Why Settle for Less...Why I Listen to Christian Rap Only.

As many of you know, there is a movement of Christian rappers who are self-professedly "Unashamed." They are not writing to be played on the radio. They are not writing for money. They are rapping for the edification of the church and the proclamation of Christ's glory. The songs are sermonic. And you can just close your eyes and bob your heads to this worship. I have since left Christian Contemporary Music. Listening to most Christian radio is nothing more than settling. See and listen below and experience the movement -

T4G 2010 Main Sessions – The Gospel Coalition Blog

T4G 2010 Main Sessions – The Gospel Coalition Blog

It's All Jacked Up

It doesn't take long, as a pastor, or even as a human being, to figure out that the world is one jacked up place. Systems are broken, families are broken, relationships are broken, and even our individual lives are, yes...broken. The snowball effect of brokenness makes me want to crawl in a hole sometimes and just give up. Sleep becomes a great option - but it never quite lasts long enough; or, responsibility comes knocking at the door. In other words, broken things long to be fixed, and fixers don't get much sleep.

I love to fix things. Give me a leaky faucet or some puzzle or problem, and I am your man (most of the time). And hey, if I can't do it, I know someone who can. Either way, we will get this thing fixed. But there is a brokenness that is different. It is the brokenness that walks through our church doors every day. Sure their electricity is about to be turned off; but after just a few questions, it is obvious that this is no superficial wound. This life is all jacked up.

She's a single mom with three kids. She's twenty eight, and her eldest son is eleven (with CP). The middle child is 8; and the youngest is just 7 weeks old. Her apartment is crawling with mold and is causing the children's asthma to flair up. She has applied for a job, but most wont pay her enough to cover the cost of child care. So she is almost forced to stay at home and care for her kids. But who pays for this? Her mother hates her b/c she reminds her mother of her father (strange). She has 19 brothers and sisters; but is close to none of them. The father(s) of her children are nowhere to be found. She is alone, and has resorted to asking us for help (people she doesn't even know). Sure the government pays to feed her, among other things. But I asked her about her. I said, "Your situation is awful. But it must be awful to have no one." She cried.

Its simply amazing that one single 15 minute act can lead to a lifetime of responsibility. It takes kids these days just a few seconds of 'experimenting' with their hormones and body parts to bring another life into this world. There are no boundaries. People, both young and old, are breaking themselves and breaking others all over the place. Kids are having kids, who don't parent their kids, which leads to having more kids, who are all jacked up. And don't misunderstand me. This happens in every home - white, black, yellow, whatever.

And then I begin to thing about the long term effects. What about when this generation gets older? We can barely care for the younger brokenness; what about the older? What about when people get too old to walk or talk or bathe or eat. Sure, they breathe, but they are nothing more than a liability. Who will care? A nurse will, but she costs money. Who will pay? The government will, but it costs money. Again, who will pay? And, is money enough? When will we wake up?

How dark must it get before we see that there is no remedy - this bone will not heal. The brokenness is 'sin-deep' and cannot be touched by philanthropy, government vouchers, stamps, free health care, tea-party meetings, and whatever else we try to stir up. Rush won't help. Neither will O'Reilly. There is only one Voice that can mend this fracture. It is the Voice that spoke life into a dead man (Jn 11). It is the same Voice that spoke light out of darkness and creation out of formlessness and 'voidness'.

I have no profound message this morning. Everything is all jacked up. I am longing for heaven more. Passages in Scripture that speak of our 'inheritance' and 'the new heavens and the new earth' are coming with so much more weight than ever before. And the only thing I can say is, only Christ, only Christ, only Christ will finally satisfy. I too, am all jacked up.

Until that great Day, I will point jacked up people (just like me) in His direction. He may not pay their electric bill and He may not make the mold go away. But He has paid the sin bill, and He can make the Wrath of God go away. And yes, He does satisfy so deeply, that He makes the pain of this world cause us to long for glory so much more. He does have the ability to change our expectations -which is a soothing experience. Our hope of final satisfaction, of not being jacked up anymore, is found in glory - In Christ the hope of glory (Col 1).

And as the darkness seems to pervade this life - I rest in that I have, and can share, THE LIFE, the LIGHT of the world. Jesus Christ. It is only by His wounds that we are healed. And according to His promise we must wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet 3:13).

Voddie Baucham on Piper's Leave of Absence

I am endebted to my buddy Jeffery Reed for sending me this article. And yes, Jeffery, I appreciate you very much. Thanks for thinking of me as often as you do.

Here is the article:

John Piper has taught me much over the years. I consider it an honor to count him as a friend, and I am deeply saddened by his recent announcement that he will be taking a leave of absence for the remainder of 2010. In explaining his leave of absence, he writes:

The difference between this leave and the sabbatical I took four years ago is that I wrote a book on that sabbatical (What Jesus Demands from the World). In 30 years, I have never let go of the passion for public productivity. In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements. There is one stateside exception—the weekend devoted to the Desiring God National Conference combined with the inaugural convocation of Bethlehem College and Seminary in October. Noël thought I should keep three international commitments. Our reasoning is that if she could go along, and if we plan it right, these could be very special times of refreshment together.

As I contemplated Dr. Piper’s words, I could not help but realize that even in what must be a devastating moment for him, he is still teaching those of us who are listening. Here are a few things I hope we all learn:

1. I hope we learn that no man is indispensable, and that that it is the Lord, and not man who can proclaim, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt 16:18).

John Piper is arguably the biggest name in evangelicalism today. He is known throughout the world for his unique gifts and extraordinary mind. He is a modern-day Jonathan Edwards who would never admit as much. Even so, he is not the cause of Bethlehem Baptist Church’s success. That distinction belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. John Piper is no more than decorated dust, and he knows it (that’s one of the things I love most about him, and one of the reasons his announcement is so surprising). God has used him in amazing ways, but the Lord’s work does not rise and fall with a single man. It never has, and it never will. I hope we learn this lesson over the next eight months.

1. I hope we learn that there are pastors out there who take their calling and qualifications seriously.

How often do we hear about pastors whose marriages and families are in complete shambles, but they hold on to their pulpits? I receive emails frequently with questions like, “my pastor just got a separation from his wife, but he won’t step down... what should I do?” I went to seminary with a pastor who was arrested for having sex with a teenage girl and was in the pulpit the next day. Another pastor here in the Houston area was caught on tape sexually harassing a male staff member, and is still in his pulpit years later in spite of the fact that the vulgar tapes (exposing both his bisexuality and his indecency) were played on the local news (see story here)!

As a result, many people have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to pastors. Now here comes John Piper who writes:

Noël and I are rock solid in our commitment to each other, and there is no whiff of unfaithfulness on either side. But, as I told the elders, “rock solid” is not always an emotionally satisfying metaphor, especially to a woman. A rock is not the best image of a woman’s tender companion. In other words, the precious garden of my home needs tending. I want to say to Noël that she is precious to me in a way that, at this point in our 41-year pilgrimage, can be said best by stepping back for a season from virtually all public commitments.

