Peter, Paul, and Graphe

Which Goonie are you?

2007-06-12T07:17:00.000-04:00

Which Goonie r u?
Data You are an Inventor! You are silly and quirky, but your inventions deffinately get you out of the bullie's grasps. You're very smart but at times you can be airheaded.
Take The Quiz Now!	Quizzes by myYearbook.com

Global Warming?

2007-04-11T16:06:00.000-04:00

This is a shot of my home page. It is April 11 and this is what the weather is like. The pic doesn't do justice to the actual state of things outside, because it was really snowing earlier. Sideways. I wonder what Gore has to say about snow in April?

How frustratingly enigmatic.

Is Evolution compatible with Creationism?

2007-01-23T18:30:00.000-05:00

On my Google homepage, I have a gadget that updates articles from Christianity Today. An interview entitled, "Creation or Evolution? Yes!" intrigued me, so I followed the link to read it. Francis S. Collins was being interviewed about his book entitled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). I would like to try to outline some of my thoughts with regard to the short interview, and attempt to succinctly show that the evolutionary theory is not theologically compatible with the Creation account.

First, any conversation that entertains the topic of Creation vs. Evolution must have previously established that both positions require a measure of faith. Evolution is a theory and should not be, as many scientists (and Mr. Collins) have argued, considered as scientific fact. Evolution is a science and must be subjected to the scientific method which, as defined by Merriam-Webster is, "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." There is no way (to my knowledge) for scientists to observe, experiment, and test hypotheses relating to the evolution of mankind.

Second, Mr. Collins wrote this book in an attempt to reconcile young people who have been taught Creationism at home and are now confronted with the "scientific facts" of evolution. Collins suggests that their struggle to choose exclusively from "A" or "B" has led them to throw both faith (Creationism) and scientific evidence out. Young people are faced with an "unnecessary choice" and Collins believes that the two can be reconciled.

Third, Evolution is a faith system. There is no evidence to examine or specimens to observe or experiments to show the current progression of evolution. As a faith system, it fundamentally opposes the claims of Genesis. Collins appears to know a great deal about the Christian faith. He makes statements like, "God is the author of all truth.... He's the God of the Bible; he's the God of the genome. He did it all." That is all good and fine until "science" begins to tamper with the meaning of the Hebrew word "day" and the imago dei.

Fourth: Genesis 1:11 starts a series of the different “kinds” (“Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds’”). Oak trees were not producing Maple trees (see v. 12). The creation of the marine animals (v. 21) and land animals (v. 24) was executed in the same fashion – “according to its kind.” The author of Genesis reiterates this point time after time.

Finally, Creation culminated in the creation of man. He was created in God’s image (vv. 26-27). God was responsible for forming him and animating him (2:7). Evolution must outright deny these claims of the Genesis account. Collins claims that he is setting forth “a comfortable synthesis of what science teaches us about the natural world and what faith teaches us about God.” If by science he means evolution, then he is woefully mistaken. Would Collins say that the image of God can be found in some rudimentary way in the beasts that man evolved from? Evolution attacks the image of God in man.

While I have not examined Mr. Collins book, his world view is apparent. Contrary to his view, the belief systems of Evolution and Christianity cannot occupy the same ground. They stand fundamentally opposed to one another. There is no “give and take” on this topic and an exclusive choice is the only option. Christianity cannot make concessions to Evolution, for then it will cease to be Christianity.

Collins states that "You can find him [God] in the laboratory as well as in the cathedral.” I agree. God created all things and permeates all things. But science proves the claims of Scripture, not visa versa. God did not use the process of evolution and to say that he did is an exegetical stretch of immense proportion. Both are systems of faith and as systems of faith are theologically incompatible.

Who de think gonna stop dem Bears?

2007-01-18T11:09:00.000-05:00

Being a fan of Chicago teams has not been an easy task. I was 2 when the '85 Bears reigned supreme, and I am still patiently waiting for the Cubs curse to break. It is not until recently that I have only been able to rejoice in the Bears success. The Bears are going to pound the Saints on Sunday, so please watch the game and help cheer on the most feared team in the NFL.

