Navigation

Marrying Creed and Conduct

By on August 13, 2016 in Christianity, Theology/Bible

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” -2 Timothy 3:16 

To say that scripture is “profitable” has nothing to do with money. It simply means that scripture is useful, beneficial, or advantageous toward a certain end. In this case, Paul says that scripture is beneficial for four things: teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. John Stott suggests that these four are divided into two groups: creed and conduct.

Paul now goes on to show that the profit of Scripture relates to both creed and conduct (16b, 17). The false teachers divorced them; we must marry them. The NEB expresses the matter clearly. As for our creed, Scripture is profitable ‘for teaching the truth and refuting error’. As for our conduct, it is profitable ‘for reformation of manners and discipline in right living’. In each pair the negative and positive counterparts are combined. Do we hope, either in our own lives or in our teaching ministry, to overcome error and grow in truth, to overcome evil and grow in holiness? Then it is to Scripture that we must primarily turn, for Scripture is ‘profitable’ for these things.

–John Stott, The Message of 2 Timothy, p. 103

Yes, marry them indeed. Every day. Every moment.

0

Herman Bavinck on the Covenant of Redemption

By on August 13, 2016 in Theology/Bible

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:214-15:

This doctrine of the pact of salvation… is rooted in a scriptural idea. For as Mediator, the Son is subordinate to the Father, calls him God…, is his servant… who has been assigned a task… and who receives a reward… for the obedience accomplished… Still, this relation between Father and Son, though most clearly manifest during Christ’s sojourn on earth, was not first initiated at the time of the incarnation, for the incarnation itself is already included in the execution of the work assigned to this the Son, but occurs in eternity and therefore also existed already during the time of the Old Testament… Scripture also clearly… sees Christ functioning officially already in the days of the Old Testament… The pact of salvation makes known to us the relationships and life of the three persons in the Divine Being as a covenantal life, a life of consummate self-consciousness and freedom… Continue Reading →

1

My Take-Away’s from the Trinity Debate

By on August 10, 2016 in Theology/Bible

Over the last two months, you might have noticed that there was quite a bit of online debate concerning the Trinity. These conversations are far from over, but the initial online surge does seem to have subsided at this point. For that reason, I have wanted to share some of my reflections on what has transpired. This isn’t all that can or should be said on the topic, and perhaps some readers may think it too much. So at the risk of saying both too little and too much, here are eight take-away’s from the recent Trinity debate.

1. On Nicaea: Before this debate started, I would have identified myself as a standard fourth century Nicene Trinitarian. I haven’t moved from that identification but own it all the more fervently (and with greater clarity) as a result of what has unfolded over the last two months. I believe in eternal generation, a single divine will, inseparable operations, and the whole Nicene package. I have probably done more reading on Nicene Trinitarianism in the last two months than I have ever done previously. It has been good for me, and I am thankful to God for it. There are certain elements of this controversy that have been quite unpleasant, but I wouldn’t trade the growth that’s come from it for anything in the world. Continue Reading →

14

Saving Christian Colleges from Annihilation by the State

By on August 9, 2016 in Christianity

In case you haven’t heard, the California state legislature is poised to pass a bill that would effectively close down Christian colleges in California. The long and short of it is this. There is bill in California that would deny federal funds to any college or university that maintains faithfulness to what the Bible teaches about sexuality. The ERLC released a statement today opposing the bill and describing its harms:

Senate Bill 1146 results in its own form of discrimination by stigmatizing and coercively punishing religious beliefs that disagree on contested matters related to human sexuality. If SB 1146 were to pass, it would deny students’ ability to participate in state grant programs—programs that exist to help low-income students, and which are overwhelmingly used by racial minorities—at schools that are found in violation of the bill. Moreover, it would severely restrict the ability of religious education institutions to set expectations of belief and conduct that align with the institution’s religious tenets.

The statement statement requests the California state legislature to drop the bill, and the request is signed by a number of religious leaders from across the country. Among other things, the statement says this: Continue Reading →

3

If pedophilia is a sexual orientation, now what?