That’s right... no adultery, no scandal, just a man who recognizes his need to turn his attention toward home in an effort to live up to his calling as a husband, father and pastor in ways he has not done in the recent past. What an incredible testimony to the rest of us! Moreover, what an incredible testimony to a world that has grown weary of pastoral scandals.

1. I hope we learn that no ministry is as important in a pastor’s life as the ministry of marriage.

For generations, pastors have felt justified (if not obligated) in sacrificing their marriage and family on the altar of ministry. Billy Graham, for example, has been painfully honest about his failures in this area. In one Father’s Day article, he wrote:

Whenever I did get home for a short stay between engagements, I would get a crash course in the agony and ecstasy of parenting. If Ruth had not been convinced that God had called her to fulfill that side of our partnership, and had not resorted constantly to God’s Word for instruction and to His grace for strength, I don’t see how she could have survived.

Franklin was almost six by the time Ned came along. With two boys in the household, my fathering was more urgently needed than ever. Still, sometimes I was away for months at a time (emphasis added).

Unfortunately, since his kids “turned out alright,” people rarely mention this tragic side of Billy Graham’s ministry. Others like Charles Stanley have gone as far as getting divorced (after years of separation) without even missing a stride! And this after telling his congregation in 1995, “If my wife divorces me, I would resign immediately.” (see here)

The message in each of these cases was clear: “Ministry before marriage!” However, John Piper, though he, like many of us, may have fallen victim to this mantra at some point, has here said (about as clearly as a man in his position can say) “Marriage before ministry!” I pray that God not only heals John’s marriage and family; I pray God uses his stance to drive me and others to our knees in humble confession and repentance for any and every instance where we have neglected our first ministry... that of our marriage.

1. I hope we learn that it’s never too late to improve your marriage.

There are people out there who have endured difficulties in their marriages for years. Many have lost any sense of hope that things will get better, or that their spouse could even be willing to try. May this bold and biblical act by John Piper serve to remind us all that God is able to bring about change at any stage in a marriage. John writes:

Personally, I view these months as a kind of relaunch of what I hope will be the most humble, happy, fruitful five years of our 35 years at Bethlehem and 46 years [sic] of marriage. Would you pray with me to that end?

1. I hope we learn that the world loves it when we fail.

When you preach like John Piper does, you make your share of enemies. Unfortunately, many of these enemies will jump at this opportunity to gloat. They sense blood in the water, and they are already starting to circle. (see here and here, for example) I am not arguing that John Piper or anyone else is above criticism (see Tim Challies’s recent blog about John’s decision to invite Rick Warren to this year’s Desiring God conference for an example). However, this goes beyond criticism.

1. I hope we learn that a true plurality of elders is not only biblical; it is also a great blessing.

Men like John Piper are often thought of as “Lone Ranger” types whose name and reputation are so big that no one would dare question or challenge them. However, anyone associated with John’s ministry knows better. First, John is committed to a plurality of elders model of church leadership. Second, the elder body at BBC is a true plurality. John is truly accountable to the elder body (see here). This is a great comfort for those who serve in situations where there is true plurality. However, it should serve as a great warning for the “Lone Ranger” pastor with no one to keep watch over his soul, and no one (with actual authority in his life) to ask him the hard questions.

1. I hope husbands learn to “live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Pet 3:7)

We mustn’t forget that at the heart of all of this is Noël Piper. At bottom, this is about a man who recognizes the need to “live with his wife in an understanding way...” and his failure at some level to do so. This is about a husband saying to his wife, “There is nothing in my life (other than my walk with Christ) that supersedes my relationship with you... not even my international fame.” Regardless of the outcome, this should be a lesson to us all.

1. I hope we learn the subtle power of pride

The sin to which John refers in his public announcement is pride. He writes:

I asked the elders to consider this leave because of a growing sense that my soul, my marriage, my family, and my ministry-pattern need a reality check from the Holy Spirit... I see several species of pride in my soul that, while they may not rise to the level of disqualifying me for ministry, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with Noël and others who are dear to me.

Pride is a frightening sin. The Bible is replete with harsh warnings for the proud: “Love the LORD, all you his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful but abundantly repays the one who acts in pride.” (Psa 31:23) “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.” (Prov 11:2) “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Prov 16:18) “ And of course, we all know, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”” (James 4:6; cf. Prov 3:34)

Ironically, John Piper is known as a humble man. In fact, I have characterized him that way myself. Anyone who has spent time with him would probably agree. Nevertheless, his own words reveal how easy it is for pride to take hold, and take its toll even in the life of a quiet, unassuming, deferential man. This should cause those of us in public ministry to tremble.

1. I hope we learn to allow for discretion.

If we are honest, we would have to admit that we all want more information. What are the sins? How long has this gone on? Is there more? These are the bits of information our flesh craves. This is especially true in our facebook, twitter, blogspot, podcast world where we have almost unlimited access to the thoughts, words, and sometimes secrets of celebrities both inside and outside the church. We feel as though we have a right to know. However, we do not. This is a private matter between a man and his wife. He has dealt with this with the elders to whom he is accountable and they have determined that there is no need for information beyond what has been provided.

Reading what a man like John Piper writes, hearing what he says, and getting a glimpse into the way he thinks are all privileges. Reading someone’s blog, however, does not mean we have a relationship with them. And even if we did have a personal relationship with him, that wouldn’t give us the right to intimate details about his marriage. Perhaps there is more to come about the relation of these particular “sins” to his public ministry, but for now this is a marital issue.

My prayer for John and his family is that this time will give them the space they need to heal. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that the Christian version of “The National Enquirer” will kick in soon enough and we’ll probably have pictures of John above captions claiming that he’s actually an alien from another planet (thus explaining his extraordinary intelligence), and his wife just couldn’t take it anymore.

While this is obviously an exaggeration, I hope it proves to be based on a completely unwarranted fear. However, I doubt it.

1. I hope we learn to “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12)

I feel sorry for the pastor who heard this news and said, “‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this [struggling pastor].” (Luke 18:11) News like this should cause us all to proclaim along with Paul, “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Tim 1:15)

VB

Porn In the USA

Here is a good article about the industry that is crushing our nation.

Salvo Magazine: Porn In the USA - Salvo 2

HERE is another good article entitled "Getting Serious About Pornography"

To Forgive or Not to Forgive those Who are Unrepentant

There have been many discussions on this topic. I know I always thought that I must forgive everyone the same - those who repent and those who do not. Then I read Pink's take on the whole issue where he states and emphasizes the 'if they repent' clause, then you forgive (from Luke 17). This is tricky. Why? B/c it can be easily abused. There is no license in Scripture to keep a grudge against those who have offended and have not repented. But, at the same time, we do desire to take the Scripture seriously ('if' clauses and all).