Bear Down Chicago Bears!

The Whippoorwill Song

2007-01-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

I know, I'm finally posting on my blog. And yes, I am a bad person. I am going to try to be more diligent this semester at posting, and I do have some interesting material from a recent paper that I hope to discuss.

Last week a friend showed me a youtube video featuring a song entitled "I Give You Freedom." Here are the lyrics:

I Give You Freedom (The Whippoorwill Song)

I set the boundries of the ocean vast,
Carved out the mountains from the distant past,
Moulded a man from the miry clay,
Breathed in him life, but he went astray.

CHORUS:
I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

And if you want Me to, I'll make you whole,
I'll only do it tho' if you say so.
I'll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it "yes" or "no"?

I hold the waters in My mighty hand
Spread out the heavens with a single span,
Make all creation tremble at My voice,
But My own children come to Me by choice.
(chorus)

Even the oxen knows the master's stall,
And sheep will recognize the shepherd's call
I could demand your love - I own you twice,
But only willing love is worth the price!
(chorus)

My holy word now I give to you,
As a shining lamp to guide you through,
My yoke is easy and My burden is light,
Keep looking up, your Heavenly home's in sight.
(chorus)

I have already "vented" concerning the message and theological content of this song. I have read a few other blogs that seemed only intent on bashing and belittling (don't think I wasn't doing it with them :) but I was thinking that some of us Calvinists should rewrite the lyrics. :) This might be a more profitable way for us to spend our time. And it might be fun. :)

Interlude: A Little Help Please!

2006-10-10T09:24:00.000-04:00

I apologize for my lack of diligence: my semester has unloaded on me in a most ill way. I hope to finish up some things regarding Col 1 next week, but I thought a pleading post would help me draw upon the combined knowledge of my readers.

This semester, I am writing a paper on lapsarianism. I fully intend to blog those findings, but I was hoping to get some insight from those who read this blog as to helpful sources and authors.

If there are any sources or authors or insights that you are willing to offer, I would be most appreciative. With that being said, I eagerly await some help!

Rumination's on Hymns: "Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven"

2006-09-29T07:56:00.000-04:00

Praise, my soul, the King of heaven,
To his feet thy tribute bring;
Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven,
Who like me his praise should sing?
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Praise the everlasting King.

Praise him for his grace and favour
To our fathers in distress;
Praise him still the same as ever,
Slow to chide, and swift to bless:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Glorious in his faithfulness.

Father-like, he tends and spares us,
Well our feeble frame he knows;
In his hands he gently bears us,
Rescues us from all our foes:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Widely as his mercy flows.

Angels, help us to adore him;
Ye behold him face to face;
Sun and moon, bow down before him,
Dwellers all in time and space:
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Praise with us the God of grace.

--H. F. Lyte (1793-1847)

Praise God for all he has done for us! How much we owe him and how little we give and show our appreciation to our Redeemer and Shepherd. Give thanks to God and Praise the King of Heaven!

Switch: Spare yourself the insanity

2006-09-26T19:19:00.000-04:00

I confess and repent: I am a negligent blogger. I do not have another post ready, so I though this would be fun and pass some time.

Rumination's on Hymns: "I Know Whom I Have Believed"

2006-09-20T20:41:00.000-04:00

I know not why God’s wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

Refrain

But I know Whom I have believèd, And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.
I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing us of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

Refrain

I know not what of good or ill
May be reserved for me,
Of weary ways or golden days,
Before His face I see.

Refrain

I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair,
Nor if I walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.

Refrain

Words: Daniel Webster Whittle, 1840-1901
Music: James McGranahan, 1840-1907

After the service Sunday morning, I was a concerned over which hymn I would choose this week. I elected to blog this hymn for a few reasons. 1) I am writing a paper on the means of assurance this semester. 2) The words impacted me, reminding me of God's grace in revealing himself to us, but is also redeeming us. 3) The emphasis on the Spirit's work was a great joy to me: the Holy Spirit has been an abused member of the Trinity, and I always appreciate those who emphasize his work and personality. 4) The immanency of Christ's return and words of the rapture always cause me to reflect on how I live day to day.

