HeadTheology

For those who like the fact that with a click of the mouse one can find the gender, number, case, etc. of Greek words in BibleWorks at the library here is a handy website for who want the same thing outside the library without having to fork over more than a few Benjamins.

Here is the site:   http://www.greekbible.com/

Well I am back to Louisville from the Desiring God Conference in Minneapolis on the topic of the Supremacy of Christ in a postmodern world (including the Emergent Church).  All of the talks were great though I must admit I will have to relisten to Carson’s talk on John 17 to understand it better.  The audio should be available for free download from the Desiring God website in a few days.

Especially in Discoll’s and Piper’s talks there was a distinct emphasis on the need to fight for the essentials of the faith.  So during lunch in downtown Minneapolis my friend’s and I were discussing the Emergent Church and its difference with Orthodox Christianity which boiled down to this:

Orthodox Christianity is humble before God and bold before men; whereas the Emergent Church is bold before God and humble before men.

Meaning that Orthodox Christianity accepts God’s demands and communicates those demands to men without compromise while the Emergent Church accepts man’s demands and tells those demands to God over not mattering that they go against Scripture.

There are a lot of mistaken folks out there who, not knowing any better, think that Calvin cared nothing for missions and only had a little holy huddle of the elect.  But here is a great article on Calvin and his thoughts and work in Evangelism.

In having to read a sermon of John Calvin for class I decided to read his sermon titled “The Salvation of All Men” on I Timothy 2:3-5.  It was a great read and practical where Calvin discusses the issue of God wanting all men to be saved and squaring it with the doctrine of election but a statement at the end suprised and encouraged me to evangelism.  I do not see this in the text that he is preaching from but I think there may be some truth to it.  Calvin says, “Therefore, we may be so much the more assured that God taketh and holdeth us for His children, if we endeavor to bring those to Him who are afar off.” 

To conclude our Cultivate Beauty Monthy, my church (Sojourn Community Church) here in Louisville just concluded its fifth annual film festival which was pretty good. Some of the stuff was pretty heavy, especially one called Justice is a Blessing. It is a short film (only about 6 1/2 minutes long).

Basically the film is about a boy who was abused as a child then two senarios unfold. The first as a young adult takes revenge on the man that abused him then another where the abusing man dies of another cause (possibly a heart attack) before the young man could exact his revenge. There are no overt themes but it seems there are two that stick out in my mind now:

1. Justice from God is a blessing. We as Christians say that God is good and that he just. Without justice in punishing the a wrong there is no goodness, this is why Christ came to die and that is also why there is a hell. I don’t think anyone wants to live in a society where crimes go unpunished.

2. Let God extract his own justice. This is so hard. In reading CNN and the Drudge Report everyday there are stories that made one’s blood boil and wish for swift and harsh punishment to those that do wrong especially against the weak or precious. I do not think that idea is wrong but it can quickly become a sin when one does not trust in the sovereinty of God to take care of the matter. But it seems at times that God is so slow but we must remember that ‘the Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty.’ (Num 14:18) We do not have God’s standard for often we have our own standard and it shifts everyday to vindicate ourselves (thinking we are all victims) and condemn others we do not like. We must remember that if God were not slow to anger we should all expect to awaken in hell under the punishment of God along with every demon, Hilter, and Stalin that ever existed. (Where did we get this ridiculous thought that Satan tormented people in hell?) We should have in mind God’s standard that every sin against him or his commands (for instance when we do not love him with our whole heart) is so much greater than the abortion of a child, genocide, or physical abuse against man. So back to my main thought, when we are not apart of God’s mandated government we should not try to achieve justice ourselves but to leave it to God for he says vengence is his (Rom 12:19). It is hard to consider that God might let one’s sins go unpunished on the earth and that a murderer might get into heaven by accepting Christ. For we want justice but when we are not satisfied with the death of Jesus on the cross as atonement for those that do wrong it exposes our selfrighteous thoughts that the cross is not just enough, that Christ was not pure or holy enough. Thinking that God’s wrath is not enough, that it must be supplemented by the justice of man. But we should do as Christ did to us that ‘while we were [God's] enemies’ (Rom 5:10) he fed us and gave us something to drink and overcame our evil with good (Rom 12:20-21). It is easy to look over our sins and point at others who have more visible sins, but all of our hearts are the same rotten and wicked.