Here is Piper's take on it which I find very enlightening and comforting. It is perhaps the most balanced view that I have read.

He states:

Forgiveness of an unrepentant person doesn't look the same as forgiveness of a repentant person.

In fact I am not sure that in the Bible the term forgiveness is ever applied to an unrepentant person. Jesus said in Luke 17:3-4, "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." So there's a sense in which full forgiveness is only possible in response to repentance.

But even when a person does not repent (cf. Matthew 18:17), we are commanded to love our enemy and pray for those who persecute us and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27).

The difference is that when a person who wronged us does not repent with contrition and confession and conversion (turning from sin to righteousness), he cuts off the full work of forgiveness. We can still lay down our ill will; we can hand over our anger to God; we can seek to do him good; but we cannot carry through reconciliation or intimacy.

The whole message can be found HERE.

Aborting the “Wrong” Baby?

AlbertMohler.com – NewsNote: Aborting the “Wrong” Baby?

This is absolutely amazing. I have no words to describe it. Here is another video below that I highly suggest watching.

What Is the Gospel? by R.C. Sproul

What Is the Gospel? by R.C. Sproul

Check out this article by Sproul. We all need the Gospel - every day. May the Lord bless you and keep you as you read...

On Planned Parenthood - WARNING...

Here is a video that I watched this morning and felt almost handcuffed. There is much injustice in the world; and I feel that I can do almost nothing to stop it. I can inform. So here you go. We must do something.

Visit Abort.73 for more information concerning actions we can take as Christians. There is a lot of information on this site. I highly recommend it.

via TVZ

Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Three

In the last post we noted the element of covenantal continuity in the warning passages in 3:1-4:13. With this foundation laid we can look more briefly at 5:11-6:12, noting especially in what respects this comparison with the wilderness generation is continued. Most scholars concede that this WP is the most precarious of them all. Discussions surrounding this passage usually revolve around the various lexica (ie. ‘words’) used in verses 4-6. Embedded in between the verbless clause Adu/naton ga»r (‘for it is impossible’) in verse 4 and it’s infinitival modifier pa¿lin aÓnakaini÷zein ei˙ß meta¿noian (‘to renew again unto repentance’) are a series of participial modifiers which many contend most naturally refer to a Christian, or a true believer.[1] Leaving the verdict open on this question until after we examine 10:26-29, the point to be made here is that a proper understanding of this passage, or any passage for that matter, must move beyond the semantic range of the various lexica used.[2]

A way forward is paved by paying attention to the much neglected OT background to which this passage most likely alludes. Martin Emmerich has convincingly argued that there are significant overtones from the LXX (ie. ‘Greek Translation of OT’) account of Israel’s wilderness experience/ exodus tradition in the terms used in verses 4-6.[3] If this can be demonstrated then a link would be provided with 3:1-4:13. For example, a‚pax fwtisqe÷ntaß (‘once having been enlightened’) recalls God’s provision of light, ‘that they might travel by day and by night’ (cf. Exod 13:21; Neh 9:12; Ps 105:39. ‘geusame÷nouß te thvß dwrea◊ß thvß e˙pourani÷ou’ (‘tasting of the heavenly gift’) is remnicient of God’s provision of manna ‘from heaven’ for Israel in the wilderness (cf. Exod 16:4). The common rehearsal that God daily provided Israel with manna clearly highlights the fact that bread was a divine ‘gift’. Less likely though certainly plausible is Emmerich’s contention that meto/couß genhqe÷ntaß pneu/matoß aJgi÷ou (‘having become partakers/ participants of the holy spirit’) which he notes refers to the guiding power of the Spirit, corresponds to God’s placing of “Moses’ Spirit” on the seventy elders to ‘instruct their contemporaries during the wilderness treck’ (Num 11:16-30).[4] Finally, he argues that kalo\n geusame÷nouß qeouv rJhvma (‘having tasted the good word of God’) may be an allusion to 2 verses in Joshua that refer to God’s promise of the land of Canaan (cf. Josh 21:45; 23:15).

Even further, as many have observed, the agricultural example and exhortation given in verses Hebrews 6:7-20 are the interpretive key to the preceding verses. Here however, many jump rightly, but too quickly to the parable of the sower as a gospel parallel to shed light on this passage without investigating the OT background to verses 7-8. Dave Mathewson points out that verses 6 and 7 are not a mere illustration but have an informative background in Deuteronomy 11.[5] He notes that this chapter affirms the promises of God must be kept if Israel is to inherit blessing rather than curse when they enter the Promised Land. In Deuteronomy 11:11, ‘the land that drinks the rain’ refers to the promised land. Inheriting the blessings in that land are contingent upon Israel’s obedience (vv. 13-15). Verse 26 makes clear that the choice before Israel is clear: obey and inherit blessing in the land or disobey and experience the covenant curses laid down in chapter 28. The overall context of the chapter must be kept in view. In verses 2-7 Israel is to ‘consider’ all that God had done for them as they stand on the plains of Moab about to enter the promised land. This is to provided an impetus for obedience.

Thus, almost certainly as the recipients of Hebrews read ‘the land that has drunk the rain…receives the blessing…but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is…near to being cursed”, their minds jumped immediately to the book of Deuteronomy. Taken in conjunction with what was said above regarding the lexica used in verses 4-6 it is clear that Hebrews 6:4-8 is rooted deeply in the OT. These roots provide a direct link with the typology demonstrated in 3:1-4:13. Just as the wilderness generation had been enlightened, tasted God’s good provision, participated in the guiding power of the Spirit, given the choice of life or death, blessing or curse, so had readers of Hebrews 3 and 6. It is hard to imagine that mention of blessings and curses in verses 6 and 7 did not bring to mind the bloody self-maledictory oaths so closely associated with OT covenant making.[6] As the bloody ‘pledge to death’ freshly in mind symoblized, the gravity of the covenant that the readers entered into when they professed faith in Christ was not something to be taken lightly. No wonder, it is ‘impossible to renew / restore’ to repentance such a man that has received so much blessing and yet still ‘fall away’ (cp. 3:12; 6:6).[7]

Conclusions: Section 2

At this point the most important element of continuity for the argument of these posts, demonstrated implicitly above (ie. ch 3, 6-see ‘part deux’ from 4-12 ), can now be made explicit. The covenant community of the wilderness/ Israelite generation, upon which the author is drawing his comparison was composed of both believers and nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of those who had entered into covenant with God failed to enter the Promised Land. They had been redeemed out of Egypt, set apart as His covenant people, pledged their obedience, experienced God’s guidance and provision, as described above in section 2. Yet, in spite of all of these blessings, they failed to enter the promised land because of unbelief. Similarly, the author’s present readers had entered into the New Covenant, so richly and elaborately explained in the letter. They believed in God, pledged their obedience, experienced his guidance and provision, but were now in danger of ‘falling away’ as Israel fell in the wilderness (3:16-18). And it is exactly this element of continuity that I believe the writer wishes to emphasize to his present readers. The initial question asked in 3:16, “For who were those who heard and yet rebelled”, has been answered by typological argumentation and carried over from 3:1-4:13 to 6:1-8. The author is stressing continuity with reference to the ‘make-up’ of the Covenant community in the Old and New Testaments that to explain the phenomena of how a person can experience substantial covenantal blessings, and yet fall away.