Assurance: what a tough and at times sticky subject. I intend to later blog on assurance (when my research is done :) because it is so vital to the Christian. Can I know that I am saved? If so, how? Let's keep these questions in mind as we/I look forward to that series.

Alienation, Reconciliation, and Perseverence in Colossians 1:21-23, Part 4

2006-09-18T07:56:00.000-04:00

I thought I would take time in this post to address reconciliation a bit more. Pittsley had earlier directed me to a previous discussion found here. At the risk of repeating that discussion, I will interject some thoughts.

KWM's discussion reflected the "man" position that I had earlier mentioned. That is, Man is the one reconciled to God. His discussion is excellent: he interacts with multiple texts and even some authors.

I would like to cite some authors that have championed the "man" position.

S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. stated:

The important thing to remember about both words (katallasso and apokatallasso) is that they never denote mutual reconciliation after mutual hostility...
--"Studies in the Epistle to the Colossians: Part IV: From Enmity to Amity" Bib Sac 119 (Spring 1962): 143

Geisler addressed Col 1:19-20 stating that there are,

two sides ... the objective side, the potential for which Christ accomplished for all humankind (v. 19), and the subjective side, by which we actually become reconciled to God (v. 20). Once again, the whole world is reconciled in the sense of being made savable by Christ (v. 19), but not in the sense of being saved (see Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor 5:20). It is also noteworthy that God is not reconciled to us; we are reconciled to Him. God does not move in relation to the sinner; the sinner moves in relation to Him.
--Systematic Theolo, 4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2004), 3:226

Reymond provides some cogent counterpoints relating to Rom 5:10-11 (esp. v. 10):

It is beyond all possibility that Paul intended to say: "At the very time when we were hostile to God, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son," meaning thereby that our hostility toward God was removed through the death of God's Son, an operation which in fact did not occur. It is clearly God's active hostility toward men and the means which he provided to remove it rather then men's attitude toward God that is in the forefront of Paul's teaching on reconciliation.
--A New Systematic Theolog, p. 646

Also:

... 5:10 implies that Christ's punctiliar reconciliatory work which shall save us from the divine wrath was also Godward in its reference.
--Ibid, p. 647

Johnson counters stating that:

Reconciliation is manward, not Godward, in its direction. It is God's reconciling of man "unto himself" (v. 20). God never has had to be reconciled to man; He has always love man.
--"From Enmity to Amity," p. 143

While I agree with Johnson that God has always loved man, how can he argue that God does not need to be reconciled with man seeing as how God hates sinners (Ps 5:5)? Geisler is on the same page with Johnson, stating that it is not God that has moved, but Man. I cannot, however, shake off the arguments of Reymond, Murray, and Berkof. I feel that in my previous post, Berkof left me no option but the "both" position. Due to this, I have to issues with singing the hymn by Wesley as either "My God is reconciled" or "I am now reconciled." Both parties enjoy a state of peace.

While some may disagree with this conclusion, I think that we can all agree on this:

... at the very time when he had every reason to loathe us and in fact felt a holy hostility toward us, yet out of love for us he saved us.
--Reymond, Systematic, p. 646.

What a beautiful thing...

2006-09-16T15:22:00.000-04:00

My wife loves Yankee Candles and purchased one just the other day. Little did she know it would make my day: the scent she chose was Macintosh, and what a beautiful thing it was!

Rumination's on Hymns: "Hallelujah! What a Savior"

2006-09-15T07:31:00.000-04:00

Man of Sorrows! what a name

For the Son of God, Who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
“Full atonement!” can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Lifted up was He to die;
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in Heav’n exalted high.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

When He comes, our glorious King,
All His ransomed home to bring,
Then anew His song we’ll sing:
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

--Phillip P. Bliss (1838-1876)

I think the hymn says it all. What praise we ought to offer for our Lord who humbly accepted the task set before him. What a debt we owe to the one who redeemed us. What humiliating shame he endured for me. Praise God for the cross work of Christ and for the precious blood.

Today and in every day make much of Christ: What a Savior!

