Saturday, December 22, 2007

I Have a Bit of a Problem With That

In a Christian Post article on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention, Audrey Barrick points out that a LifeWay Research study indicates Baptists are becoming increasingly TULIP oriented. Being a Southern Baptist and one who affirms the five points of the Doctrines of Grace, I'm happy to have the company.

I'm also happy to see the Convention's amicable view toward those of us who agree with the soteriology of one of the greatest Baptist preachers and evangelists of history, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

But I must respectfully disagree with a comment from Convention President Frank Page quoted in a paragraph of the article:

Promoting former SBC president Paige Patterson's practical suggestion, Page said, "When pastor search committees approach pastors and seminary graduates about possible positions, they need to be very honest with these individuals about what they will allow regarding teaching in this area."

Pastor Page said as much here. It is certainly important for a pastor search committee to determine the doctrinal position of prospective occupants of the pulpit. And questions on the Calvinism/Arminianism issue are appropriate, whichever view the particular church hiring the pastor takes (my guess is that most Southern Baptist churches don't take a particular view one way or the other. Unfortunately, most Southern Baptist pastor search committees probably also don't ask many questions about a potential pastor's doctrine, in this area or others).

It's that part about "what they will allow regarding teaching in this area" that I have a problem with. It's not the job of the search committee to "allow" teaching that is part of a family debate within the bounds of orthodox Christian belief. If they hire (or recommend) a pastor who has answered their interview questions honestly and forthrightly, then they must accept what he chooses to preach and teach concerning Calvinism/Arminianism, and in other areas (such as eschatology), as long as he is not teaching heresy or error and as long as he has not, since being hired, changed his position on a view particularly important to the church. You don't get to say, "We're going to hire you even though you're a Calvinist, but you can't preach Calvinism." What, does he take a month off when you get to John chapter 6 or Romans 9, etc, etc?

But I'm glad Pastor Page is open for dialogue on the issue.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Born. Of a virgin.

It is no accident that imbedded in many, if not most, heresies concerning the Person and Nature of Jesus Christ is a denial of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Isaiah the prophet foretold "...a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son..."(7: 14). Matthew reminds us of the prophet's words (1:23) and and devotes considerable space in his gospel narrative to describing their literal fulfillment. Luke also carefully relates that Christ was born of a virgin, a miraculous fact also affirmed in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. It is upheld by the church fathers, among them Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius. It is the proclamation of the Church. It is Christian doctrine. It is the truth.

The fact that Jesus, after approximately nine months' gestation, was born the way all babies are born indicates His Humanity. The fact His mother was still a virgin at His birth indicates He is the Eternal God, the I Am of Exodus 3: 14 and John 8: 24 and 8: 58, the Creator of the universe. Unlike other babies, the Son of God did not begin to exist at conception, but has existed for all eternity with the Father (John 1:1, 18; Philippians 2:6).

He went to considerable effort just to come and talk to us. And that was only the beginning.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

How About Absolute Certainty?

Now, I figure that one of the last things any visitor--as if this blog had any visitors-- wants to read at a blog on which the author hasn't posted in a good while is a post about the fact that the author hasn't posted in a while; and since I have already conceded an entire sentence to that topic (which I insist on limiting to one sentence, regardless of how many clauses and commas it takes), I'm going to leave it at that.

I have some comments about this post by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs fame. Mr. Johnson notes the postmodern tendency to make equivocating statements even about those propositional truths being affirmed by the source. Specifically, Mr. Johnson takes issue with the fact that many who identify with the Emerging Church, or Emerging Conversation, etc. decry absolute certainty (or "Excessive Confidence") about any doctrine.

Phil is correct in his assertion that adherents to the Emerging "dialogue" (which is in reality a mere monologue being restated from various sources) are predisposed to extol doctrinal uncertainty as a virtue. Ambiguity means magnanimity in the Land of Emergents, where one is free to join the "conversation" as long as one doesn't claim to know anything.

Even the adjective "excessive" as applied to to being firmly rooted ("excessive confidence", "excessive certainty") indicates the postmodern failure to grasp the kinetic relationship of truth, faith and practice. "Excessive certainty" seems a non sequitur; one is either certain or uncertain. Can certainty be quantified? What does adding the inflammatory adjective do to enhance the "Conversation?" And what is "missional" about cutting into the base of the sapling with the serrated edge of doubt?

If Christians don't have the truth, then we might as well sleep in on Sunday morning. See 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19. Thankfully, we do have the truth. See verses 20-26. Let's proclaim it with certainty.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Kingdom Promise

In Acts 1:6, The disciples ask Jesus,
...Lord, wilt Thou it at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

In His response, Jesus tells them that it is not for them to know the times or the seasons. He does not correct their eschatological viewpoint or say that all those previous kingdom prophecies and teachings were only meant in a metaphorical and spiritual sense. So after three years of being taught by Him, they still expect an earthly kingdom, and even though He is getting ready to ascend to the Father and they are to establish the Church (and indeed, Christianity itself) and be the authorities on doctrine and practice, He does not insist that their eschatological hermenautic is too literal.