For more on the justice of God listen to RC Sproul’s talk that he gave at Southern Seminary last week.

There once was a time in my naive mind when a Christian bookstore was a sanctuary, a bastion of truth. But then I started to realize that if one reads carefully some of the many books peddled at these stores their thought and ideas of God are not the same. I’m not talking about less essential issues such as baptism, church government, and gifts of the spirit. This stuff is about God himself.
This interests me a lot for I keep wondering what exactly unifies Christians under the phrase ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:5,6) For especially here I wonder what are the qualifications under ‘one God’ for I do not think it is a empty statement. It needs to be qualified. I have not made a decision whether this should be a bar to accepting one as a brother in Christ but by the fact that it raises some serious questions I think it needs to be discussed and thought over.
I am speaking of the Open Theism. Basically Open Theism says that God does not know the future.

There aren’t a lot of books out there that talk directly about open theism, it’s not a real hot topic unless you’re in seminary. But the problem comes when new Christians read ‘Christian’ books by authors that hold to Open Theism because they don’t know what to look for in their books that might not square with the Bible (or some might say my interpretation of it). These books may have great qualities about them but the theology of the person behind the book is nearly as important as the book itself for it often if framed from his perspective of truth. But truth isn’t a perspective, truth is what it is no matter whether I or anyone else recognizes it or not. And these persons are so smart and articulate that it is often difficult to see what might be questionable, they sincerely think they are right and they are not to be faulted for that but nevertheless all Christian readers must be aware that one is likely to find questionable ideas in a bookstore or even something that is completely wrong. This is what I ran into when I read from Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy,
“Indeed, the social and political realm, along with the individual heart, is the only place in all of creation where the kingdom of God, or his effective will, is currently permitted to be absent.” p.25
This quote jumped out at me for at this time I was reading stuff by John Piper, Martin Luther, and about Edwards beliefs and it does not match up with any of their beliefs, which were becoming my own for I was agreeing with them that scripture indicated that God not only knows the future but sovereignly controls it also. But this quote did not fit in my mind with Daniel 5:21, II Peter 2:13-14, and Romans 13:1-2 (God rules over the politics of the world), and Exodus 4:21, Ephesians 2:1-8, Proverbs 19:21, and 21:1 (God rules over the hearts of men to harden them or pour out his saving grace on them).
According to the Open Theism site mentioned below Richard Foster and Dallas Willard are Open Theists, but Greg Boyd might possibly be the most well known and vocal about it. I can’t say this definitively but I do not see why the link above would be wrong, also one of my professors here at seminary mentioned that they were Open Theists so the weight does lean in that direction. But I don’t think this would be something they are ashamed about for they think they are rescuing God and Christianity from certain problems such as evil and prayer.
I am not saying that these guys have nothing good to say but I will say that if you don’t want to have to take the time to look for and move the flies in the punch bowl around to get a clean drink tpo often then I say get another book that has a more true, glorifying view of God. I guess Open Theists could say that about the books I read from the Puritans, Edwards, Piper, Luther, and Calvin but I doubt that will happen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Site advocating Open Theism: http://www.opentheism.info/

Site that has articles that refute and poses problems to Open Theism: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/foreknowledge.html

Easter is a strange time, as Christians we celebrate the death of the best man ever, we celebrate the death of God the Friday before, then on Sunday we celebrate him rising from the dead. It is strange to think that we praise the death of God the Son by God the Father (Isaiah 53:10). It is hard to fit one’s mind around this, to know that God the Father willingly gave up his Son to be smitten, afflicted, and to bear the wrath of God the Father that every saint deserves. But we celebrate this because it saves us, he took the punishment we deserve and gives the secure hope of heaven to us. It is strange to think, we thank God for the death of God. Who would have ever thought this up as a way to save humans? The amazing thing about Easter to me now as I think about it isn’t the fact of the resurrection but the fact that he came for the ultimate purpose to die for me, knowing that he loved me though I did everything not to deserve it.

This Easter and the time after I invite every Christian to think about what exactly happened on the cross and what transaction actually took place. Did Christ die for some or all of our sins? Did God give to Jesus then our unrighteousness so that he give it back to us later? Think about Isaiah 53:10-12 and ask. Was Jesus in anguish for the possiblity that his soul might be satisfied later? Did he give many the opportunity to be righteous? Will Christ be denied the reward of the souls he saved on the cross that he now makes intercession for in heaven?

If you think about this the cross will become greater because I think the cross only becomes greater when one meditates on and thoughtfully considers what happened there.

Happy Easter!
Michael

Never in reading Galatians have I noticed Paul’s anger at the church in Galatia who were turning from the gospel. In it Paul speaks at some pretty strong words at least three times.

1. (1:9) He calls anyone who is preaching a new gospel (other than what Paul preached to them) accursed/anathema
-In essense Paul is saying if you don’t believe what I do then you are going to hell. There’s no comfortable way around this verse. If your salvation rests not in Christ alone and his imputed righteousness, but in Christ plus baptism, communion/eucharist; or Christ minus murder, adultery, suicide, homosexuality, alcohol, or any other law you want to replace here in ones life, then that is a false gospel. Do not take the above statement and run with it cause I do endorse baptism and communion and heartily disapprove of the other deeds. But get Paul’s point, those things have nothing to do with your standing before God if you have Christ.

2. (2:5) When it comes to the gospel he will not give an inch (of his friend’s skin)
-For the sake of the gospel Paul refused to have Titus (Paul’s uncircimcised Greek believing companion) to be circumcised I assume to prove and bring home the point that he knows salvation does not partly rest in whether a little skin is removed. Paul won’t budge, but keep in mind that this is the same Paul that said he will become all things to all men in order to save a few (1 Cor 9:22) and he also that had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews (Acts 16:3, no other explanation is given why so obviously the gospel wasn’t at stake). Obviously Paul is willing to give ground to be able to relate to people to share the gospel, but no compromise on the gospel and justification.

3. (4:12) He wants those that are preaching this Christ plus circumcision to emasculate themselves
-This is pretty plain, he’s like if your just going to take a piece why don’t you just go all the way and take it all off.

When was the last time that many preachers said that if anyone has a different gospel they will burn in hell, not that they wanted them to but they just stated the fact. Don’t think I’m snobbish, blame Paul or better yet blame God he is the ultimate author. Why doesn’t the church have the passion of Paul to call someone out when needed. I mean if Paul, the new apostle, can call out super apostle Peter when he screws up then doesn’t that give the average Christian the right to rebuke even the pastor or the pastor the largest giver in the church if their gospel is slipping (probably in private would be best first before one started throwing anathemas around but you get my point). It is only Christ and Christ Alone no addition or subtraction required for justification.

I just returned from visiting with my family down in Georgia which mainly consisted of playing with my two neices ages 2 years and 8 months. If any person’s make me doubt original sin it is those two girls. Nevertheless, I must get back to my main point.

I visited my sister’s and brother-in-law’s church Sunday and while they went to Sunday School I went to the service. It being a Methodist church I wasn’t suprised to hear about free will but I didn’t think I’d hear this reason for it. He said, “just like the song, ‘if you love someone, set them free,’ that is God’s love to us” comparing God’s love towards us in that God set us free so that we could come back to him and give him love. His actual topic was prayer and how he got on free will from there I have no idea but there it was. In that line of reasoning I guess it would make sense for me to set my neices free in the street if I love them and then see if they will come back to me, I mean God, in this world full of tempations that would eternally separate us from him does the same to us so why shouldn’t we do it to the ones we love. (I hope you sense my sarcasm)

Actually, on the contrary, God does not set us free to do whatever we want IF HE LOVES US. Because we are as little children he keeps us from harm under his loving protection. Love is not setting someone free, love is giving someone what they need, which is often protection. So when God loves someone he gives them himself which was only accomplished by God through his son’s death on the cross. I do not love my neices by letting them roam free, I love them by protecting them by keeping them out of the street and danger.

It would be a crappy God who let me go every time I let go of him. Thank goodness his love for me is not conditional on my love for him. If God loves someone he does not set them free, he finds them and adopts them as a son or daughter and never lets them go out of his loving grasp.

I get a kick out of this everytime I read it. He preached this in his New Park Street church in December 1855.

“You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, “Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.” That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it.”

Sorry I haven’t had anything original to post lately, seminary and work are getting busy.