Alienation, Reconciliation, and Perseverence in Colossians 1:21-23, Part 3

2006-09-10T12:48:00.000-04:00

This conversation has the potential of becoming a hot topic. My hope is that as we think things through we may find some clarification on reconciliation and grow in grace because of what it means for us.

The last post dealt mainly with alienation and its ramifications in the relationship of God and man. Unregenerate man and God are at enmity with one another. In this post I will address reconciliation and its theological ramifications.

The looming question is "Who is reconciled?" Is it God? Man? Both? At the risk of leading readers into ambiguity, I will state that I intend to argue for the "both" position. In Col 1:22, God is the subject of the verb "reconciled" ("But now he has reconciled you"). The Colossians were reconciled to the one who they were previously at enmity with. (Note: The verse continues stating "by Christ’s physical body" indicating the means by which reconciliation is accomplished.) God has reconciled believers to himself.

While it seems I have proven the "Man" argument, I would like to interject some thoughts related to my previous post. 1) Is not God also at enmity with Man? 2) Does not this enmity also require some type of appeasement? Or must it be called something different? Man is reconciled to God, and God is now "ok" with Man (but not reconciled).

Murray provides some very cogent thoughts:

The liability to which the reconciliation is directed is the unmistakable index to that which constitutes the reconciliation both as action and result. As action it is the removal of the alienation characterized as exclusion from the favour of God and from the privileges which his favour insures and bestows. As result it means that those who were at one time far off, separated from God and his fellowship, are brought nigh to God and are at peace with him (cf. Eph 2:13, 14, 17; Col 1:20). Liability, action, and result all converge to establish the basic concept of alienation removed and peace constituted.
--"The Reconciliation." WTJ 29 (Fall 1966): p. 5.

I feel Berkhof brings the "both" argument full circle:

...the atonement was intended to propitiate God and to reconcile Him to the sinner... But it should be borne in mind that this is not equivalent to saying that the sinner is atoned, which would mean that God made amends or reparation, that He rendered satisfaction to the sinner. And even when we speak of the sinner as being reconciled, this must be understood as something that is secondary. The reconciled God justifies the sinner who accepts the reconciliation, and so operates in his heart by the Holy Spirit, that the sinner also lays aside his wicked alienation from God, and this enters into the fruits of the perfect atonement of Christ (italics added).
--Systematic Theology, p. 373

So that my post is not unreadibly long (yes, I made that word up), I will reserve some thoughts for the next post.

Alienation, Reconciliation, and Perseverence in Colossians 1:21-23, Part 2

2006-09-06T18:29:00.000-04:00

I would like to address each of these topics individually, pursue each a bit, and hopefully propose some meaningful conclusions. The first of these topics is, alienation.

In the context of Col 1, the Colossians were at one time alienated from God. This is true of all those who are unregenerate. For everyone who is regenerate, there was a past period of time in which they were apart/estranged from the Creator. Not only were they estranged from him, they were at enmity with him. There is a bit of controversy as to whether the Greek term is adjectival ("hostile") or substantival ("enemies"). Either option does suggest the activity (hostility) and even grammarians are divided. I prefer "hostile" but I also recognize that "enemies" strongly suggests the activity of being hostile. Either way, what is communicated is that unregenerate persons rebel against the Creator because their hearts and minds are dark, and they are indeed his enemy.

We must remember that alienation works both ways. We were alienated from God and he was alienated from us: the cause, of course, is sin. We are estranged from God because we hate him and display that in our evil deeds, and he is estranged from us because he is holy. What is it then that can reconcile the two parties? Col 1:22 provides the answer: it is the cross work of Christ.

This is the solution to alienation: this is how the two parties could be reconciled. It was by Christ's real, physical body and his real, physical death that reconciliation could take place, and estrangement removed. Alienation and Reconciliation are closely tied together so please do not think that I have not considered one without the other. Reconciliation presupposes alienation. With that being said, I will attempt to address reconciliation in light of alienation in my next post (which I hope will be sooner than later :).