By on August 7, 2016 in Christianity, Culture

I have written in this space before about the idea that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that it’s just another element of human sexual diversity not to be condemned but understood and sympathized with. We are now at the next stage of normalization. Indeed, the DSM-V already recognizes pedophilia as a sexual orientation (p. 698). But now we have a full-length academic book arguing the same: Pedophilia and Adult-Child Sex: A Philosophical Analysis, by Stephen Kershnar.

In this book, Kershnar questions whether pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder and/or morally wrong. His argument is that it can only be considered a mental disorder if and only if two conditions are met: (1) if the condition causes harm and (2) if the harm results from a dysfunction in a mental mechanism. Kershnar contends that pedophilia is a “natural function” with an “evolutionary explanation.” Thus it does not meet the second criterion. He further argues that pedophilia doesn’t harm the pedophile and that it does not necessarily harm a “willing” child. So pedophilia doesn’t clearly violate the first criterion either (pp. xviii-xix). Continue Reading →

14

How to pray for God’s favor

By on August 5, 2016 in Christianity, Theology/Bible

This morning, I’ve been pondering and praying the words of Moses in Exodus 33:13:

“If I have found favor in Your sight, let me know Your ways that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your sight.” -Exodus 33:13

Notice three crucial things about this prayer, each of which illuminate how we ought to pray as well.

1. The Basis: Even though the sentence begins with “If I have found favor,” God’s favor toward Moses is not in question. We know that because God has already told Moses that his favor rests on him (v. 12), and God will tell him again “you have found favor in my sight” (v. 17). God’s gracious disposition toward Moses is not in question, and so the basis for Moses’ request is God’s free grace.

2. The Request: Moses asks to know God’s “ways.” God’s “ways” refer to God’s behavior and manner of conduct. It is God’s behavior and action revealed in history. Moses has been witness to God’s “ways” in this sense, and now he’s asking to know more of God’s ways. Why? Because knowing God’s ways equals knowing God. “Let me know Your ways that I may know You.” God’s works do not deceive us. They speak truthfully about who God really is. Moses wants to know more of God’s ways because Moses wants to know God.

3. The Purpose: Moses says the purpose of the prayer is to “find favor” with God. This is profound. Moses has already cited God’s gracious favor as the basis for his prayer. Now he’s citing it as the goal of his prayer as well. The logic goes like this. Grace leads to knowing God’s ways. Knowing God’s ways leads to knowing God. Knowing God leads to more grace. The entire enterprise is framed by grace.

What does all of this mean? What would it mean for us to pray a similar prayer? It means that we approach God on the basis of his gracious favor toward us. His drawing near to us precedes and grounds our drawing near to him (John 6:65; 1 John 4:19). 

Also, it means that when we seek to know God’s “ways,” we are seeking to know how God has revealed himself in history. That revelation is contained for us in scripture. To know God’s ways in scripture is to know God as he truly is. Scripture never lies to us on this account. On the contrary, it gives us everything we need for life and godlines (2 Peter 1:3). 

Finally, it means that God’s revelation is a means of grace for us. The purpose of seeing God is to experience his favor. His favor is both the basis and the goal of such prayer. And knowing God is the essence of experiencing God’s favor. 

Jesus said it this way, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). We pray from God’s favor  for God’s favor, and we can do this because of Christ’s death and resurrection for sinners. “For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace” (John 1:16).

4

Trump on using nukes: “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

By on August 3, 2016 in #NeverTrump, News, Politics

On “Morning Joe” today, Joe Scarborough was interviewing a former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden. The former director’s remarks were alarming all by themselves. But Joe issued the most chilling report I think I’ve ever heard about Trump, but one that certainly confirms my suspicions about him. This is very important for you to read below or watch above. Joe reports:

Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked… “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” That’s one of the reasons he doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him.

If you watch the video above, you’ll notice the gravity with which Joe delivered this news. All the usual jocularity and lightness were gone, and it was met by the panel with stunned silence. Why?

