people on the bridge - He simply didn't want to. Or, perhaps God perfectly knew of the bridge's collapse, and perfectly wanted to save them, but (perhaps for a variety of reasons) wasn't able to save them.

Am I tracking with everyone? Are there any Arminians out there who agree/disagree? Are there any options I've missed? Remember, this isn't Open Theism, where God doesn't know for sure if the bridge will fall. In Dr. Olson's Arminian theology, God completely foreknows, since the dawn of time, that this bridge will fall on that day at that certain time and that many people will die or be injured. So am I right so far?

Dr. Olson asks, "What if God is in charge but not in control?" I'm not quite sure what this statement means. I don't wish to go exegeting sentences that were meant to be throw away statements, but I imagine it means something like, "God is responsible (in charge) but unable to make things act how He wishes (not in control)." Wait, God's still responsible but unable to make it go His way? How does this help Dr. Olson's theodicy?

Lastly, I would like to admit that I have taken Dr. Olson's final request seriously, and that I am reconsidering what effect my Calvinistic lens has on my understanding of God's character. Thank you, Dr. Olson, for desiring to be careful to honor God's character. May we all be as quick to honor God's character.

So, any Arminians out there to help me out? Especially if you've recently graduated from Truett?!

Labels: Philosophy, theology

Reading: Skilton, Scripture and Confession
Enjoying: ABCs "Brothers & Sisters" (meh...)
Listening: soof-yan

So, Sen. Craig of Idaho got caught man-trolling in a Minneapolis airport. Pastor Doug Wilson weighed in his thoughts about the issue speaking as an Idahoian (sp?). Sandip Roy of the New American Media (yea! new!) writes in "The Outcome of Wanting (Gay) Sex: A Shakespearean Tragedy" that the only crime committed by the Senator was desiring to have sex, and what happened in that Minneapolis airport stall was comparable to what happens every night in singles' bars across the country. Macht wonders why we all assume that Sen. Craig is "gay" when, if he has a wife and kids at home, we don't immediately assume he is actually "bisexual?"

Does anyone expect our singles out cruising in a bar to be held to the same standard as our elected officials? Theoretically, there was a time when holding office meant putting personal wants and lives on hold for the service of the state. Big deal if all the Senator wanted was sex. If we ever get to the point of multi-sex bathrooms, I don't want anyone being able to hit on me while I'm trying to do my business in a stall. That's why we have singles' bars.

Labels: City of Man