Alienation, Reconciliation, and Perseverence in Colossians 1:21-23, Part 1

2006-08-29T08:23:00.000-04:00

I have decided to present some of the material from an exegesis paper that I wrote last semester. I have elected to introduce this topic with a great and memorable hymn, "Arise, My Soul, Arise."

Arise, my soul, arise,
shake off your guilty fears;
The bleeding sacrifice,
in my behalf appears;
Before the throne my Surety stands,
Before the throne my Surety stands,
My name is written on His hands.

He ever lives above,
for me to intercede;
His all redeeming love,
His precious blood, to plead;
His blood atoned for every race,
His blood atoned for every race,
And sprinkles now the throne of grace.

Five bleeding wounds He bears;
received on Calvary;
They pour effectual prayers;
they strongly plead for me:
"Forgive him, O forgive," they cry,
"Forgive him, O forgive," they cry,
"Nor let that ransomed sinner die!"

The Father hears Him pray,
His dear anointed One;
He cannot turn away
the presence of His Son;
The Spirit answers to the blood,
The Spirit answers to the blood
And tells me I am born of God.

My God is reconciled;
His pardoning voice I hear;
He owns me for His child;
I can no longer fear
With confidence I now draw nigh,
With confidence I now draw nigh,
And "Father, Abba, Father," cry.

--Charles Wesley

This hymn adequately introduces the three major topics that I would like to discuss from Col 1. Some of you may be aware of the somewhat controversial issue that surrounds the final stanza: some hymn books read, "I now am reconciled;" Who is reconciled in reconciliation? God? Man? This is one of many issues that I would like to explore and hopefully resolve.

With introductions being made, I will leave this hymn as food for thought. It has become one of my favorites, and I have enjoyed reflecting on the truth that it states. As I have stated before, I love songs that make much of Christ: this hymn definitely does, so as we move into a study of Col 1:21-23, let us remember to make much of Christ.

Rumination's on Hymns: "Amazing Grace"

2006-08-23T22:07:00.000-04:00

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me -
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

T'was Grace that taught -
my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear -
the hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares -
we have already come.
T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far -
and Grace will lead us home.

The Lord has promised good to me -
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be -
as long as life endures.

When we've been here ten thousand years -
bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise -
then when we've first begun.

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me -
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see.

--John Newton (1725-1807)

My wife and I visited my parents this last weekend and attended church with them. This hymn has become so familiar that it is difficult at times to really mean and feel the words. How often we ought to turn our thoughts toward Christ and rejoice in the so great salvation that believers experience. Praise God that the Holy Spirit regenerates, making blind men to see!

Bothersome indeed!

2006-08-23T09:04:00.000-04:00

Much thanks Pitts... I will be sure to send you many useless forwards this week. :)

1. One book that changed your life: Knowing God, J.I. Packer

2. One book that you've read more than once: Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson

3. One book you'd want on a desert island: City of God, Augustine

4. One book that made you laugh: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Bishop John Shelby Spong (I didn't read it all, just enough to get a laugh and a bad stomachache :)

5. One book that made you cry: Evangelicalism Divided, Ian Murray

6. One book you wish had been written: Church Polity in the Early Christian Church, the Apostle Paul

7. One book you wish had never been written: The Battle for Christian Music, Tim Fisher

8. One book you're currently reading: Christian Theology, Millard J. Erickson

9. One book you've been meaning to read: The Pentateuch as Narrative, John H. Sailhamer

10. Tag 5 others: CWatson, C Bruno, Rob Hall, Phil Von, Jacob and Rae.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 7: An Evaluation of Edward’s Theology

2006-08-22T10:54:00.000-04:00

I have contemplated on continuing more on this series, but decided that it might be best to do a quick evaluation and move on to another topic. I have hopes in revisiting Edwards, for I have greatly enjoyed contemplating a great theologian and his work.

I own this entry to my Church History professor, Dr. Priest. This evaluation was an essay question, and I found his conclusions most helpful. I will attempt to interject and expound on some points that I found helpful.

Strengths:
1. Edwards espoused a strong theocentric theology. If one were to look at the history of Christianity in America, they would see that an anti-Calvinistic sentiment was just over the horizon. B.B. Warfield claims that this anti-Calvinistic sentiment was checked thanks to Edwards, but that it lasted for only a short time (100 yrs) (Studies in Theology, p 532).