Wonder why that is? I think the reason is that, while the disciples may have been clueless about the time frame ( and indeed, we still don't know the times or seasons), they were correct in their expectation of an eventual earthly kingdom.

This was after the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24 and 25, so they obviously did not read into that text, as so many partial preterists and amillennialists do, the absence of an earthly kingdom. For more comments on Matthew 24, see here, here, and here.

Perhaps the disciples anticipated an earthly kingdom because of the words of Jesus to them in Matthew 19: 28:

Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It is apparent that the disciples saw this as a literal prophecy, because in Matthew 20: 20-23 James, John and their mother have a conversation with Jesus in which she requests that the two brothers be granted the honor of being seated at the right hand and left hand of Jesus in His kingdom. Jesus does not correct their interpretation or insist that they misunderstood Him. Rather, He says the privilege they requested is "...for whom it is prepared of My Father."

So what do we make of the fact that Jesus taught about a future earthly kingdom and the disciples expected one? Looks like premillennialism to me.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Help Me Help You Help Me Understand

Well, it seems an intense discussion (yea, a verbal firestorm of sorts) has been roaring through (okay, maybe just crackling through) a few of the blogs I frequent. One of my favorite expositors, John MacArthur, recently expressed the opinion that he felt a premillennial eschatology was more consistent with reform soteriology than an amillennial view.

I have long agreed that if 5-point Calvinists would apply the same earnest diligent hermeneutic to their study of the prophetic Scriptures that they apply to those passages which deal with soteriology, they'd be premillers instead of amillers.

By the way, when I refer to the amillennial eschatological view, I include the postmillennial viewpoint in that category. I don't see much difference in the two perspectives, since both camps believe the millennial reign of Christ described in Revelation 20:4 is a description of the church age prior to the Second Coming, and many in the postmillennial group, like the amillennialists, reject a literal 1000-year time frame as the duration of the age described. One might argue that the posties are more optimistic about the way things are headed than some of the amillennialists regarding the conclusion of the church age, but I still think that divergence is a sub-category within the same general doctrinal eschatological construct. Sorry, what I mean to say is, I think they still hold the same general view and get there using the same general interpretive principals.

Now, there are all sorts of rationales and explanations given why the amillennialists don't accept that the words of Revelation 20:4 actually mean what the words of Revelation 20:4 say, or why a thousand years would not mean a thousand years, even though it is repeated 6 times in verses 2-7 of chapter 20. Seems to me that the apostle John really wants the reader to get the fact that the duration he is referring to is a thousand years. The rationales of the dissenters vary some from one amiller to the next, but generally rely on terms like "allegory", "prophetic language", etc. I dealt with some of these general issues in my former blog here and here.

I think the real challenge one should consider in reading this passage is, unless one brings a pre-established eschatological view with them when reading it, there is nothing there which compels the described thousand-year post-Second Coming reign of Christ to be taken any way but in the literal sense. There is nothing difficult about interpreting the narrative in the way it describes future events. There is no difficulty in understanding the plain meaning of the narrative and the context does not insist on resorting to allegory to understand it.

Also, there is a precedent concerning previous prophetic time-frames in Scripture which appear to have a literal meaning. Seven days in Genesis 7: 4 meant seven days. Three days in Genesis 40: 12-13 meant three days. Seven years in Genesis 41: 26-30 meant seven years. Forty years in Numbers 14: 33-34 meant forty years. Seventy years in Jeremiah 25:11-12 meant seventy years. Three days in Mark 10: 31 meant three days. There are more examples, but I think the point is made that an appeal to "prophetic language" does not automatically exempt one from accepting a time frame specifically defined in a Biblical prophecy. The only reason amillennialists are forced to impose a nonliteral interpretaion on the thousand-year reference is because the Church Age has already extended more than a thousand years and they have to reconcile that fact with the eschatological view they have settled on.

Having said all this, the issue is not one to divide over. Orthodox evangelicals can agree to disagree on the premill/amill issue. But we premillers do need to continue to make our case without apology to our amillennial brothers and sisters. After all, our eschatological hermeneutic should be consistent with the way we interpret the rest of Scripture.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Here a Blog, There a Blog...

So this is beta. Hello again to the very few regular readers of my former blog, the number of which didn't require a site meter to calculate; the accounting capacity of the digits on one hand were sufficient, with fingers to spare, I think. My Dear Wifely, on the other hand, gets a little more traffic at her blog and suggested that maybe if I post more often than 16 times in 14 months I'll pick up another reader or two. After a little primary research on my part, I have concluded that, in fact, there are 18 posts on my former blog in that time frame, which averages 1.29 posts per month, give or take. Okay, so maybe I could post a little more often.

My Dear Wifely started her blog at almost the same time I started mine (actually, a little bit after mine) and has been fairly prolific in her number of posts; I don't know that I'm ever going to match her frequency of posting. But maybe I will blog a little more often...maybe.

I know she'll be reading, anyway...