Hunter Baker at Mere Comments has a great post on having children. Here’s a snippet:
For those of you who CHOOSE to be childless, think twice about it. It’s true you won’t enjoy restaurants as much and your time won’t be your own. But the emotional return on watching this little person, who really is part of you, grow up is impossible to duplicate with ski weekends or trips to Mexico.
The word sincere is often explained as coming from the Latin sine cera which means without wax. As it turns out this is probably not true. Barnhart’s Dictionary of Etymology says it probably comes from the Latin sincerus which means sound, whole, pure, genuine,… The Wikipedia article on sincerity has a section devoted to the false notion that the word means without wax.
Nonetheless the phrase sine cera, without wax, does come in handy for preachers and bloggers, but let’s avoid wrongly connecting it to the word sincere.
Much has been made lately of the fact that Christianity is losing status in culture. Multiple news articles and many blog entries alternate between celebrating, mourning, and simply observing what Newsweek describes as The End of Christian America.
All of this is not bad for the church. I won’t join those celebrating the changes, but I can’t mourn the situation. For too long there has been a veneer of superficial, cultural Christianity over the church. People went to church because it was the thing to do. As it no longer becomes the thing to do, uncommitted people drop out.
I’ve been listening to J. I. Packer’s History and Theology of the Puritans class from Reformed Theological Seminary (available via iTunes U) and he talks about the Puritan frustration with the Gospel Hypocrite – the person who went to church every Sunday because he had to, called himself a Christian, but knew nothing of genuine faith. America over the last 50 years or so has had a lot of gospel hypocrites. Changing mores have altered people’s perception of church and has led to a decline not of Christianity itself but of the gospel hypocrite. For Christians this should be seen as an opportunity.
It is difficult to evangelize lost people today. Changes in entertainment, media, and socialization means it is harder to reach lost people, harder to establish relationships with them. But at least we and they know who they are. A lost person believes he doesn’t need to be saved for a host of reasons – perhaps he thinks God will just forgive everyone, or thinks he isn’t really a sinner, or simply thinks the whole thing is a sham and there is nothing after death anyway, or perhaps he is so distracted by all the business of the world that he gives the matter no thought. To reach him you have to help him see that he is truly lost, that this world is not all there is, and that he will someday stand before a holy judge. A gospel hypocrite believes he doesn’t need to be saved because he thinks he already is. Talk to him all day about salvation and he will agree with you, more or less, never seeing that he is as lost as the person who never comes into the church.
Changes in the world means the church is becoming sine cera, without wax. The veneer of cultural Christianity is being shed and we are not left with more lost people but with people who finally know they are lost – or at least, who finally know they don’t fall within conservative, Biblical Christianity. The gospel hypocrite is jumping ship and showing himself for what he is.
The times, they are a-changin’, but it is not all bad. Christians will face new challenges. We will be increasingly marginalized, laughed at, and even persecuted. But the line between being a child of God or a child of the ruler of this age will finally become clear and people will have to choose whom they will serve.
First a note about these In Brief posts. My tendency is to post long. The In Brief posts still aren’t exactly short but they are a way of trying to make myself post more often by keeping the posts fairly brief. I won’t go as far as Abraham Piper but brevity has its merits. On to the post.
Even after jumping into the Calvinist camp I’ve continued to struggle with the point on Limited Atonement. It has been hard for me to see a clear reason to adopt the point. Reading James White’s article Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? has helped clarify the issue.
I tend to dislike brief statements that push opposing views to their extremes but for the brevity I mentioned above I’ll do it here. Because of their views about limited atonement the Calvinist is assured that somebody was saved by the death of Christ while the non-Calvinist cannot be sure that anybody was saved.
Congratulations to the six people who responded to my book giveaway. I had said I would give away five copies but since there were just six to enter and I have more than that I can give away I’ll go ahead and send you each a copy.
Watch for an email from me asking for your mailing address. If you don’t get the email please contact me.
One problem the organized church faces is the great temptation to seek the growth of the organization rather than the growth of Christ. I support the organized church and think everyone should be part. But how do you avoid the natural tendency to want to see the organization do well, even more than you want to see people grow in the Lord? Sometimes we confuse the two without even realizing it and because of that all too many churches fall into the fatal trap of building the wrong empire.
System is defined as “a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole…” Evangelical Christians agree in the Bible as a system, a series of parts that form a complex whole. Disagreement exists on what the parts are and how they fit together. The two main sides in this debate are Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. There is a new player rising in the discussion, New Covenant Theology, which proponents claim is a mediating position between DT and CT though much more on the CT side.
Over the last couple of years I’ve tried to wrap my brain around DT and CT, understanding what makes them distinct, what each one argues, which one is more biblical, and what is at stake in the debate. Ever since jumping on the Calvinist bandwagon I’ve become even more interested in the debate since most Calvinists identify themselves in the covenant camp. Most non-Calvinists tend to be either unaware of the issue or identify with dispensationalism by default. There are some Calvinist dispensationalists out there, but I’m not aware of any non-Calvinist covenant types. So what exactly is the debate? And what do the different sides argue? Is this a debate that really matters?
I hope to explore all of this in a new series called Blogging the System of Scripture. I have several books to wade through and plenty of websites to skim which will hopefully help me understand what is going on here. This series has been prompted in part by a discussion over at While We Sojourn.
In this initial post I will give a brief overview of the positions as I understand them. Keep in mind that my understanding on this is very rudimentary. I will also list the resources I will be using.
Dispensationalism
Proponents of this system of theology believe that human history can be divided into seven or so dispensations (or periods). God’s dealings with humans is a little different from one dispensation to another. Each dispensation is distinct precisely because God’s way of interacting with humans, or God’s expectation of humans, changes somehow. Salvation does not change from period to period, salvation remains a matter of having faith in God. One of the prominent views of dispensationalists is that Israel and the church remain distinct. God has plans for corporate Israel distinct from his plans for the church. The church does not replace Israel but adds something new to God’s dealings with mankind.
Covenant Theology
Proponents see Scripture as being structured around various guiding covenants. Three in particular can be seen: the covenant of works in which God required obedience of Adam and Eve in the garden; the covenant of redemption in which the members of the Trinity covenanted amongst themselves to bring redemption to humanity; and the covenant of grace through which we receive salvation by grace through faith. There are numerous biblical covenants but these three are seen as theological covenants that shape and guide redemptive history. As regards Israel, proponents argue that the church is true Israel, fulfilling what God was building through Abraham and replacing any physical nation of Israel.
New Covenant Theology
At the moment this is the hardest one for me to nail down. Having only recently heard the term, I’ll refrain from commenting on this approach until I’ve learned more about it.
Brief response
Initially my biggest fault with dispensational theology is its approach to Israel. It seems quite clear to me that Paul in Romans 4:11-12, Romans 9:6-8, Romans 11:24, Galatians 3:29, Philippians 3:3, etc, wants Christians to see that true Israel has always been those who have faith in God. We should not understand Israel the people of God as referring to the corporate nation of Israel. Israel the people of God refers to all who have faith in God and includes Christians today. As I move through this series perhaps I’ll better understand the dispensational position on Israel.
As for the covenant folks, I’m having a hard time with the three theological covenants. The covenant of works does not look like a covenant to me, it looks like a command. The covenant of redemption looks like a unified purpose in the Trinity, not like a covenant. The covenant of grace is the only one of the three that does look like a covenant. Thus most of the CT framework looks somewhat contrived. Again, as I study this more the reasoning of CT proponents might become clear.
Resources
I will not give each of these a thorough read. I will probably read Robertson’s book on CT, Ryrie’s book on DT, and Wells’ book on NCT. The others will be references. I’m not sure what my blog posts will look like nor am I sure how often I will be able to post. This particular study will be interesting but challenging, and work and family responsibilities do present some constraints.
If you know of some other good resources on the topic please mention them in the comments.
What do you say to people who come up to compliment your sermon? On the one hand positive feedback is good and necessary, when the sermon merits it. On the other hand, we seek to proclaim the truth of God by the power of God, not by our own wit and wisdom. What do you say to the person who tells you that you’ve done a good job? “Thank you” seems to take credit. “Only by God’s grace” seems a little pompous. I usually go with “thank you” or “keep praying for good sermons” and leave it at that. Perhaps I should try “Thank [or Praise] God if this word has been used to bless you.”
Brendan Adolph Roberts was born Friday, April 03 at 10:30 pm. Mother and child both doing very well.
This is our third. Our oldest, Naomi, is quite excited to have a new little baby brother. The youngest, Hannah, seems to not really realize what has happened. She’ll learn!
Brendan shortly after birth
The kids meet Brendan
A word on the name. Brendan comes from Saint Brendan the Navigator, an old Irish monk who reportedly sailed to America. Adolph comes from an old gentleman in north Mississippi Sandra and I are good friends with. Below is a picture of Adolph with Hannah.
More pictures online here.
Subscribe to feed