2. Edwards pushed further into theology in the field of human nature (i.e. free will, original sin, and morality). While I did disagree with some issues in his studies, he asked/revealed questions that needed consideration. For this, I/we are truly indebted.

3. Edwards successfully and convincingly defended the idea of justification by faith. His work in this area provided a solid source for Christians of that time to see a succinct and understandable rendering of this great doctrine.

4. Edwards espoused a proper understanding of revival in that he placed all things leading up to, events during, and outflow of true revival in the gracious working of God’s plan. This proved to be vital to the understanding of revival versus the revivalism that later infiltrated New England.

Weaknesses:
1. Edwards seemed to confuse the personal identity view of original sin. Unfortunately, the debate of whether Edwards held to mediate or immediate imputation will continue to rage (see Part 2 of this series).

2. Edwards principle of dichotomist ability was an attempt to combat the idea of self-determination that Arminianism had set forth. While I rally with Edwards against such teaching, I pointed out my concerns with this position in previous posts.

3. At times, Edwards line of thought was difficult to follow. Interpreters of Edwards will continue to be befuddled due to the complexity of some of his work. At times, he attempted to solve some of the unsolvable issues in theology (e.g. why did Adam sin?). This ought to be a lesson to us all in that we should write clearly, be simple if at all possible, and leave some of the universe’s seeming problems to the Creator.

4. Finally, Edwards, at times, tended to rationalize and romanticize theology. This is unfortunate, for a proper understanding and application of philosophy and logic are very profitable to theological studies. Edwards at times, tended to impose rationalism unnecessarily upon theological studies.

I do hope that these series of discussion has been helpful to someone. ☺ Edwards has become a hero of mine as I am sure he is to many. I still have much to learn from him and I am excited about that prospect. With that being said, I will now begin contemplating my next topic, which is still undecided. If anyone might have any suggestions, I am willing to entertain them. Much thanks to those who commented and interacted a bit with me on Edwards: I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rumination's on Hymns: "Before the Throne of God Above"

2006-08-17T22:11:00.000-04:00

Before the throne of God above,
I have a strong and perfect plea,
A great High Priest whose name is “Love,”
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart;
I know that while in heav’n He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair,
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there! the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace!
One with Himself I cannot die,
My soul is purchased by His blood;
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God
With Christ my Savior and my God.

Charite Lees Bancroft

This is definitely a favorite song. Any Christian who is not deeply moved by this hymn is in need of some serious introspection. From start to finish, a great deal of theology is taught. Christ as our High Priest at the right hand of God, Christ as our Saviour, Christ as the King of glory and our hope... if you can't tell, I really enjoy this song. Our pastor had the congregation actually sing it a second time so that the words might become more engrained on our hearts and minds. What great confidence we ought to have in Christ: how thankful we ought to be for what He has done for us.

Must Love Windoze!

2006-08-11T16:56:00.000-04:00

I know that this is my theology blog, but I couldn't help myself. Thanks for sending me this MO. Enjoy!

Rumination's on Hymns: "When Morning Gilds the Skies"

2006-08-10T11:23:00.000-04:00

1
When morning gilds the skies my heart awaking cries,
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Alike at work and prayer, to Jesus I repair:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

2
Whene'er the sweet church bell peals over hill and dell,
May Jesus Christ praised!
O hark to what it sings, as joyously it rings,
May Jesus Christ be praised!

3
The night becomes as day when from the heart we say:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
The powers of darkness fear when this sweet chant they hear:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

4
Ye nations of mankind, in this your concord find,
May Jesus Christ praised!
Let all the earth around ring joyous with the sound,
May Jesus Christ praised!

5
In heaven's eternal bliss the loveliest strain is this,
May Jesus Christ praised!
Let earth, and sea and sky from depth to height reply,
May Jesus Christ praised!

6
Be this, while life is mine, my canticle divine:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Be this th'eternal song through all the ages long,
May Jesus Christ be praised!