In the next post we will examine 10:26-29 and then try to pull all of this together, bringing our conclusions to bear on ‘what kind of person’ is in view in these ‘warning passages’.

---

[1] Cf. Schreiner, 592-594. It would be superfluous to multiply further citations.

[2] Cf. Wayne Gruden, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 794-801. Wayne Grudem has cogently demonstrated that the semantic range of the terms used evidences that the terms do not necessarily denote a Christian. For a much more in depth and extended argument see Grudem’s chapter in Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware, eds. Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 133-182.

[3] Martin Emmrich, “ Hebrews 6:4-6 Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry)” WTJ Vol.65, (2003): 83-95.

[4] Emmrich, 85.

[5] Dave Matheson, “Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament” WTJ Vol 61, (1999): 221-222.

[6] This will provide further connection with 10:26-29 and its bases in the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24.

[7] The precise sense of parapi÷ptw (6:6) and aÓfi÷sthmi (3:12) will be assessed after all 3 passages are examined since it is the sin that is in view in all 3 passages. This ‘sense’ will inform how we are to interpret the specific language of Hebrews 6, which is left purposefully vague at this point.

Hopefully Helpless

Sanctification and perfection are two very different aspects of the human life. One of them is a reality. The other, well, it is a delusion - albeit a commanded one (Matthew 5:48). C.S. Lewis, I believe, took this command the wrong way. He was not reformed, and if anyone took the time to read his introductions, he wanted people to know that he was not a theologian. Why, he would say, would God command something He had no intention to perform? Lewis, I love ya man, but I have to disagree with you on this point...sorry.

Perfection in the Christian life, though commanded, is never attained. Romans 7 makes this clear (among scores of other passages). And, our hermeneutic, places the command nicely in the context of our dreadful human condition. We are commanded though, through sin, we lack the ability. Humanism has no place here. And our court system plays the Pelagian strings far too often. If we ought, we can. If we cannot, we ought not. Those are the lyrics - nice huh?

Sure, they are all fuzzy on the computer screen and in the scholastic circles of our liberal seminaries, schools, and coffee shop charades. But place this upon the conscience of a lunatic, and you will soon find him in your home in the late hours of the night. And once caught, he need not worry. He was unable to keep the law you understand - he therefore, ought not to keep it. Sorry.

Back to perfection and sanctification. Here is the unrestful news for you on The Rest of Sunday. Perfection, though commanded, is impossible for you. You cannot reach the top of this mount. Carry oxygen with you, carry plenty of water in your CamelBak; and even take some of those little gel pack thingies. Whatever you like, take it with you. But, you will soon find yourself with weak knees, burning legs, a thumping heart - just a few steps forward. And down you go, rolling, as it were, to the bottom. Only now you are bruised up a bit; starting again in worse shape than the first attempt. But hey, your CamelBak is still in tact right? That's what you bought it for - keep truckin!

So you see the ridiculous nature of the attempt. Sanctification is not perfection. We see a glimpse of this in 1Jn 1:8 - "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Wow. This is interesting. You can walk in light and be a sinner (albeit a justified one). If the truth is in you, you will say that you do, in fact, have sin. This is the beauty of the Christian life. Well, bitter-sweet. We do not like sin, but we find joy in repentance and confession. I say this, b/c I think it is important for us to know what growing looks like. It does not look like sinlessness. That is reserved for Christ - and awaits us in glory (when we are finally and completely united with Him - when the "not yet" is finally NOW).

Our sin humbles us. Our sin throws us into the arms of the sinless One. It shows us, in those times when we are so close to our Lord, just how strong HE really is. How does a man [David] who can't keep his pants on (2Sam 11), not take advantage of a virgin when she is placed in his bed 'to keep him warm?' Doesn't the Apostle say that His [God's] strength is made 'perfect' in his [Paul's] weakness (2Cor12)? Interesting.

What does growth look like? It is hopefully helpless. It is the war and struggle against sin and the utter forsaking of it. It is weeping b/c of it and the tears of joy that come with repentance and faith in the only Redeemer - Jesus Christ. When we look for perfection, we must realize it is alien to us; not at the top of the mount, but seated at the right hand of God. Here is the kicker. Are you ready?

We are 'now' seated with Him (Eph 2). There is a 'now' and a 'not yet.' He is all that we need. He lived the perfect life and gave it freely to His own. He died the death that was due our sins (past, present, and future). And now He lives to make intercession for us. He is even with us to the end of the age (Matthew 28). This is our hope Christian; all-the-while we are helpless.

What does sanctification look like? Not perfection. This is no license to sin (Rom 6). But it is license to glory in Christ; the sinless One. You are free to love and cherish Him. And you are free to hate sin. The enmity, when you became alive, became so great, and so murderous, and intense, that you will never see peace [with sin] until you are glorified. You will fight it and kill it, by the Spirit, until you take your last breath.

What is that fighting in you? What is that struggle? Here is your rest. It is war. It is enmity graciously placed within you (Gen 3:15), to war with that which is not holy, and to love [and be at peace with] He who is holy. Sanctification looks like struggle. It is hopefully helpless. For when we are weak, He is strong. Onward Christian. Make war. Hate sin. Love Christ. Have a sanctified day.

And this is why we read Calvin...