Because they know the temperament and character of the candidate and because you can’t have that kind of trigger-happy person in charge of the nuclear codes.

Here is a scenario that is not hard to imagine given what Trump has said he would do as president. Trump has said repeatedly that he would call our troops home from South Korea unless South Korea starts paying the United States.

So let’s say Trump is elected and takes office next January. Within a month of taking office, he begins negotiating with South Korea about the status of our forces along the demilitarized zone. Negotiations break-down when South Korea balks at the sum President Trump wants them to pay. They ask for an extension of negotiations. A petulant President Trump says “no” and removes our troops from South Korea.

At some point after our troops are gone, North Korea moves against South Korea–either with an army marching across the line or with missile strikes on Seoul. This wasn’t part of Trump’s “hardball negotiation” strategy, and now he realizes that he’s just been humiliated by North Korean aggression.

Do you think it’s within Trump’s character to clean up his own foreign policy mess (and avenge his own personal slight) with a tactical nuclear strike against North Korea? What if he looks at his generals and says to them the same thing Joe Scarborough just reported: “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

15

Jonathan Edwards on the “Head of the Trinity”

By on August 1, 2016 in Christianity, Theology/Bible

Last week, I noted Scott Swain’s chapter about the Son’s willing submission to the Father within the covenant of redemption. I’ve been doing some further reading on this, and it turns out that intratrinitarian relations with respect to the pactum have been a perennial discussion among reformed divines.

For example, Jonathan Edwards has a fascinating essay in his “Miscellanies” about “The Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption.” The entire thing is about 6,300 words, but it is worth the effort to read it if you have the time.

Edwards argues that the Father is the “head of the Trinity.” He never cites 1 Corinthians 11:3 explicitly, but I assume that is the source for his “headship” language. In any case, Edwards contends that the Father’s headship within the Trinity is prior to the pactum. The Father’s headship in no way implies an inferiority of nature in the Son or Spirit. Rather, the Father’s headship is a part of the economy of relations within the Trinity in eternity past prior to the pactum. In Edwards’s own words: Continue Reading →

2

Character matters in public leadership

By on July 30, 2016 in Christianity, Politics

This morning I was thinking about our current political moment and about the nation’s indiffernce to moral character in public leadership. I was reminded of a short essay that John Piper wrote nearly twenty years ago during the impeachment scandal. The essay was such a beacon of prophetic moral clarity then. I think it still is now. And it is relevant to our current moment. 

Piper gives six reasons why he believed that the President of the United States should resign. Each reason has to do with moral character and how the lack of it can make a man unfit for office. Piper concludes with this:

 The president should have known that the stakes of his moral life are this high, and added that to his disincentive to gratify himself at the expense of the nation. This reckless, foolish and faithless behavior unfits a man to be a world leader in this moral context.

It is hard to believe that it has been almost twenty years since this was written, but it is nonetheless relevant. When all of this was unfolding, the President’s approval rating among the American people remained very high, and of course he never resigned. The nation decided that these moral failings didn’t matter. I guess it should be no surprise that so many Americans have decided that such failings do not matter now either.

Our current political alternatives didn’t arise ex nihilo. There’s a long backstory. The culture we make is the culture we must live in. And it is an inescapable conclusion that our alterntives are to some extent a reflection of us as a people. 

And that is why it is all the more important for Christians to be salt and light. 

“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” -Matthew 5:16

“Walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” -Ephesians 5:8-11 

Our job isn’t to sit on the side cursing the darkness. We are light. We bear witness to a kingdom that is not of this world—to a Redeemer King who even now is seated at the right hand of God and who will appear again in judgment. This reality has implications for all of life, including the stewardship He’s given us as citizens of a democratic republic. 

Our alternatives may be a reflection of our culture, but Christians cannot give the impression that they are a faithful representation of us or of the Kingdom we represent. Clarity on this point may be difficult, but it is nonetheless necessary. To obscure this point is to cover up everything that matters. And that we cannot do.

5

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes