ReclaimingMind | Today In Theology

The famous codex from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai, Egypt has begun to show up on the Internet. A joint project between the British Library, the University of Leipzig, the National Library in St. Petersburg, and St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai, Egypt, has been underway for some time now. All four institutes own portions of this manuscript (with the BL owning the largest section, the complete New Testament—which, incidentally, is the oldest complete New Testament by half a millennium!). The project to post these images on-line has involved new digital photography and some slick search-capable tools.

Unfortunately, only selections from the codex are on-line currently. The entire codex should be up by July 2009.

CSNTM has the complete NT on its site, but our images are digital photographs from the 1911 black-and-white folio photographs (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/).

In order to obtain permission from each institute to post their collective images of Sinaiticus, an agreement had to be made first. It was simply that the story of this manuscript’s modern history would be told and that the story would be something that all parties could agree to. That all parties could agree on the contents of the narrative is a grade B miracle! The reason is quite simple: Ever since the German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf, took the manuscript from St. Catherine’s in 1859, there has been a dispute between St. Catherine’s and the new keepers of the MS as to who owned it.

Too much to go into now, suffice it to say that the story that most have heard is that Tischendorf saw the monks ripping out leaves of this codex and using them as kindling. Thus, most in the western world who know anything about Sinaiticus have assumed that the removal of the MS from Mt. Sinai was the act of a rescue mission rather than a theft. Although this has been strongly denied by St. Catherine’s, few in the western world knew much of the story—e.g., that Tischendorf had left a note telling the monks that he would return the MS when they asked for it. But with the discovery of the ‘New Finds’ (over 1000 MSS and 50,000 fragments found in 1975 in a hidden compartment at the monastery), the story may need some serious revision. What is most notable is that as many as 26 leaves or leaf-fragments of Codex Sinaiticus were found in the store-room or geniza. And the geniza was most likely used until the mid-19th century (judging by the latest MSS found in it). As well, the fact that the leaves of Sinaiticus that were found there were from the front (Pentateuch) and back of the book (apostolic fathers) seems to suggest that the geniza was used for manuscript leaves that had fallen off of the documents, most likely when the library was moved from one side of the compound to the other. Both the date when the geniza was in use and the leaves of Sinaiticus that were found there suggest that during the era when Tischendorf visited the monastery the monks’ modus operandi in disposing of old manuscripts was not to destroy them. In the least, this new evidence and its potential implications need to be given more serious consideration as the modern story of this remarkable manuscript is told.

Theology Unplugged - Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian - Because it will make me happy

Join Michael Patton and Lindsey Price as they discuss reason #3 on the Top Ten Reasons NOT to be a Christian series.

Is this true? Listen to what they we have to say. (Forget Lindsey’s comments at the end

)

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is supported by the financial partnership of those who believe in what we are doing. Consider partnering with us today.

Taking Calvinism Too Far: R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Evil-Creating Deity

In his book Almighty Over All (Baker, 1999), R.C. Sproul Jr. makes some controversial statements—ones that appear to be sub-biblical. What tipped me off to this was hearing a paper presentation at a conference in April in New Orleans. R.C. Sproul Jr. was being quoted, and I shocked at what I heard. Though the paper presentation came from a reliable source (Dr. Ken Keathley of Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest), I wanted be like the Bereans of Acts 17 and check out Sproul Jr.’s work myself—especially if I wanted to offer some reflections on this topic.

As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:

Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).

Sproul Sr. allows for a libertarian understanding of free will in Eden, which itself is a departure from Calvinism proper. But let that pass.

Sproul Jr., however, wants to get to the bottom of the matter and weigh in on what he takes to be the source of evil: God! Shocked? I certainly hope so. Sproul Jr. lists the range of possible “suspects” in his third chapter, entitled “Who Dunit?” He lays out and discusses the only five possible alternatives: Adam, Eve, Satan, the environment, and God. God created a good environment (“it was very good”), and Adam, Eve, and Satan were originally created good; so their strongest desire or inclination (which dictates how we will choose, Sproul Jr. claims) must also have been originally good. This, then, means that none of the first four candidates can be the source of sin. The “culprit” (Sproul Jr.’s term) is God himself, who “introduced evil into this world” (p. 51). In fact, God acted according his strongest inclination; he acted on what he most wished to come to pass—as he always does (p. 54).

The reason he wanted Adam and Eve to fall into sin was because of God’s eternal attribute of wrath—and “God is as delighted with his wrath as he is with all of his attributes” (52). So in light of this eternal attribute of wrath, God must create objects of wrath: “What I’ll do is create something worthy of my wrath, something on which I can exhibit the glory of my wrath” (pp. 52-53). Without creating human beings (and let’s include fallen angelic beings here too), he would not have had the opportunity to display his glory in this way. So Sproul Jr. affirms something rather startling: “It was [God’s] desire to make his wrath known. He needed, then, something on which to be wrathful. He needed to have sinful creatures” (p. 57).

Anticipating a rejoinder, Sproul Jr. asks: “Isn’t it impossible for God to do evil?” He acknowledges that God can’t sin. This isn’t much of a consolation, as Sproul Jr. goes on to say: “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that he created sin” (p. 54). Sproul Jr. doesn’t think he’s crossed any line by saying this. Referring to the Westminster Confession’s definition of sin as “any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God,” he says that this doesn’t exclude God’s creating evil. It seems that Sproul Jr. is not only using an argument from silence from the Confession, but he is ignoring an important emphasis in Scripture—that God cannot be the author of evil. Let me go into a bit more detail about some problem areas in Sproul Jr.’s theology.

1. “God can do what he wants.” Sproul Jr. appeals to Romans 9 to justify his point (pp. 53, 56). If God is accused of doing evil, Sproul Jr. gives a rough equivalent of what Paul is saying: “Shut up! He’s God, and he can do what he wants” (p. 56). Yes, God can do what he wants, but what God does (and what he wants) will be good and just and reflecting his love and his holiness. We can’t rightly say, “God can break his promise or lie because ‘he’s God, and he can do what he wants.” No, what sets God apart from us fallen, rationalizing, faithless humans is that he alone is true (Romans 3:4). We’re told that it is “impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18; cp. Titus 1:2).

James 1 doesn’t only tell us that God can’t do evil; it also tells us that every good and perfect gift comes from above; that is, God shouldn’t be accused as being the source of evil. God is intrinsically good and so cannot “create evil.” This harks back to what Jesus says about the nature of God—in contrast to fallen humans, who still seek the good of their children: “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:9-11). In fact, earlier on, God is said to be one who doesn’t simply love those who love him, but he loves the wicked and unrighteous as well, thus showing a perfect love (Mt. 5:48).

2. The Manichean error: Sproul Jr., it seems, has pushed things over the orthodox edge by saying that God is the author or creator of evil. This stands in violation of what 1 Timothy 4:4 tells us: “For everything God created is good.” Of course, Augustine fought against the Manichean heresy, which takes evil as a thing rather than the absence or corruption of goodness, but Sproul Jr. seems to be slipping into some version of Manicheanism.

One side note here: The King James Version can be misleading on this point. The translation sometimes gives the impression that God is the maker or the source of both good and evil: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7); “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lamentations 3:37-38); “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6). This rendering is inaccurate. The word for “evil” (ra’ah) can also be translated “trouble,” “disaster,” or “calamity.”

3. A God in need isn’t a God indeed: It is quite startling to read a staunch Calvinist who says that God needs something outside himself—in this case, sinners on whom to pour his wrath! The Scriptures are full of reminders of God’s self-sufficiency and that he needs nothing outside himself. For instance, “If I were hungry I would not tell you, For the world is Mine, and all it contains” (Psalm 50:12). Again, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become his adviser? Or who has given him something only to have him pay it back? For all things are from him, by him, and for him. Glory belongs to him forever! Amen” (Rom. 11:34-36).

Orthodox Christianity affirms that God did not need to create. He could have chosen not to create. The doctrine of creation out of nothing affirms that God is not in need of, say, pre-existing matter or of human beings. The triune God is content and joyful within himself. His creation of human beings is the result of God’s gracious choice to extend to others his joy, his love, and his community. Sproul Jr.’s view of God’s needing to create human beings diminishes rather than exalts God. According to Sproul Jr., God couldn’t help but create humans upon whom to pour his wrath. (Keep in mind Sproul Jr.’s insistence that God always acts according to his strongest desire.) If wrath is an attribute that is an eternal and necessary aspect to God, then this means God necessarily had to create; he couldn’t help but create. All of this sounds quite troubling to my mind.

In an attempt at philosophical consistency, Sproul Jr., it seems, has taken his causal determinism to some problematic theological conclusions—a direction his father, apparently, feared to go.

The Orchard, The Arts, the Christian Faith

I’m in England right now, photographing ancient New Testament manuscripts housed at various colleges of Cambridge University. The name ‘Cambridge’ evokes respect, wonder, even a certain awe. It’s a conglomerate of 31 colleges, spreading out from the 13th century on, and sprawling out from the center of town (which is, technically, Great St Mary’s Church, across from King’s College). (One of the most recent, Darwin College, is shaped like Noah’s ark to mock the biblical story of the flood and creation. But Trinity College, where Isaac Newton taught, allows no Trinitarians into its halls; I understand that one has to be an atheist, or at least an agnostic to be a part of that college, whose focus is mostly on mathematics and the sciences.) The street names change every block—a most irritating feature for those of us who are already directionally challenged. (When I was living here during one of my sabbaticals, when walking home from the grocery store one day I got so lost that the milk soured by the time I got home!) But the street names also have a certain logic for they are often named after the most prominent institute on that street. Thus, King’s Parade is named after King’s College; Queens’ Lane after Queens’ College, etc.

Well, after a terribly busy week shooting manuscripts, we decided to take a break on Saturday and visit the Orchard in Grantchester, just a couple miles from Cambridge. The Orchard is on a spot that has been frequented by Cambridge students and alumni for over seven hundred years. But in the early twentieth century, it took on a new significance. A shack was bought by an entrepreneurial litterateur (Rupert Brooke, poet) who shared it with his colleages. Seven friends would come here frequently to talk about life, love, logic, and literature. Famous friends, too: Forster and Virginia Woolf, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Maynard Keynes (economist), and Augustus John (artist).

These were not your normal pillars of the community. They were wild, creative, energetic, passionate, troubled, deeply feeling individuals. Wittgenstein, the brilliant logician-philosopher, came from a family full of musicians and artists, and full of inner turmoil. Three of his four brothers had committed suicide. Virginia Woolf, the novelist, was in many ways a free spirit—freedom that bore deep and passionate literary fruit. She later committed suicide because of the challenges of facing depression. Bertrand Russell, a genius in math, logic, and philosophy, and a social activist whose views anticipated the great social revolutions of the 60s, fit in well with this group. Augustus John lived with two wives and ten naked children who ran wild in the woods near Cambridge. And the list goes on. But my point is simple: these were creative geniuses, social odd-balls, comrades in countercultural values. But they weren’t just that; they also changed the world in which we live. They changed the way we think and talk about life, love, logic, and literature.

So here we were, sitting at a table having tea and crumpets at the world-famous Orchard, thinking about the great thinkers who had gone before. And we wrestled with the thread that seemed to bind them all together: they were not normal. They were troubled souls, in deep turmoil, social outcasts to some degree, yet with such innate qualities that society could not ignore them. In the end, society embraced their views and their lifestyles and those of others like them in other orchards in other parts of the world.

It got me to thinking: First, did these people really make a contribution? I could not deny it. They offered the world a great deal, and certainly got people to think. In one way or another, the world is a richer place because of the Bertrand Russells, the Ludwig Wittgensteins, the Virginia Woolfs. Second, if this is the case, then where is God in all this? Why does he allow the most troubled often to be the ones who marshal change, who serve as beacons for society when their own lives are in shambles? Is he some sort of cosmic sadist who gets joy out of using the least normal, the most disturbed, the least Christian to bring about progress in the world? Or should I instead say that this isn’t the case—that these people have made no contribution, that their lives as unbelievers renders them worthy of our judgment or pity or both, but nothing more? In other worlds, how do I reconcile my belief in an all-knowing, all-good, all-holy God with a world that seems tailor-made for the destruction of brilliant and passionate thinkers, using them up all too often as they curse God in their dying gasp of air? What I’m saying is that I want these thinkers, these world-changers to go on challenging the status quo, getting the rest of us to grapple with our views and worldviews. And I want God to get the glory for it. Am I worshiping the wrong God? He just doesn’t seem to be involved in the wrecked lives of geniuses. Is he the God of the mediocre? Can Christianity produce world-shakers who are not so full of inner turmoil that their lives, and not just their words or art or music, also glorify God? Or is it a prerequisite for greatness that one just has to be a little nuts, a little imbalanced, a bit of a misfit—and an antagonist of the Almighty?

From a P&P Reader about Anti-Intellectualism

This came from one of our readers. I thought it was worth sharing considering my last post.

Let me give you a brief back ground of myself. I was raised in an extremely fundamentalist Baptist home where everything was cut and dry and very dogmatic. Doubt and questions of theology were generally met with a polemic attitude. The King James Bible was the only bible allowed in the home and my dad was a firm believer in spare the rod spoil the child. I did not necessarily see the love of God in our home only a dogmatic system of living.

Needless to say my teenage and young adult years brought about swift rebellion to God and everything I was “told” to believe. I DO NOT blame my dad for this rebellion but I do partially blame the system in which my sisters and I were taught our theology. It seemed everything from smoking, drinking, gambling, wearing anything but a suit to church would send one straight to hell.

I was blessed to have a family who worship God and one who tried to raise their children in a Godly manner. This is what I believe brought me back to my knees in search of my Lord and Savior. Sadly, my younger sister is still in rebellion.

I continue to attend a Southern Baptist Church in the OKC area (but I don’t hold to the belief that I was brought up with that Baptists are the only ones going to heaven) and I do strive to know and understand the God of my worship. Some of things I was told to believe as a child I questioned and have since come to an understanding of on my own. But there is still much I question (mainly non-essentials) and don’t understand. I feel there is not an avenue where I and others can explore our beliefs and/or uncertainties and come to an understanding. My church does offer the standard generic classes but they don’t offer truly biblical study courses. Courses where believers can come together using exegesis and proper hermeneutics to flush out biblical teaching to determine timeless principals.

Thankfully, through a very good bible study group here at my office a gentleman has mentored me through some of my questions and doubts. He is patient and understanding of my questions and his knowledge of biblical Greek is wonderful. Through this gentleman I was lead to the Theology Program. I first began to watch the videos on-line through self study and when I found out you would be teaching it at Crossings I knew I had to attend.

I enjoy your approach to this class [The Theology Program] and I believe any layperson who feels called to teach or anyone who desires to know why they believe what they believe should go through this program. I have tried to get it started at my church but to my disappointment it does not seem to be a priority.

As a father of two children I desire for them to come to their own understanding of truth. What I mean by this is I don’t want them to believe and come to faith because that’s what daddy says (I want them to place their faith in Jesus Christ and not in daddy’s faith). I want them to come to their own understanding based upon biblical truth. But now, like you, I fear the church has in some ways lost its calling of making disciples.

The focus on the present day church can be anywhere from what type of music to play; do we build a gym to reach the inner city youth; do we stay with traditional bible study or go with home groups; to how can we grow the church? Anyone of these may bring people to the church but what do we have established right now to walk them through to Christian maturity? (I am speaking of my church)

Have we allowed ourselves to become anti-intellectual to a point of being afraid to engage in irenic conversations about difficult or differing beliefs? Has our plan of evangelizing blinded our mission of creating disciples also?

The answer to these questions is I don’t know. I can only speak from the perspective of my own church. I fear some of those we bring in through the music, gym, or home groups may one day fall to the secular teachings of the world around them. The message of God is love is not always reflected in the world around us. It is only reflected in what we know to be absolutely true. The sad thing is we are not all equipped to articulate absolute truth to the postmodern world.

The Intellectual Crisis of Today’s Church

The central motivating factor in my ministry over the last ten years has been the need for Christians to engage the intellectual side of the faith with more confidence, hope, and joy. I began The Theology Program in 2001 which now is in hundreds of churches and has effected tens of thousands of people. I can barely keep up with the demands of this ministry as its need and potential becomes more evident each and every day.

With all of this success, one inevitably finds those who continue to place much needed anchors in my mission. While I believe what I am doing has been given to me by God, I also understand that the intellect is not all there is. In fact, while I want to produce more confidence, hope, and joy in the lives of believers, I also want to instill a deep sense of humility. Theology done right should always produce a confident humility. Theology done wrong produces an ironically insecure emotional confidence that is made up of what I call “cut-and-paste” theology and apologetics (”just give me the answers, I don’t care how we get them”).

Anchored as I am in the reality that the intellectual side of our faith is not necessarily the end, but a foundation to all that is being built, I am more confident than ever that the church today continues to face a major crisis in its philosophy of faith and education. The majority of churches simply do not stimulate serious discussion concerning matters of theology. Most people do not find the church as a safe place to ask serious questions. In fact, most people are trained to fear any doubt, reserve questions, or to put away any sinful antagonistic feeling concerning any challenge that comes to the table.

The church, unfortunately, more often than not, is in the obscuring business. No, not intentionally, but it is true. We protect ourselves and those we love from any “false doctrine” that leads away from Christ by hiding the issue or give a quick sound-bite apologetic which obscures and belittles the arguments of any opposition.

But here is the problem (and don’t miss this): one day the opponent will find an audience. Someway, somehow, whether it be in college or through a New York Times best seller, the opposition that we have dedicated ourselves so much to hide will be found. When this happens, a different tale is told, and this tale is much more convincing coming from an educated adherent than it was coming from us.

Those who trusted us then feel betrayed. They begin to feel that their intellect was being molested for many years without their realization. Then they move into recovery without us. This recovery often finds a line of many other people on a trail called “apostasy.” It is not a happy trail, but more of a trail of tears, evidencing the emotions of those who feel they have been betrayed by those who were supposed to love them most.

This describes the intellectual epidemic that Christianity is facing today. Of course, it does not have to be such. The future of theological education need not repeat the sins of the fathers. But we need to change.

This change involves risk. We don’t like risk. That is why we lock our doors every night and set the alarm. That is why we purchase cars with anti-lock brakes and airbags. We are trained to prevent any problems. But in this case, we cannot take the chance that intellectual isolation will birth true committment. Its track record is simply not very good.

This risk has to do with opening the curtain that hides the wizard. People need to be educated, not indoctrinated. Most certainly there is a time when indoctrination is necessary since early in our lives we don’t have the capability to think critically. But some time between the ages of 5-10 we need to transition to a point of critical engagement. This includes critical engagement of what we already believe. The church should be facilitating this. This is simply discipleship 101. But the problem is, most of us don’t know how to critically engage issues ourselves. We have been trained to be scared.

The church needs to begin to expose those in the church to alternative explanations, showing that we don’t live in fear of “those of whom we do not speak.” We need to welcome doubt and questions even at the deepest level. The church should be a safe place that people feel welcome when they are going through intellectual trials, not a place they run from.

We would do well to listen to this women. Sadly, I believe her statements are to the point and insightful.

Folks, this is not an advertisement for The Theology Program, but it does communicate the need for discipleship in the church that moves beyond a simple teaching of right doctrine, rather it walks people through the issues, teaching them how to think without an absolute predetermined end. God ultimately provides true and lasting faith. But from the human perspective, we must be responsible not only in the discharge of the Gospel, but how we discharge it.

In the end, wouldn’t it be better to have someone reject the faith under your informed and intellectually honest education process, than to accept an obscured version of the faith that is predisposed to collapse?

I believe that Christianity is ultimately persuasive. Christ has risen indeed! In fact, the more I am challenged, the more convinced I become.

Folks, it is worth the risk. The future of the church, from a human perspective, is not in how many converts we make, but in how many true disciples we lead. Things have to change now.

Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?

I know that the title is provocative, but please understand that I am serious in this question. At this point, I believe that it is very difficult for Roman Catholics who hold to Transubstantiation (is there any other kind of Roman Catholic!) to find harmony with a basic principle in the Definition of Chalcedon. In other words, I believe that Catholics are at odds with some essential elements of orthodox Christology.

Having said that, it may be that I am misunderstanding things (this would not be a first). So I write this post with the intention of informing my audience of a very intriguing issue, giving them a better look at Chalcedonian Christology, and giving an opportunity to Catholics to give an answer to this issue (if there are any that happen by—and there usually are).

I am going to explain the issue and I want all of you to hang with me through some deep waters. I will try to navigate you to a point where you understand why I believe (tentatively) that Catholics deny Chalcedon because of their view of Mass.

Orthodoxy has historically claimed that Christ is fully God and fully man. This is not an arbitrary pronouncement or belief, but is one that is central to an understanding of the Gospel.

After Nicea (A.D. 325), the central theological issue that presented itself to the Church was this: Now that Christ was understood to be fully God, of the same substance with the Father, how did his humanity relate to his deity.

There were three initial responses that helped shape orthodoxy as it prepared for Chalcedon (A.D. 451).

1. Nestorianism: The belief that Christ’s human nature and divine nature were separate to the degree that they each possessed their own personhood. Christ could sometimes act from his human person and sometimes his divine person.

2. Eutychianism: The belief that Christ’s humanity was assumed into his deity. This mixture of human and divine commingled to the degree that the humanity virtually disappeared as a drop of water might be lost in the ocean. This created a mixture of sorts between the human and divine.

3. Apollinarianism: The belief that Christ’s human spirit and soul were replaced with the divine spirit and soul. As some people called it, Christ was “God in a bod.”

The problem with Nestorianism is that we are introduced to two persons, not one Christ. The second person of the Trinity cannot be divided into two separate consciousnesses each possessing their own attributes and acting in accordance with a distinct will.

The problem with Eutychianism is that the new entity created by the commingling of natures could not represent man to God. Reason? Because the new entity is neither human nor divine, but a new sort of “humine.” Since humanity needed to be represented by one of its own, Christ’s new nature could not qualify.

The problem with Apollinarianism is that Christ was lacking a human soul and spirit. Without these two essential components to the human constitution, Christ could not represent humanity. Humanity does not only need their material body represented, but their entire constitution, body, soul, and/or spirit.

Chalcedon stepped in and condemned each of the options above opting for a person who possess two complete natures, human and divine. These natures do not separate and cannot be commingled, mixed, or confused. In this, Christ’s natures are complete and do not share or communicate their attributes. Christ’s humanity cannot mix with his deity and thereby take on divine characteristics.

<!-- <! CSInit[CSInit.length] = new Array(OUTloadFrameset,/*URL*/ '/documents/index.html','mainframe',true);

The Roman Catholic view of Mass (or the Lord’s supper) is that a miraculous event occurs as the bread and wine offered actually turn into the real body and blood of Christ. The substance of each change while the accidents (that which is seen and tasted) stay the same. This is known as “transubstantiation” because the “substance” “trans”-forms into Christ’s actual body and blood.

The problem, if you have not already begun to see, is that Christ’s body cannot be really present since it would inevitably have to be at countless millions of places at one time. Humanity cannot be in more than one place at one time. Christ’s humanity is only present in one locale at any one moment according to Chalcedon. Why? Because the attributes of deity cannot be communicated to Christ’s humanity. Christ’s human body (that which is supposed to be present at every Mass all over the world) does not and cannot possess omnipresence.

Tomorrow’s Theological Word of the Day will be “extra Calvinisticum” (I am prophetic!), which says this:

Therefore, it would seem that Roman Catholics would have to either redefine Chalcedon to fit their view of Transubstantiation, or else redefine their view of Transubstantiation. Neither of which is really possible.

These are the questions I have for my Catholic friends: Can Christ’s humanity be at more than one place at one time? If so, how does this happen sinse there cannot be a communication of the attributes of each nature? How do you square your view of Transubstantiation with Chalcedon?

If one were to say that Chalcedon only has implication for Christ while he was on earth, but post-resurrection his attributes can be communicated, how does he then now serve as the pioneer of humanity and how does he intercede for us as a high priest?

Christianity in a Nutshell

In the beginning, God created man. When he was created, he was pure and holy. He was created for a purpose. God, the one true sovereign and benevolent being, created man in order to give of His loving nature. But man was deceived by evil and fell into sin. This sin affected man and all of his offspring to the point that he was no longer able to serve God as he was created to. He hated God by nature. . .

But God did not abandon man. Nor did He abandon all the hopes and plans that He had for man. Instead, He made a promise. This promise involved a covenant to redeem man from his fall into sin and restore him to the dignity and hopes that He had originally desired. He told Eve (the first woman) that, despite the fall, He would send One who would crush the head of the serpent, even as the serpent crushed his heel (Gen. 3:15). This promise was to send a Redeemer who would, essentially, clean up the mess by undoing what they had done.

In order to accomplish this, many years later, He made another promise to an idol worshiper named Abraham. He promised Abraham that he was going to bless the world through him. He said that kings and rulers would come from him. Most importantly, He said that the Redeemer would come through his line. Through Abraham, God created a nation and called it Israel. To this nation, God made a covenant to be their God and to spread His Word through them. They were the entrusted vessels of God’s message. Through the nation of Israel, God further confirmed and extended His promise through a young shepherd boy named David. To David, God gave the kingdom of Israel. He also covenanted to send the Redeemer through David’s line.

In spite of the rebellion and constant betrayal of His chosen people, Israel, God covenanted yet again, and, again, further extended the blessing that began in the Garden. This time He said that He was going to change people’s hearts by making them become more like Him. In His words, “I will write my law upon their heart and I will be their God” (Jer. 31:31-33).

Five hundred years later, God sent the One whom He had covenanted to send, and this One, as it turned out, was His own Son. He was both everything that God is and everything that man was, yet without sin. To the dismay of many, He did not set up the Kingdom as they thought He came to do, but He first set up a Kingdom in the hearts of His people by dying on a cross and purchasing their redemption from sin and betrayal. After His death, He rose again, showing that the redemption was accomplished. He undid what Adam had done.

After His resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, who is also everything that God is, to indwell all those who believed and followed the Redeemer, so that they would have power to spread the message of redemption. He entrusted to them the Gospel message, as it came to be known, and called them the Church.

The Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is now the bearer of the Good News of God’s covenanted redemption. They are His representatives here on the earth. God the Son told the Church to tell others about Him until He comes back. When He comes back, He will then set up His Kingdom and destroy all evil and death, the final foe. The Church now eagerly awaits His coming, as they fight for the Kingdom.

In Defense of Seeker Churches

A guest post by Daniel Eaton at Theologica. Being from Dallas Seminary, we were breed to loath seeker churches. Yet I do have my thoughts as well that I will follow this up with. I look forward to your interaction.

I think there is a growing schism in the American church. The schism isn’t over theology, but methodology. A growing number of “seeker friendly” churches are on one side, and a firmly entrenched group of traditional churches are on the other. The increasing shrillness about the “seeker friendly” format somehow reminds me of church splits over what kind of music or musical instruments in the church. I think a lot of it comes down to a view that if it worked for my Grandad’s generation, then three hymns, a choir number, a sermon about the dangers in our society, and 27-stanzas of Just As I Am should be sufficient today. It’s the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

But the problem is that it *is* broke. That format no longer appeals to the masses. That method is becoming harder and harder to use in order to get the message out. The sad truth is that the average tattooed or pierced unsaved person does not feel welcome or accepted if they attend the traditional church. It is an atmosphere of condemnation of those that don’t dress or look like everyone else there. This unsaved Seeker isn’t going to stick around. Instead, he is going to leave with a sense that the Christian church is full of a bunch of condemning hypocrites.

One thing I often see in this conflict is that most of the people who firmly support the status quo are the ones that are least familiar with other types of church. They have not been exposed to church in other cultures. When you see the way they “do church” in other cultures, I think one becomes much more open to alternatives of the traditional format here at home. The message becomes divorced from the methodology.

Another thing I often see is that some of the hardest critics of the Seeker Friendly church are critical of something that they have never been to. They often criticize the mega-church over their “shallow” sermons. That was a topic of a whole different blog post. But it seems a bit ironic to me that a lot of sermons from these Seeker Friendly churches are based on Christ’s own sermons about love and kindness and yet they are criticized as being shallow or not focused enough on condemnation and repentance.

There is a place for condemnation. But look at the focus of Christ’s condemnation. It was addressed to the traditional church of the day….the Pharisees and Sadducee. The ones defending the traditions of the status quo were the ones He was the most critical of. Yet when he was preaching the Sermon On The Mount or talking to the lady at the well, it was primarily a message of love, not condemnation.

I think the reason why the Seeker Friendly model works is because it is friendly and accepting of the Seeker that is looking for answers. Does that mean that all pastors of mega-churches are perfect and doctrinally sound? One has to go no further than Joel Osteen to answer that question. But to criticize a method of doing church because of the message of some televangelist that uses that model is just as illogical as to say that the traditional way is wrong because of some of the preachers that teach bad doctrine in those settings.

Ultimately, I think the church as a whole has a huge problem in it’s lack of discipleship and mentoring. It is easy to criticize the Mega-Church for not getting deep enough in their Sunday morning sermon. But those in-depth doctrinal expositions are not what the Seeker needs. It’s like throwing a non-swimmer into the deep end of the pool. They are not going to understand a good percentage of the “church words” that they hear. It is basically useless to them. Church was ultimately held for the benefit of those that had always been there. And, in the traditional churches that I spent decades in, there really wasn’t a place to educate them on the church vernacular. Sure, there was Sunday School. But it was typically broken up into classes for different age groups and/or genders. In some cases, there were “young believer’s” classes that spoke of the basics. And those were highly needed. What’s more, the traditional church accepted those.

Yet when the Seeker-Friendly church follows that model, it is either ignored or criticized. The local Seeker-Friendly church in my town has thirteen different mid-week classes on different topics. There are classes with a focus on issues of single parents, Biblical solutions for addiction, financial training, foundational truths from Christ’s teachings, and multiple Bible-studies on a number of topics. Wherever you are in your Christian walk and whatever your personal needs, there is a place where you can plug-in and get mentored. You don’t have to settle for whatever Sunday-School booklet the 25-35 Adult Male class is teaching. The Seeker can find what he needs. And ultimately, isn’t the Christian growth of the person Seeking Christ what we are supposed to be all about?

The Theology Program Online Classes Start Today

Why is Hell Eternal? or “Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity?”

I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. The claim goes something like this:

All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the site of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.

I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the site of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.

First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:

Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity

The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?

Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?

You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.

I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.

The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).

This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.

It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”

Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.

Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.

Are all sins really equal in the sight of God?

I know that it is very common within popular evangelicalism to say that all sins are equal in the sight of God. Most find this theological concept very appealing and accept it, I am afraid to say, without doing much homework. I think this tendency comes by means of two influences.

1) A reaction by Protestants against the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal sins (sins that kill justifying grace) and venial sin (sins of a lesser nature that do not kill justifying grace) and

2) a tendency within our church culture to find a way to say that we are all equally in need of God’s grace and that all sin is extremely serious in God’s eyes (which is true).

However, I don’t believe that all sin is equal in God’s sight. I also believe that telling people that it is does great damage to the character of God and the seriousness of certain sins. There are many reasons for this, but let me start with a reductio ad absurdum and them move to a biblical argument.

I often ask people who say that all sin is equal in the site of God if they live according to their theology. Think about this. If all sin is equal in the sight of God, then His consternation and anger will be equal for whatever sin we commit. Equally important is the fact that our relational disposition before Him should suffer from the conviction of the Holy Spirit for all sins equally. I know that each one of us understands what it means to have our conscious weighed down by unrepentant sin. But this weighing down normally only comes from those sins that we perceive to be more severe. However, if all sin is equal in the sight of God and one lived according to that theology, he or she should be just as troubled and just as repentant each time that they speed down the road (breaking the law is a violation of Rom. 13) as when they commit adultery, steal the last loaf of bread from a starving family, or neglect their children for the sake of work. This, of course, nobody does. We all see speeding down the road as water under the bridge of God, because our conscious bears us witness that it is not as bad as other things, even if we confess differently.

Next (and more importantly) I think that it is biblical and necessary to say that some sins are more grievous in the site of God than others. This also translates into the assumption that some people are sinners to a greater degree than others. Even though Protestants may not agree with the theology behind the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins, there are many instances in the Scriptures where degrees of sin are distinguished.

1. Christ tells Pilate that the Jewish leaders have committed a worse sin than him, saying “he who has handed me over to you has committed the greater sin” (Jn. 19:11).

2. Certain sins in the law are distinguished in a particular context as an abomination to God, implying that others are not as severe (e.g. Lev. 18:22; Duet 7:25, 23:18, Isa. 41:24) .

3. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is set apart as a more severe sin than blasphemy of the Son (Matt. 12:31)

4. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists particular sins in such a way as to single them out because of their depraved nature, separating them from others.

5. There are degrees of punishment in Hell depending on the severity of the offense (Lk. 12:47-48).

6. Christ says of the Pharisees “You strain out a gnat while you swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). If all sins are equal, Christ’s rebuke does not make any sense.

7. Related to the last, Christ also talked about the “weighter things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). If all sins are equal, there is no law (or violation of that law) that is weightier than others. They are all the same weight.

So where does this folk theology come from? Well, most people would refer to Christ’s comments in the Sermon on the Mount. Most particularly, reference is made to Matt. 5:27-28 as justification for this way of thinking.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery;” but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27-28 27).

Is there a difference in the eyes of God between thinking about adultery and actually doing it? Absolutely. If we say anything other than this, we do damage to God’s character and encourage the act based upon its premonition. The point Christ makes in Matt. 5:28 is not that lust and the actual act are equal, but that they both violate the same commandment, even if the degrees of this violation differ. This way, Christ was telling all people (particularly the religious establishment of the day) that thought they were safe because they had fulfilled the letter of the law that the law runs much deeper. The spirit of the law is what matters. Therefore, if you have ever lusted, you have broken the sixth commandment. If you have ever hated your brother, you have broken the fifth commandment (Matt. 5:22). But, again, the breaking of the principles of the commandment is the issue, not the degree to which it is broken. Think about this (another reductio), if you believe that adultery and lust are equal in the sight of God, then here are the results: Any man or woman can justify divorce based upon the fact that in Matt. 5:32 Christ condemns divorce except for marital infidelity. All they need to do is make the safe assumption that their spouse has lusted to some degree during their marriage. As well, if a man were to lust after a woman on the Internet, he might as well commit the actual act, since in God’s eyes he already has. As well (I am rolling), if you have ever lusted after a girl, then you should marry her since in God’s eyes you are one with her (1 Cor. 6:16).

Again, I think that this way of thinking is not only wrong biblically, but it also has repercussions that lead to a distorted worldview and a discrediting of the integrity of God.

It is true; all people are sinners. All people are sinners from birth. But not all sin is equal. I think that it is safe to say that while not all people sin to the same degree, we all share in an equally depraved nature. But for the grace of God upon us, we would all rebel as the devil.

The Future of Theological Education 1

If you are like me, you are concerned about the future of the church and its ability to define and distinguish itself (most particularly, the Evangelical church). While God is in control of all things, we have a responsibility as Christians to see to it that we are doing everything we can to discharge the Gospel in a faithful way. We are to make disciples, not simply converts.

We are suffering from the dumbing down of truth in favor of entertainment, professionalism, and a general apathy toward truth and intellectual discipleship. Being so concerned with what the outside world thinks the moment they enter the church, we have lost site of who they are years later.

We are scared of big words, concepts, and intellectual challenges because we fear that those who hear them will cry “arrogance” or will simply leave our gathering in favor of one that plays the game at a elementary level. We fear our passions believing that they will facilitate a separatist mentality that will not be accepted among our postmodern youth who value a pluralistic approach to truth rather than the previous generation’s exclusivism.

I am not saying that there is not value in entertainment. I like to laugh and have fun. I am not saying that we should not value the excellence of professionalism. We should do all things to the best of our ability to the glory of God. And I am not saying that we should not be sensitive to the culture and its general suspicion of all truth claims. We all have been burnt in the past. But when we live in fear of those whom we are supposed to lead, the leader becomes the follower and the follower becomes the leader.

Calling someone a heretic—thoughtfully!

How does one determine if someone is a heretic? Is this a word that should be used today when Christianity seems to be so pluralistic with regards to levels of commitment, beliefs, and practices?

“An opinion, belief, or doctrine that is in variance to an established belief of a particular tradition. In Christianity, a heresy can have a historic value (more serious) or traditional value. In other words, a belief can be considered heretical to Baptists (e.g. paedeobaptism), but is not heretical in the historic sense. To be a historic heresy, it would have to be in variance to that which has been believed by the majority of Christians of all time (e.g. the deity of Christ).”

Because many of us use the word heresy in such a cavalier or domineering way, it has begun to lose its value. At least once a day, it seems, I hear someone calling someone else a heretic for something that is not really deserving of the term. These will say someone is a heretic for being too strong of a Calvinist, for believing theistic evolution, for saying that drinking alcohol is not a sin, for denying inerrancy, or for denying their version of free will. Soon, I am sure I will hear that jumping too high on the trampoline will be considered heresy.

Calling a person the “h” word should be done with great fear, qualification, and thoughtfulness. I don’t think we should call a moratorium on the word since I think it can carry with it an important rebuke with the implications of grave consequences. Here are the qualifications that I suggest:

Traditional heretic: those who depart from the faith of a particular tradition (e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Reformed, Dispensationalist, etc.) or denomination (Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, etc.).

Historic heretic: Those who depart from the faith with regard to a belief that has been held by Christianity from the beginning. There can be two different types of historic heretics:
1) One who departs from an essential belief (which I believe should be limited to the person and work of Christ)
2) One who departs from a non-essential belief

Simply because one is a historic heretic who departs from a non-essential belief does not mean that it is not serious or that they don’t deserve the title. For example, I believe that Open Theists have departed from a historic Christian belief about the nature of God and I believe that it is a serious departure. Even if I don’t believe that their departure necessarily undermines the very essence of Christianity, I do believe that their departure deserves a strong rebuke.

Putting this into perspective, I think we should also understand how God uses heresy to advance his kingdom. This is not to say that heresy is good, but it may be a necessary evil on the path to truth and revival. When the church is immature, doctrinally lazy, or simply apathetic toward truth, often heresy serves to help people take up arms in defense of the beliefs that provide the foundation for our faith. In this, heresy is good.

Apologetics Course with Rob Bowman

Here is the Apologetics course that Rob Bowman taught last semester. Please feel free to listen or download. It is the entire course! (here is the syllabus if you want it)

For some reason the podpress plugin will not let me post them all the same way so the rest are just links here: (right-click to download)

Six Characteristics to Look for in a Seminary

1. Strong teaching of Scripture: This is of first importance. If the seminary does not graduate students who know the Bible and know it well, then they don’t emphasis its importance or do not have a competent faculty to do so. This usually involves the combined effort of three departments: Biblical Studies, New Testament, and Old Testament. The Biblical Studies department will take one though the entire Bible, book by book. You will not only read through the entirety of Scripture, but you will learn each books purpose, structure, genre characteristics, and argument. In the New and Old Testament departments you will learn how to do “exegesis.” Exegesis involves more detailed interpretive issues including a study of the text in the original languages (Greek for the New Testament, Hebrew for the Old Testament). Without these, can it even be called a seminary?

2. Balanced Theology Department: One of the biggest problems with many seminaries is that they don’t have balance in their presentation of theology. Their agenda is to make you a particular type of theologian. I don’t have too much of a problem with a seminary having a confession or reputation of holding to a particular tradition or sub-tradition (e.g. Reformed, Baptist, Dispensational). The problem arises when their passions for this tradition cause them to skew the theological landscape to their favor. This type of intellectual dishonesty has no place in the training of leaders. The theology department must be confident enough to give people a balanced perspective, representing all relevant views with the clarity of its adherents. By doing so the seminary creates an atmosphere where true learning and true conviction can take place. It also keeps its graduates from becoming unnecessarily divisive over non-essential issues, keeping the focus on the Gospel. The Holy Spirit will create the convictions for his purpose when truth is taught with balance. The seminary needs to trust him enough to do so.

3. Critical Evaluation by Professors: While professors need to be encouraging of students, they need to be such that will critique the students often and constructively. This will indeed hurt the pride of confident students (it did mine), but without it you will not take the study of God word as seriously as you would otherwise. Receiving a failing grade on a sloppy, ill-informed, or irresponsible paper on a parable is much better than a passing grade with an “encouraging” pat on the back. God’s word is too serious to let people by without careful, and often painful, examination.

4. A Pastoral Ministries Department with and Emphasis on Clear Communication: When people are trained in seminary, there are many things that they learn about leadership in the Pastoral Ministries Department. But nothing in leadership training is as important as teaching how to communicate. Whether it is the exposition of God’s word on Sunday morning or presenting the Gospel to a neighbor, people need to be trained to communicate in an effective manner. The seminary needs to have a department of pastoral ministries which is devoted to educating the seminarian on how to contextualize the message without sacrificing the content. There is a fine line here and some walk this line with grace. Unfortunately others do not.

5. Make Sure that not Everyone Gets a Degree: This is related to the third. If there is no one failing at the seminary, this would raise a red flag. It is not about giving people degrees, it is about qualifying people for ministry. Not everyone is fit for ministry in such a way, the seminary needs to have the courage to say so. If the seminary gives a degree to everyone who enters, I don’t think you should necessarily take this as a sign that the seminary has great professors or that the Holy Spirit is more illuminating to that campus, but that the seminary may be compromising in its training to keep itself funded. I understand this temptation, but this cannot be acceptable. Think about it this way: what if a graduate school in medicine graduated all its students because they did not want to discourage anyone or because they needed to keep the school funded? Would you go under the knife of a surgeon trained at such an institution?

6. They Must Have a Strong Internship/Residency Program: Training in theory is one thing, the real world is another. Part of the training of the seminarian must involve real life mentoring and oversight. Toward the end of the studies, the student must be required to get an evaluated and mentored internship (apprenticeship) in their field of ministry. This can help avoid many foolish mistakes that are often made when the seminary student is released into the “real world” of ministry thinking they are qualified because they have training with no experience. Part of the training must involve experience. Make sure the seminary puts a high emphasis on an internship or residency program.

Study the seminary. Find out how detailed the doctrinal statement is. If it is too detailed, they may be unbalanced. If it has no detail, then they may have no reason to exist.

Talk to the professors. Ask for a syllabus. Find out if any of their students fail.

Ask for a philosophy of training. Do they have one? Why do they exist? Are they Gospel focused or issue focused?

Scholarship for The Theology Program Available

For those of you who want to take the Online Introduction to Theology course but don’t have the money to enroll ($100), we have scholarships that have been donated by some generous donors. These are available on a first-come-first-serve basis. Tell your friends or anyone you know that might be interested. Classes start next week!

Me and Sam Storms Will Soon Be Best Friends

Sam Storms, a man I respect greatly and a past guest on Converse with Scholars, is moving to Oklahoma to pastor a church. I am really excited about this. Although he would not admit this, I think he is moving here because he heard I moved here

Well, maybe not . . . Maybe it is because football season is starting and he knows that the Sooners are going to take it this year.

If God is Sovereign, Why _________?

Earlier this summer, Brian Burgess, our Minister of Outreach, taught a two-part series on “Things God Never Said About Evangelism.” He did an outstanding job and I encourage you to listen to his remarks from both messages. In last night’s Equipping University, we learned that one of the things God never said is “Since I am sovereign, I don’t need your help in evangelism.” Of course, this raised a few issues and probably not a few hackles. One question was asked early and any reformed theologian worth his salt knows exactly which question it was: “Well, if God is sovereign and He has already chosen who will be saved, then why should I bother to witness?”

When Brian and I discussed this over lunch prior to the class, I told him that no orthodox believer is really going to think God ever said such a thing. Now, a hyper-Calvinist will believe that ridiculous statement but Hyper-calvinism is not Christian. By the way, a hyper-Calvinist is not a Calvinist who really believes the doctrines of Calvinism. With that in mind, we must note that believers will fall into different categories as to WHY they think God would never utter that sentence. Some would say that God is sovereign but has freely “given up” (not the best choice of words) part of that sovereignty to ensure that man engages Him of man’s own libertarian free will. I, on the other hand, would reject that sentence because while God is sovereign He gives up none of it. Yet that same extensive sovereignty in no way interferes with that fact that man is responsible for his sins. Let these three statements be true: God is sovereign in all of salvation, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray.

This is called compatibilism, which means that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s will and does not remove his responsibility (nor is it at odds or contradictory to either). The familiar texts used to buttress this theological position is Genesis 50:20; Isaiah 10; and Acts 4:27-28. However, while sitting in Brian’s class, I thought of another Old Testament example that I think makes a good point. In fact, the same type of event occurs over and over in the Old Testament (see Joshua 1:3, Joshua 6:2, Joshua 10:8 and more). Here’s just one example.

In the opening verses of Judges, Joshua has died and the people were worried about the plan to conquer Canaan without their faithful and courageous general. Read the following:

After the death of Joshua, the people of Israel inquired of the LORD, “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaanites, to fight against them?” The LORD said, “Judah shall go up; behold, I have given the land into his hand” (Judges 1:1-2, emphasis mine)

What just happened here? The Israelites were asking God to find someone to help them against a strong army occupying the Promised Land. Instead of bringing in outside help, the Lord chose Judah to fight and then gave Judah the news that the outcome of the battle had already been decided – the Jews would be victorious. God had already decreed that He would give the land to Judah and it was going to happen just as God said (unless you want to open a whole ‘nuther can of worms and say God could have been incorrect or ignorant of future events).

Now, pertinent to our discussion, what if the tribe of Judah responded to these words from YHWH and said, “Whew, what a relief. The battle is already won. The land is ours. We can just stay here. We don’t even have to fight. Thanks God, for winning the battle for us”? What would have been the outcome of that type of response. Well, we will never know because God ordained the ends (victory) as well as the means to achieve victory (Judah’s ability to fight).

Then Judah went up and the LORD gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand, and they defeated 10,000 of them at Bezek. They found Adoni-bezek at Bezek and fought against him and defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites (Judges 1:4-5, emphasis mine).

One thing is for sure: the people of Israel were not sloppy theologians (well, at least most of the time). They did not think that just because God has ordained/predestined a very real and definite future that they had no part in that future. The Hebrews were not fatalists and neither are Calvinists. A fatalist believes that whatever is going to happen will happen no matter what you do. A Calvinist believes that whatever is going to happen will happen because of what you do. There’s a tremendous difference.

The thoughts held by the Israelites in the days of Joshua still hold true for us today, especially in the area of evangelism. God has promised us that His word will not return void and we are to preach that Word. God has promised us that His sheep will come to Him when they hear His voice and we are His voice. None of this negates the need to witness. Instead, this truth gives power and confidence for the task of witnessing. How wonderfully freeing and empowering it is to realize that we cannot fail when we are simply obedient to witness. We only fail when we are disobedient to the command to witness. Our positive proclamation of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ will either serve as a just cause of the unbeliever’s righteous condemnation or as the tool used by God to draw people to Himself. In both, God is glorified.

The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain

I will follow up with the lesson that I taught during the seminar “Orthodoxy and the Emerging Church.”

Those who commit suicide cannot be Christian . . .

Thanks for the questions. These are very good questions, and necessary to struggle with.

You said: “But how can a person be tempted to kill himself then actually follow through with it, if he has Life in him?”

How could David have killed Uriah? How could Peter have denied Christ. How could John have fallen down and worshiped an angel? How could Paul struggle with sin the way he does in Roman 7? Why would Paul exhort Christians to “walk in the spirit and therefore not carry out the deeds of the flesh” if it was a foregone conclusion that Christians cannot walk in the flesh? How could the Galatians (whom Paul considers “brethren”) have turned back toward the law after knowing Christ? How could the Corinthians live as spiritual babes, living in strife, jealously, and envy?

My sister committed suicide. She had been with me at seminary and was one of my primary means of encouragement throughout my younger ministry years. She was a prayer warrior, an aspiring evangelist, and one of the most generous people I have ever known. She fell into depression—terrible depression. Depression is a powerful result of the fall that ends up taking a lot of people’s lives. What she did was sin. Yes, it was premeditated as well.

What sins, in actuality, are not premeditated? There are not many . . . They are mainly personality and spirituality characteristics such as outbursts of anger, jealousy, and faithlessness. But most other sins are premeditated. If God does not forgive premeditated sins—if somehow these are the sins that are not covered by the cross—we are all in trouble.

I don’t know whether the gentleman who went on a walk in the park was a Christian or not (my heart hurts just thinking of his walk), but I do know that the cross of Christ redeems us from all sin, no matter how severe, no matter how much premeditation. Were suicide less traumatic, were it just a push of the button, I doubt that there is any who would escape its fate (we probably would not make it through our teen years!). Have mercy on this man. What he did was sin. What he did will have terrible and lasting consequences (just like any murder), but to think that this necessarily means he was not a Christian is unbiblical and well beyond our ability to judge.

The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses (present tense; 1 John1:7) us from all sin, not just some sins.

To say that we cannot have unconfessed sin when we die is problematic both Biblically and practically. Biblically, Paul is clear that once we have faith in Christ we have been saved. This salvation is primarily from the ultimate penalty of our sin—eternal death. If we cannot truly be saved until we die with all sins confessed, then we cannot ever say that we are saved as Paul does. The best we can do is say we might be saved (i.e. if I die without any unconfessed sin). Salvation would always have to be spoken of as a contingent possibility, not a present reality. Yet Paul says to the Ephesians “By grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:8). Christ says in John 6:24 â€œWhoever believes in me has eternal life.â€ There is no contingency here. The question becomes, Do you really believe?

The practical problem is this: If you do have to die without any unconfessed sin, how are you to be spiritually aware enough to remember all your sins? What if you forget one. What about the time you sped through the school zone? What about the time you pridefully thought about your promotion at work? What about the time you envied your neighbor’s new sprinkler system? What about the time you said you were sick, to avoid something, and you really weren’t? From a practical stand point, everyone will die with unconfessed sin. Most of these will include serious sins such as greed, pride, and envy. Therefore, we are all bound for hell? This trivializes the cross, forgiveness, and sin.

Christ’s death is a once for all remedy to our damnation. Because of this grace and forgiveness we should live a life that is pleasing to him, but some of us won’t do so well. That is what makes grace so wonderful and radical—indeed, beyond belief.

It comes in pints? I’m gettin’ one . . .

If you have yet to figure out what Facebook is for, don’t ask me. I just join when people ask and approve friend request of people I don’t know!

I will be out of town all weekend so keep things nice and don’t forget to go to Theologica.

Should We Be able to Interupt a Sermon?

In a previous post I described the five ways Christians can evidence emerging characteristics. One of them was to “emerge ecclesiologically.” This is the way I described it:

This characterizes an attempt or desire to return to some traditional elements of the Christian faith that draw upon a more experience based worship. Many times this will be evidenced by a less formal structure of gatherings or formal church time, allowing freedom of expression without the traditional restraints of more program oriented gatherings.

Here is a quote that I found interested out of Stories of Emergence. In speaking about today’s typical church service, the author says:

“Today’s modern service is orchestrated so nothing disturbing, uncomfortable, controversial, or shocking occurs. The music is edited to eliminate mediocre musicians or off-key singer. Solo numbers are assigned to the best. Prayer requests are screened or relegated to the bulletin where they can be carefully worded. Testimonies are screened to guarantee they won’t make anyone uncomfortable or go on for too long. They sermon is inviolate. No interruptions are allowed, questions can’t be asked, assumptions can’t be challenged, disagreements can’t be voiced.” (Stories of Emergence, p. 17)

I am interested in what you have to say. Maybe you agree with with quote, maybe you don’t. I think it puts forth some interesting propositions, but what does it look like in the end? And, is the end better than the beginning? How so?

Believe me, I love to think through things such as this. But, to me, it seems that the emergers’ proposed short-comings of the church, as described above, are somewhat short-sited and passionately charged without either a solution nor a real understanding of the reason why things are done the way they are done.

I could be wrong. What are your thoughts. Do we need to change the way church service is done?