Of the one who truly seeks to know and love God, Calvin writes:

"He who thus knows him, sensible that all things are subject to his control, confides in him as his Guardian and Protector, and unreservedly commits himself to his care. Assured that he is the author of all blessings, in distress or want he immediately flies to his protection and expects his aid. Persuaded of his goodness and mercy, he relies on hi with unlimited confidence, nor doubts of finding in his clemency a remedy provided for all his evils. Knowing him to be his Lord and Father, he concludes that he ought to mark is government in all things, revere his majesty, endeavor to promote his glory, and obey his commands. Perceiving him to be a just Judge, armed with severity for the punishment of crimes, he keeps his tribunal always in view, an dis restrained by fear from provoking his wrath. Yet he is not so terrified at the apprehension of his justice, as to wis to evade it, even if escape were possible; but loves him as much in punishing the wicked as in blessing the pious, because he believes it as necessary to his glory to punish the impious and abandoned, as to reward the righteous with eternal life. Besides, he restrains himself from sin, not merely from a dread of vengeance, but because he loves and reveres God as his Father, honors and worships him as his Lord, and, even though there were no hell, would shudder at the thought of offending him. See, then, the nature of pure and genuine religion." - Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book I.I)

50 Hot Designer Mac Desktops

50 Hot Designer Mac Desktops

I like wallpaper - do you like wall paper? Wall paper is good? Nothing like a good wall paper to help you rest? Right? :) Enjoy

viaChallies

Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Deux

Warning: This is a large post. They will not all be this long! (note: WP= 'warning passage')

It is a presupposition of these posts that a major key in understanding the meaning of the warning passages in Hebrews and 10:26-29 in particular hinges on the element of continuity between the Old Covenant covenant community and the New Covenant covenant community. The section below will seek to validate this presupposition. It is from the angle continuitythat we will examine WP in chapters 3, 6, and 10. To those even vaguely familiar with the debates surrounding these passages, however, such a statement may sound quite naïve. I, therefore, wish to clearly express from the onset that I am not writing under the delusion that understandingthis element of continuity will solve all of the ‘problems’ surrounding these passages. By all accounts these are clearly difficult passages within a difficult book. With that said, it is the present writer’s opinion that certain aspects of the OT background that highlights thiscontinuity and are crucial to proper interpretation of the WP have either gone unnoticed, downplayed, or have been misinterpreted. This is crucial in a book that consists in large part of a series of a fortiori (ie. ‘from the lesser to the greater’)arguments for the superiority of Christ and his covenant and that grounds the protases (ie. first part of an ‘if’-‘then’ conditional clause) for such arguments firmly on OT foundations. As is well known these a fortiori arguments largely highlight the element ofdiscontinuity between the New Covenant and the Old. The writer goes to great pains to demonstrate the supremacy of Christ and the covenant that he inaugurates to every covenant that has preceded (cf. chs. 7-10)

This emphasis on superiority and discontinuity serves several pastoral functions in the writer’s exhortation. For example, many scholars believe that the pressures of social ostracism were tempting some to revert to certain Jewish practices that were now obsolete under the New Covenant.[1] Further, the confidence and assurance offered through the message of this New Covenant for both approaching God and enduring immanent temptation and persecution far surpassed that which was offered under the Old Covenant. What is more, the author continually warns that the great privilege of receiving such a message also comes with great responsibility. To neglect such a message is a far greater infraction than rejecting the Old Covenant revelation (2:1-4; 10:28-31).

While the importance ofdiscontinuity for the writer’s exhortation has rightly received much attention, certain equally important elements ofcontinuity have not received due consideration in many circles. In the midst of the rich theological argumentation it is easy to lose the proverbial forest for the trees. As Lane observes in his introduction, the rich theological ‘argumentation’ of the letter ‘serves exhortation’.[2] This means that the rich theology, therefore, serves the purpose of the WP, not vice versa. Further, underlying these WP is a current of continuity.Expressed a bit differently and perhaps more cumbersome than above, the element of continuity is this : the ‘make-up’ of the Old covenant wilderness/ exodus ‘community’ and their failure to enter the earthly promised land is cast as a type of the ‘make-up’ of the New covenant ‘community and their potential failure to enter the heavenly promised land. Though clumsy, this way of putting things includes the elements ofcontinuity that these posts wishe to highlight. The different elements in this definition will be fleshed out below. It is the contention of the present writer that by paying close attention to how the wilderness/exodus generation is being used by the author that considerable light will be shed on the ‘kind of person’ in view in the WP. It isthat generation’s disbelief andthat generation’s disobedience that the author passionately pleas with his fellow brethren not to imitate. We see this clearly in 3:1-4:11.

In 3:1-6a the author made a contrast between Jesus and Moses. This contrast segways into a comparison of their follower’s responses.There has been much debate as to what kind of conditional statement 6b is. Fanning, however, convincingly argues that 3:14 sheds light on how we should understand the relationship between the protasis (ie. ‘if’) and apodosis of 6b (ie. ‘then’). This relationship is one of evidence-to-inference rather than cause-to-effect.[3]That is, the evidence of perseverance in the lives of these believers leads to theinference that their faith is genuine. Agreeing with this interpretation, Carson points out that the perfect tense ofgego/namen (‘we have become’)in verse 14 is best understood having past tense reference. Thus, taking 6b in isolation of 3:14 may convey the idea that one becomes a member of God’s household byperseverance. While there is an element of truth to this and perseverance is mandated “perseverence is also the evidence of what has taken place in the past” (Emphasis mine).[4] Thus the author is both encouraging the present faith of his readers and exhorting them to future faith. They are presently God’s people, and by exercise of truth faith, they will demonstrate that they truly are God’s people.

Sandwiched in between 6b and verse 14 is a quote from Psalm 95 that provides the basis for the exhortation in verses 12-19.[5] This quotation recalls Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 14:21-35. In both instances the entire congregation complained and tested God. The original context of both passages stresses the fact that ‘all of the congregation’ is in view.[6] It was all of those who had been redeemed out of Egypt and had entered into a covenant with God at Sinai, pledging to obey all of his commands (Exodus 24:3-8).[7] In 3:16-19 the author wishes to stress this fact by asking a series of rhetorical questions that read very much like OT wisdom literature and which are meant to have the same rhetorical effect.[8] That is, the series of questions are to be pondered carefully as to their true significance and are subsequently to be acted upon accordingly. In 16a he asks, ‘Who were those who heard and rebelled?’. His response is: ‘Was it not most certainly all of those who came out of Egypt by Moses? (emphasis mine) ’.[9] He wants his readers to ponder exactly who it was who rebelled and failed to enter the promised land because the author is making a comparison between that generation and his readers. As will be demonstrated, it is this generation that the writer hearkens his readers back to in each successive warning passage. The significance of this question, therefore, for understanding the warning passages and particularly 10:26-29, cannot be underestimated. This question is answered by the quotation from Psalm 95 mentioned above, being applied directly to his readers by means of the strong inferential conjuction ‘therefore’ (dio) in verse 7. He stresses the continuity between his readers and the wilderness generation by the typological argumentation from Psalm 95:7-11. The house church (es) in Rome are the antitype of the wilderness generation of Numbers 14 and more specifically, the house church (es) in Rome are being cast as the “New Israel who’s entering the promised land is contingent upon their faithfulness to God”.[10]

It is on this basis that the solemn warning of verse 12 comes. Playing off of key lexica used in the quotation the author urges his readers against a ‘unbelieving heart’ which would lead them to ‘fall away’ (aÓposthvnai) from the living God in the same manner that the wilderness generation did.[11] Put in the language of verse 14, only holding to their present confidence will they prove that they truly do ‘participate’ (me÷tocoß) in Christ. And the ‘rest’ in view is eschatological, not merely physical and temporal. As typological of the OT ‘rest’, the idea conveyed in 4:6-13 is best understood in the well-known NT ‘already-not yet’ language. The already aspect of rest, consistent with the sense of the conditional clauses of 3:6 and 14 just mentioned, is seen by the emphasis on ‘today’ (v. 7). Because the recipients presentfaith is waning they must strive or they are in danger of proving in the future that their faith was not genuine. The eschatological ‘not-yet’ aspect is also implied in these statements. As Lane notes, commenting on verse 11, ‘The consummation- rest, in which everything that God intended for humanity by his own Sabbath rest will be realized, remains future. It can be forfeited through a careless and hardened disposition”.[12]Further, the grounds given in verses 12-13 for striving against such a disposition also demonstrates that the eschaton is in view. The same word which at present was good news (v.2) will, at the final judgment, witness against them when they will not be able to hide even a shred of unbelief or disobedience from God, before whom the readers ‘must give account’ (v. 13).

