Prayer for the First Sunday of Lent

Almighty God, whose blessed Son was led by the Spirit to be tempted by Satan; Come quickly to help us who are assaulted by many temptations; and, as you know the weaknesses of each of us, let each one find you mighty to save; through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

More emerging stuff

Riley rightly asks, "Do our propositions lead us to love? Do our catchisms lead us to love?" I certainly resonate with these questions. In catechizing our child(ren), my wife and I don't want to produce theologically astute reprobate(s). We want children who love Christ and His Word and the propositional truths that proceed therefrom.

However, it seems as though others who are asking the same questions are making it a matter of modernism vs. postmodernism...enlightenment holdovers and german theologians.... traditional vs. emergent, evangelical vs. mainline. Otherwise, why all the hullabaloo? If, with Riley, emergent churchers are simply calling us back to making sure our theologies are leading to right living, then great. We could sure use the reminder, but why is this supposed to be distinctive and causing the need to start an emerging church? Who doesn't want this? There certainly seems to be something deeper behind the questions themselves. Implied in the questions is the belief that the Church has been getting it wrong for some time now and it's time she did something to get it right (again).

Quote

John Calvin on John 5.25:

The statement has indeed some appearance of being incredible, when we are told that this is the effect of the faith of which Christ speaks; and therefore he confirms by an oath that the voice of his Gospel has such power of giving life that it is powerful to raise the dead.... First, Christ shows that we are all dead before he quickens us; and hence it is evident what the whole nature of man can accomplish towards procuring salvation....

And indeed as we have been, since the revolt of the first man, alienated from God through sin, all who do not acknowledge that they are overwhelmed with everlasting destruction do nothing else than deceive themselves by empty flatteries. I readily acknowledge that in the soul of man there remains some remnant of life; for understanding, and judgment, and will, and all our senses, are so many parts of life; but as there is no part which rises to the desire of the heavenly life, we need not wonder if the whole man, so far as relates to the kingdom of God, is accounted dead....

Thus the grace of Christ is a true resurrection from the dead. Now this grace is conferred on us by the Gospel; not that so much energy is possessed by the external voice, which in many cases strikes the ears to no purpose, but because Christ speaks to our hearts within by his Spirit, that we may receive by faith the life which is offered to us. For he does not speak indiscriminately of all the dead, but means the elect only, whose ears God pierces and opens, that they may receive the voice of his Son, which restores them to life. This twofold grace, indeed, Christ expressly holds out to us by his words, when he says, The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live; for it is not less contrary to nature that the dead should hear, than that they should be brought back to the life which they had lost; and therefore both proceed from the secret power of God.

Resurrection Life

In John's Gospel (5.19-28 and 11.25, 26), Jesus makes a connection between the general Resurrection that shall occur at His second coming and the specific resurrection that occurs when He calls life into the spiritually dead. I started to think more about this tonight. Since Christ makes the connection it follows that there should also be a connection between that life to come and the eternal life we have now, that is, in some sense, we have a resurrection life right now. We have a token of the eschatological life. Of course, this doesn't mean that we are free from sinning and sickness, but something is different; it must be. I think I'm starting see what Riley has been after for sometime now. I'm not sure of all the implications yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing what those might be.

Further, Christ makes an emphatic point about His sovereignty in the bring about life. Since Christ makes this connection for us, espcially in relation to His resurrection of Lazarus, there is a connection between His calling forth of the physically dead and his calling forth the spiritually dead. The latter is just as efficatious as the former. When Christ speaks of that time that is now here "when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live" (5.25b) he means that his power to effect that resurrection is no less powerful and efficatious than that hour that "is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out..." (5.28-29a). Thus, His raising of Lazarus is no less a picture of spiritual resurrection than the coming physical resurrection. When He speaks life into a dead sinner, that sinner is brought to life. The dead are surely raised.

The Polemics of the Lord's Supper

I was able to give this a first glance tonight. As I have a deep interest in the sacraments and as I have time, I'm hoping to interact with it a little more . Benjamin is a fine thinker and working through these things with him should only serve to make us both stronger in our convictions.

Going the Way of Ska

"And I have come to the settled conclusion that postmodernism is dead. Why do I think this? What is the evidence? The proof is conclusive -- we can tell that postmodernism is dead because contemporary evangelicals have started to embrace it. The party ceases to be cool when the nerd shows up."

~Doug Wilson

Baptism according to Wade

This is really good. In it we have concept with wonder, that is, this is the way to have an incarnational propositional theology (and please some pomos).

Simul appreciative et befuddled

One thing I appreciate about what is being called the emergent church is that its proponents stress the communal and relational aspects of the Christian life. They rightly point out that truth is to be lived out in and among the community that is the Body. The Church shouldn't be splintered as it is; we should be unified and live out our faith in meekness and humility with one another. They make much hay (good hay) about the 'one another' commands found in the Epistles. Arguments about lapsarianisms only serve to divide Christ's body; what we need to focus on is whether or not we love our wives and husbands and children in ways that pleases Christ.

But what truly befuddles and pains me is that the conclusion that is reached from the above premises is that propositional theology ought to be tossed out together. When it comes to lapsarian debates it's not as though they ought to be shelved in order to spend more relational time with each other, it's that lapsarian debates ought to be trashed and never brought up again. Those sorts of debates are frought with modern categories and modern categories ought to be jetisoned, ergo... What is happening is a tossing out of the baby with the bath water. It may be true that modernism has infected the church but postmodernism isn't the antidote and it is just as destructive. Maintaining that propositional theology ought to be done away with because it leads to idols doesn't entail that a lack of propositional theology frees us from idol making. Sure, we make idols out of our theologies. In my own tradition, men often worship the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course they would abhor any such suggestion but when they gossip and bandy about the word 'heresy' (especially with regard to their Elders and brothers in Christ) they are appealing to their propositions rather than their Lord's words. But it doesn't (necessarily) follow from this that assenting to propositions leads to idolatry; it is the assent to propositions not derived from Scripture leads to idolatry. It is just as easy to make idols of wondering as it is to make them out of concepts (i.e., propositions). Catechumens make idols no matter what materials you give them; so, ceasing from catechizing doesn't answer the problem. We don't need wonder over concepts, we need concepts filled with wonder; both of which must be derived from Scripture.

Epistemology at the Carpentry Shop

Today, a friend at work asked what class I was taking and I told him it was a class on the theories of knowledge. As I explained the sorts of things we talked about I made use of the common expression, 'know that you know'. It's one that I heard a lot growing up in church. 'Do you know that you know that you are saved?' is the question often used during the last 15 or 20 minutes of the service. It's equally applicable (though without the softly playing music and every head bowed and every eye closed) to the question of how we know. How do we know that we know? This is the skeptic's favorite question. But it occured to me sometime during the day, Do we need the know that we know? Should the skeptic set the agenda? Can't we start from the fact that we possess knowledge without having to give a theory that allows us to make knowledge claims? Are we really to believe that if I can't give an account of how I have knowledge of my wife, that I don't really know my wife? Is relational knowledge (or know-howknowledge) subject to such 'knowing that you know' criterion? These are questions to which I think negative answers are appropriate but my thoughts on them are half-baked and still a little gooey in the middle.

Nebulous Orthodoxy

One thing you must deal with when you worship in a confessional church is ignorance posing as protection. There are many self-proclaimed protectors of orthodoxy who haven't the first clue as to what orthodoxy is. What makes this ignorance worse is that (and this is especially true in my tradition) these heroes of the faith think that orthodoxy was definively set down somewhere around 1559 and roughly coordinating with the publication of the Institutes. The problem with this (or one of the problems with this) is that these heroes have either (1) never read any of the Institues; or (2) only read the parts that let them defend TULIP. I think that if they would ever got to book 4 they might find themselves redefining their orthodoxy. So what do these purveyers of truth do when their own personal orthodoxy is threatened? They pull the ultimate trump card--H E R E S Y (insert big, booming echo effect here). Just label something heretical and that seals the deal. You'll never have to produce any evidence to that charge and you can hand out heresy charges like red cards at soccer matches. You may then sleep well at night knowing that you've protected the peace and purity of the church.

Doug Wilson on Postmodernism in the Church

These are great thoughts by Doug Wilson on the current trendiness of postmodernism in the Church.

Lutherans ≠ Consubstantiation

This is something I've (apparently) misunderstood. Thanks to Mark for brining this up on his blog.

One Fine Weekend

There was to be a young marrieds retreat this weekend but it fell through. Kirsten and I had already planned for our son to spend the weekend with both sets of his grandparents and so we decided to take advantage of the babysitting and spend the weekend by ourselves. So that we did. We stayed out until midnight Friday night, slept in until 8 on Saturday and then did pretty much whatever we wanted the rest of the day. We ate breakfast at Cracker Barrel and then drove to Barnes and Noble on the northside because we could. Then we registered at Target (but this was only a slight set back in the fine weekend). We ate lunch at Coit's Rootbeer Stand and then drove to pick up Aiden from one grandparents house and take him to the other grandparents house. We dropped him off and came home to watch The Bourne Supremacy, which was great until about an hour and a half into it our DVD player went on the fritz and we couldn't finish it. We went to bed early and got up, went to church, went to lunch with my mom and brother, picked up Aiden, had a great nap, went to a super bowl party and am now at home. One fine weekend.

On Providence (part 3)--Different models of providence

Defining how one plans to use certain words often helps to eliminate confussion and unnecessary tension. In that spirit, here are some different models of the relationship between God's knowledge and decree and His works of providence currently in fashion amongst philosphers and theologians (keep in mind that these descriptions are not exhaustive and could be tweeked for more precision).

Open Theism- On the Openness model, God has chosen to limit his knowledge of the future actions of His creatures in order to allow for the libertarian freedom of His creatures. God, then, does not have foreknowledge of what is to happen in the future and must, as a result, respond after the fact to the varying situations He encounters in the world. As a result of this self-limitation on God's part, He takes risks in governing the world, although this doesn't mean that God's purposes are in question. He intends and has the power to accomplish all He plans. Major proponents include John Sanders, William Hasker and Greg Boyd.

Simple Foreknowledge- As proponents of this brand of providence and foreknowledge argue, God has full knowledge of all things future, including the actions of creatures who possess libertarian freefom. In having such knowledge God is able to govern his creation. This foreknowledge, however, does not cause the decisions made by free humans but only renders them certain. Because God knows the future, He can use that knowledge to ensure his plans come to fruition and is this is true despite humans possessing libertarian freedom. As a result, God is not a risk-taker. Dave Hunt has been a prominent contemporary adherent and Jacob Arminius figures historically as an important adherent to the doctrine.

Molinism- According to Molinism, God has an added dimension to His knowledge, namely what is caled 'middle knowledge'. Middle knowledge is that knowledge which is sandwhiched between God's knowledge of necessary truths (i.e., 2 + 2=4) and God's knowledge of his own will of creation (thus, it is called middle knowledge). Middle knowledge includes God's knowledge of what are called counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, that is, He knows what every possible creature would do in every possible situation. Thus, God is able to choose, by combining His middle knowledge and the knowledge of His plan, which world He wishes to be the actual world. God, according to Molinism, does not taking risks in his governing the world. This model of providence as with the previous two, employs a libertarian notion of freedom. Its adherents include (of course) Louis de Molina and such contemporary philosophers and theologians as Thomas P. Flint and William Lane Craig.

Calvinism- Calvin and those of his ilk maintain that God has knowledge of the future because he has foreordained the future. Whereas on the simple foreknowledge and molinist doctrines, God's foreordination is subsequent to and dependent upon some form of foreknowledge, on the Calvinist model, God knows his own will and what He plans to bring about (or allow to come about) in the accomplishment of His plan. This foreordination, then, includes every decision each human will make. It follows from this that God does not take risks when He governs His world and humans do not possess liberatarian freedom, but are free in a compatibilist sense. John Calvin, John M. Frame and Paul Helm hold to this particular doctrine of providence.

Liberatarian Freedom- According to libertarian theories of freedom, a person performs an action freely if and only if at the time the action is performed the person is free to perform the action and free to refrain from the action, that is, the decision is determined by the agent and not by anything inside or outside of the agent. This brand of freedom is seen to be incompatible with determinism of any sort.

Compatibilist Freedom- Compatibilists hold that a person is free in performing an action if and only if at the time of the action the person is determined by his strongest desire to perform (or refrain from performing) the action. A person's being free in this sense, then, is compatible with determism.

Prayer for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany

Set us free, O God, from the bondage of our sins, and give us, we beseech thee, the liberty of that abundant life which thou hast manifested to us in thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.