Thus, the writer is basing the warning against failure to enter God’s rest typologically on the wilderness generations’ failure to enter the promised land. 3:1-4:13 is theparadigmatic warning text, laying down the typological relationship between the wilderness / exodus generation which he will use in the subsequent warning passages.

Next time we will see how this idea of 'continuity' also forms the background for the warning passage in chapter 6. At that point we will 'take stock' and note the significance of this idea of 'continuity' for both of the passages that we have looked at so far.

---

[1] Schreiner notes that though this point is disputed it is the majority opinion among scholars. Schreiner, 585.

[2] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47: Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word books, 1991), c.

[3] Bateman, 207-215.

[4] Carson, 85.

[5] G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 953; The MT and the LXX of Psalm 95 evidence different emphases. In the former the writer points more directly to the incident in Meribah and Massah in Exodus 17:1-7, but clearly alludes to Numbers 20 and therefore Numbers 14 (Kadesh). It was at Kadesh that God swore that the wilderness generation would not enter the promised land. The latter (LXX) focuses more directly on Numbers 14 and interestingly turns the names ‘Meribah’ and ‘Massah’ into their meaning in Greek, ‘revolt’ and ‘trial’ respectively; Lane, liii. Lane notes that the recipients of the letter was almost certainly a house church or several small house churches.

[6] The LXX of Exodus 17:1 says that it was ‘all’ (pasa) of the congregation. In Numbers 14 paß is used 9 times and oloßonce to refer to the congregation who sinned. This is deliberately juxtaposed with the three times it is said that ‘none’ of them shall enter the promised land.

[7] A more detailed discussion of the covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24 will be discussed in connection with 10: 26-29.

[8] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 250.

[9] Fredrick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 44:3.Here, the conjuction ‘but’ (aÓlla) is not translated in many English translations. This conjunction is best understood as relaying ‘strong asservation’ having the sense of ‘surely’; The writer is emphatically drawing attention to the fact that it was not just any community but God’s redeemed communitywho had ‘heard’ His warnings, experienced the majestic redemption of the Exodus event and yet in spite of such privileges rebelled.

[10] Osborne, 340. Osborne goes on to say, “ Hermeneutical principles in Hebrews must begin with typology. In one sense this permeates the whole book”.

[11] Bateman, 336-377. Gleason and others argue that too close of a comparison between the fate of the readers and the wilderness generation leads to the view that ‘rewards’ and not ‘eternal life’ is in view. This view fails to acknowledge that the writer goes on to make a typological comparison between the OT physical rest and NT eschatological rest.

[12] Lane, 102.

Waltke and RTS

Bruce Waltke posted on Facebook a letter he wrote to the RTS/Orlando constituency with the hope that it might serve to unify the church:

Dear Colleagues:

Holy week and the Monday through Wednesday of this week have been a uniquely hectic experience in my 79 years, to say the least. So hectic, I did not even follow the New York Yankees in the New York Times, my team for more than 70 years! I knew the issue of Genesis 1-3 and evolution was emotionally charged, but not this charged. Worse yet, I unwittingly involved the RTS community, especially Ric, in the brouhaha. I sincerely apologize to you and especially to Ric for not handling the matter more discretely.

Ric’s acceptance of my resignation has only added to the emotional turmoil; I have received letters from many quarters condemning RTS for his action. In fact, I was asked to be interviewed about my resignation on ABC News with Diane Sawyer! Of course, I refused because I am certain it would have been spun to reflect negatively on RTS and the church.

I am writing to assure you that I find no fault with the RTS administration; in fact, I think they did the right thing. Let me explain.

As noted, I did not have a chance to vet the video. How would I have edited it?

1. I would have entitled it “why the church should accept creation by the process of evolution,” not “why the church must accept evolution.” Also I would have emphasized in writing that the introductory “If” is a big “if,” because I am not a scientist. Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.

2. I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy. As it stands, I dragged the whole community in the misunderstandings.

3. I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. And I would have defined theistic evolution as I do in my Old Testament Theology

4. I would have called attention to literature such as Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, and Francis S. Collins, The Language of God that present the case for evolution. (I read Blocher, a brilliant French Reformed Baptist theologian 25 years ago.)

5. I would have also called attention to my An Old Testament Theology and W.R.L. Moberly, The Theology of Genesis, explaining why I think Genesis can accommodate creation by the process of evolution.

6. I would have called attention to older classic dogmatic theologies such as Shedd and Strong who also held to theistic evolution. I am told that B.B. Warfield held this view but I have been unable thus far to document that.

7. I would have suggested to Ric that he call attention to others in the PCA who also held this view.

All “would haves” due to the poor way in which the video was handled by BioLogos and me.

Regarding the future I hope and pray:

1. this fiasco will not hinder RTS from being open to theistic evolution as I have defined it.

2. I will not be identified by the idiosyncrasy of being “a theistic evolutionist,” like a “cripple,” “a mute,” etc. This topic is neither my field of expertise nor my hobby-horse, I want to get off it as quickly as I can.

3. RTS’ reputation will not be tarnished. I will do all I can to that end, such as writing this letter.

4. our love for one another will increase more and more

Our community is based on the rock-solid foundation that our Triune God’s sovereignty over all things is informed by sublimities that surpass our imagination and our ability to praise them.

Tuesday evening I received the call from the dean of another seminary to teach there. He, the executives of the seminary and I are praying about this with thanksgiving.

Your brother in Christ,

Bruce Waltke

Yesterday on the RTS site Chancellor Ric Cannada posted the following:

April, 11, 2010:

The RTS community and I want to readily and sincerely confirm our deep and abiding affection for Bruce Waltke. We are brothers in Christ seeking to serve the Lord with all of our hearts and minds. We will continue to pray for one another and serve each other as the Lord gives us the opportunities to do so.

In recent national news articles and blogs some incorrect statements have been made and wrong motives applied to RTS, such as the idea that RTS forced Bruce to resign as a professor at RTS. Bruce initiated the offer to resign after a certain video became public which was bringing harm to RTS. Bruce and I dealt with the issues of the video for over a week, seeking to understand the situation, praying and waiting on the Lord’s guidance. As I came to understand the situation better, I ultimately accepted Bruce’s resignation believing it best for RTS and also best for Bruce.

Please continue to pray for Bruce as well as for RTS that we will be faithful to our Savior and His Word and that we will use our minds and hearts for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and for His church.

This was taken from J.Taylor's blog - Between Two Worlds

Promises, Promises...

I'm not sure how I got to this point. Well, I have a good idea. One of the beauties of marriage is that you are around another person all of the time. One of the "spots" on marriage is that you are around another person all of the time. It's a beauty b/c you get to know, understand, have, hold, argue with, laugh with, cry with and 'fun-around' with another image of God, which never ceases to amaze me. There are times when I just look at her and say to myself, "She is mine. I get to have her, and only her till death do us part." Marriage is a great thing.

I know, I know - I said that marriage had "spots." Allow me to explain. I don't mean that "spots" aren't ultimately a good thing. I simply mean that they are 'things' that aren't always well liked. The spots that I am referring to are those that derive from being known too well.

Yes, this is a good thing. But it is so frustrating sometimes. When you don't know someone very well, you tend to act a bit differently. You put up with their tardiness. You laugh at their bad jokes. In short, you do things that you wouldn't do if you knew them well. There is a certain amount of slack that we give others as we are getting to know them. Frankly, these days, these types of people are in our lives more than the latter. We are simply too busy to know people well (but that is for another post).

Ok - where am I going with all this? My wife knows when I make an empty promise. Why? B/c she knows me too well. If you know me, you know that I have been a bit busy lately. I am finishing up seminary, working full-time, going through the ordination process, trying to be a good daddy and a good friend. The only problem is that I could never juggle over three objects as a kid. I tried four, but every time I would drop a ball and quickly revert back to three. Katie has been the most amazing companion in all of this. She keeps me safe. She keeps me home. She keeps me from obsessing. She keeps me grounded. And she is getting tired me saying, "I promise I will be able to juggle four this time."

There was a time not long ago when it hit me that my graduation from seminary was not 'my' accomplishment. It was hers as well. When I do my work - she feels it. When I don't - she really feels it. Why? B/c my life is her life. She knows me well. She is connected to me. She wants me around.

So last night, we got into the bed. I rolled over without saying much and took the big breath before closing my eyes. Though there was silence in the room, I could hear her thinking. I could hear her struggling. I know her well too. Her breathing was not calm. She was hurting. So, I fought the urge to ignore it, and turned to her and said, "I love you." Strike one. That did nothing. No change. Then I said, "Can I give you a kiss?" Strike two. She said, "Yeah." But what she really said was, "Yeah...I guess." Then I knew. I said, "Are you alright?" I could hear the tears now.

Yesterday she called and said that she was upset about a conversation that she just had with a friend. I was in the middle of my ordination exam. In my tunnel vision, I didn't even ask about it. That hurt her. No words mean no care. Six years into marriage and I am just learning this. Wow.

So, as the tears were flowing, she said, "I know you are busy and that you can't help it. I just want to know things are gonna be different when you graduate." At this point, I am aiming to fix the tears (it's the man thing to do right?). I said, "things will be different....(and here is the bomb)...I promise." I don't know why I was so reluctant to promise. I do now.

I have promised a lot in 6 years, and I'm not so sure my batting average would help me make any little league cut. She knows that about me. She knows me well. She didn't question me last night and I guess that's why I am writing about it now. I don't think it's b/c she all the sudden trusts me; it's more than that. She is simply so desperate that she will take anything.

Now that I think about it - my promises are fickle. I confess. I wish they weren't. I am resolved now to replace my promises with prayers. History teaches me that I am incapable to bring about one single future act. But my Lord can. He loves me. And better yet, He loves my wife too. I am throwing myself at Him this morning, begging His mercy to make things different. I need humility. I need to slow down, think, pray, repent, and respond in faith. Promises, promises. She knows that the "p-word" means nothing. She's right. It doesn't. When will I understand that only His promises are "Yes, and Amen"?

There are a few 'p-words' that mean something though. Prayer. Providence. Passover (three p's are for all you presbyterians out there). Oh how I need my Lord. Please pray for me as I seek this change. I don't want to see my wife cry anymore. Not because of me. I am confident that things will change. Yes, I know that they will. Why? B/c He is faithful, and His gospel never leaves me the same way it found me.

Wrestling with an Angel: A Birthday Letter to My Son

Here is an amazing post to get your heart stirred up a little on a Monday morning.

Wrestling with an Angel: A Birthday Letter to My Son

Mastery and Beauty in Simplicity

As I have been wading in the waters of philosophy over the past few years, I have been overwhelmed by the endless efforts of hundreds of men, over the centuries to explain, understand, and live out the central idea of truth. We can categorize their questions rather easily. They go something like this: 1) What is it truth (metaphysics)? 2) How do we know truth (epistemology)? And, 3) How 'ought' we to respond to truth (ethics)? From Aristotle to Rob Bell, the questions, more or less, remain the same. The answers however, are very different.

In all of this mess, I have found great refuge in the Scriptures. I have been guilty of assuming that this one small volume (the Bible) has little to say about such matters. Sure, it talks about truth - Yes, It is the TRUTH. I guess what I mean is that I have been guilty of thinking that many volumes equals better information. Or, that more volumes are necessary to understand philosophy better. I was wrong. As I get older, I am finding more and more, that mastery is often best indicated by simplicity.

Sure, one may be interested in Descartes' philosophical method. He/she may be intrigued by his process for attaining mathematical certainty. But make no mistake, that's a hard read - one that will require a bit more discipline than the mind can willingly handle. The waters soon muddy up. Questions arise from the left and right. At times, I find myself wanting to crawl under my desk and suck my thumb for a while (ok, not really, but you get the point).

But then, after reading for a time, and after dealing with the vast amounts of frustration, I look over and see my Bible. It is brown with golden pages. Some are more worn than others. Some verses have been underlined - and some have not. What a marvelous book! And then I open it to Acts 2:36 and read, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." And then I am totally taken back when I read Christ's words, "I am the way, the truth, and the life...(Jn 14:6). Mathematics does not give me this kind of certainty. Mathematical certainty is rather contingent upon this truth!

What is truth? I could read volumes and volumes and never come to a conclusion! But I read just a few pages in my devotions and find out, with certainty, that truth is a person. It is not some random idea in the cosmos. He lives! Truth is personal.

How do we know it? The hunger inside of me is now only satisfied in one source. So I turn the pages. Its almost too easy. "For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding" (2:6). What in the world! You mean to tell me that the Bible teaches me about epistemology?! Absolutely.

And the apostle Paul writes about how be became a minister according to the stewardship from God..."to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints...which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 1:26, 2:3). Truth is a gift. We know it not because of intellect or reason; but solely because of mercy. How great is our Lord. We know Him b/c He desires to be, and makes Himself known to us.

How 'ought' we to live or respond? Simply scroll down a few verses. The apostle lovingly and simply tells his audience, "therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (or, I translate, "so continue to live in Him"). How is that? By faith and repentance. Amazing.

So here we have philosophy at its best. The Bible. It is gentle enough to comfort us in our distress and weakness. It is also, stronger and wiser than any volume known to man. This one single Book shows its mastery in simplicity. It says to us, "Look no further. I am here." I have noticed that many unbelievers read and read and search and search. I have started asking them what exactly they are looking for. What is it that will finally sooth their conscience? What piece of information will bring resolve to all of their questions? They can give no answer. Oh how they need Christ! For we know that this seemingly "lack of knowledge" is also called rebellion. Oh that they - Oh that WE, would lay down our arms and submit to the simplicity and beauty of the Word of God.

I thank God for faith. He doesn't leave us to our reason to attain Him. Rather, He gives us the instrument that receives, with certainty, the Mystery revealed - CHRIST the LORD. Now our reason has the proper foundation to understand the world around us. And faith is such that it never lets go. It white-knuckles Christ until the end - saying, "I will never let you go. I will never let you go! I will never let you go!" And our merciful God says, "Yes, I know. My grace is sufficient for you."

Its okay to read all that philosophy stuff (whether it be Kant, Newsweek, or the Health Care Plan). My encouragement to you today is that when it all gets overwhelming; when it causes you to despair - go to the Word of God and find Truth there. Christ alone is sufficient for us. That is our anthem. That is our song. Christ alone forever - He is our rest!

Warning Passages in Hebrews

Greetings from 'B.L Bahnsen' ! This is my blogging debut here at "The Rest of Sunday". (Ps. Please don't ask how I acquired the nickname "B.L Bahnsen"!). I hope to be a somewhat consistent contributer here at TRS and am looking forward to some good discussions which I hope will edify the body. 

The ensuing series of posts come from a short paper on the 'warning passages' in the book of Hebrews. Anyone who has ever come across Hebrews 6 or 10 knows that these passages are no walk in the park! I am by no means hoping to solve all of the 'problems' surrounding these passages, simply to suggest where one interpretive key may lie in approaching these difficult passages. This post simply seeks to orient the reader to the 'debate' surrounding these passages.

The warning passages in the book of Hebrews, particularly the sections of 6:1-8 and 10:26-29 have proved to be notoriously controversial as well as difficult to interpret for both academic and lay-person alike. Many have seen in such passages the implication that ‘once-saved, always-saved’ cannot be maintained as accurate description of the Christian doctrine of assurance. On an academic level, where conclusions are at least grounded on the basis of due exegetical consideration, Ellingworth’s exegesis seems to lend credence to such a sentiment in the summary statement of his comments on 6:4-6: “those who have experienced the rich gifts which accompany faith in Christ, and then commit apostasy, inflict such harm on Christ and on themselves that their restoration is impossible” (Emphasis mine).[1] 

While Ellingworth, and other academics who have drawn similar conclusions believe such passages refer to the sin of ‘apostasy’ in general, others, both ancient and modern, believe these passages teach that commission of any ‘mortal sin’ results in eternal judgment.[2] In both cases, the possibility is open for a person who is truly regenerate to lapse back into the state of ‘unregeneracy’.  

Complicating matters worse is the fact that even those within the same ‘camp’ do not agree on what these passages mean.[3] Others agree that these passages do in fact refer to the sin of apostasy but add that that question of ‘once saved-always-saved’ is not even in view in these passages and to find it there is to eisegete (ie. 'read in') modern debates into the text.[4] Still other academics are convinced that in 10:26-29 the issue of eternal life is not even in view, rather the writer is addressing the issue of rewards analogous to Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 3:13-14 or Colossians 3:25.[5]

            On a more popular ‘lay-level these verses are often marshaled in debates between  ‘Arminians’ and ‘Calvinists’. Unfortunately on this level of the ‘debate’, the controlling theological presuppositions on either side often make any serious exegetical study of these passages secondary at best, and virtually impossible at worst. While it is neither possible nor desirable to completely lay aside such presuppositions, the question must constantly be asked if such presuppositions are being tested by a conscious exegesis of the individual passages upon which such presuppositions ought to be founded. Further, the interpretive frameworks of dispensationalism and covenant theology often further distance lay and academic interpreters from a focus on the texts themselves. Below, the present writer will attempt to substantiate his pre-commitments, as far as is possible, by exegetical considerations from the text.

            With reference to 10:26-29 in particular, verse 29 bluntly asserts that for ‘one who has trampled’ (katapath/saß) the Son of God and has 'considered as common' (koino\n hJghsa¿menoß) “the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified” (e˙n wˆ— hJgia¿sqh), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins  (cf. v 26). Some insist that such a description could only refer to someone who is actually regenerate but subsequently ‘falls away’ from that state of regeneration.[6] 1 Corinthians 6:11 is often referenced as a Pauline counterpart to strengthen the argument, pointing out that the aorist passive hJgia¿sqhte ('you have been sanctified') refers to sanctification, as in Hebrews 10:29, as a past event that is true of believers. Thus, it should be clear that it is incumbent to determine the precise meaning of ‘to\ ai–ma thvß diaqh/khß koino\n hJghsa¿menoß, e˙n wˆ— hJgia¿sqh’ ('the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified') in 10:29 before drawing any conclusions regarding this passage.

            Having sketched a general portrait of the ‘debate’, next time we will move to the passages themselves. In particular we will look at 3:1-4:13, which as we will see, is foundational for understanding the more difficult 'warning passages' in the letter. Stay tuned!

---

[1] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 317. See esp. 317-25. He lists 10:26-28 as the closest parallel warning passage to 6: 1-8 ; Gregory Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP academic, 2001), 108. For a less conservative but related view.

 

[2]  Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 606; Hugh Montefiore, A commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 214-15. 

 

[3]  Herbert W. Bateman,ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007); For divergent interpretations within both Reformed and Arminian traditions;  Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). For a third Reformed interpretation.

 

[4] See Thielman, 606, 607; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 595-597; See Bateman, 217-218.   Fanning also believes genuine believers are being described in these passages. He adds the caveat that the language used is language that the recipients of the letter were using to describe themselves. This paper will come to similar conclusions.

 

[5] Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001), 131-132.

 

8 Lawrence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensicola, FL: Vance Publications, 1999), 455-456.