--Joseph Barnby, 1868

I just love the emphasis on Christ! These lyrics should cause us to take a moment to reflect upon the preeminence of Christ, and to often praise Him wherever we are and whatever we are doing. Take time to praise Christ!

Edwardsean Theology, Part 6: Edwards on the Atonement

2006-08-08T12:02:00.000-04:00

Now this friends, could get sticky… :). Let me preface this post by stating that my goal is to accurately communicate the position of Edwards in this regard, and that I in no way claim to be an Edwardsean expert. I am hoping that I may be more of the student in this post, and that fellow bloggers will provide some meaningful discussion on this topic.

Edwards understood the atonement to be both propitious and vicarious. At the center of the atonement was the satisfaction of God, and Edwards emphasized this. The only way that sin could be pardoned was through a sacrificial giving that would adequately satisfy the justice of God. The atonement was successfully fulfilled through both the active and passive obedience of Christ. Personally, I understand Christ’s obedience better when explained as both “active” and “passive,” but Edwards preferred not to divide the two: they were undividable. Later New England theologians incorrectly attributed a governmental view of the atonement to Edwards, but his writings indicate that Edwards did believe and teach that the atonement was a satisfaction of God’s justice.

Man’s offence was infinitely wicked: therefore, any sacrifice that was to be truly satisfactory must be, infinite in value. A sacrifice of lesser value would have been futile. Edwards taught that Christ’s motivation in going to the cross was love: “He was moved with pity towards his elect.”

In Edwards view, the atonement was particular or limited in its extent. “Christ did not intend to save those he knew he would not save. If he intended to save any it was those he knew would be saved.” “Christ … died for them (the elect of the predestined) and not for the world.” “… however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby” (“Freedom of the Will” Works, I:88).

Finally, Edwards taught unconditional election, and was supralapsarian with regard to the elect, but sublapsarian with regard to the reprobate. I am a bit uniformed on this particular debate, knowing only the major lines of argument. The emphasis here is that Edwards taught unconditional election and that’s good Calvinism! I would like to further look into the ramifications of Edwards view: an exploration of the compatibility/incompatibility of these two positions will do me some good.

Praise God I'm a Calvinist!

2006-08-03T13:19:00.000-04:00

In all honesty, I attempted to put together some thoughts for a Monday post, but alas, the FL sun has fried my brain and all that I could think of was sleep, pool, and more sleep. I did want to take some time to share something very personal in nature.

Last Tuesday, the 25th, my sister was in a very serious car accident. She had just given birth to my nephew, Alton Joel Spears. She was heading back to the hospital for a checkup: her mother-in-law drove both her and Alton. On the way there, a woman blew a red light and slammed into the passenger side her truck. My sister received the worst of injuries: later I was told that she had suffered from "acute subdural hematoma," that is, a hemorrhage in the head that produces pressure on the brain. A better definition is, "Subdural hematomas are divided into acute, subacute, and chronic, depending on their speed of onset. Acute subdural hematomas that are due to trauma are the most lethal of all head injuries and have a high mortality rate if they are not rapidly treated with surgical decompression."

When my brother-in-law told me this, I realized that I had heard this term many times: on CSI. I quickly put the connection together: most people die from this (as you can tell, I'm quite brilliant!). Right off the bat, my sister was given a 50-50 change of survival. Seeing as how she had just given birth, her chances were reduced: to 20-80. With a 20% chance of survival, my sister when into a very delicate type of brain surgery.

My nephew had been taken to a different hospital that was better equipped for infants. Alton had also sustained head trauma, but his diagnosis was different. Alton had severe bruising of the brain, but praise God that there was no bleeding.

Long story short, God spared my sister and nephew's life. My brother-in-law, Joel, told me that the doctor's have called Delilah a "miracle," and that they were going to record her surgery and recovery in the medical journal's.

My nephew has been healing well. He has been eating and sleeping well and it looks as though there will be no negative long term effects from the accident. Both he and Delilah are at home now: Delilah is suffering from a few side effects from the accident. First, her left arm from the elbow to the hand feels as though it is asleep and she has difficulty with the fingers on that hand. Second, her speech is a bit slurred because her tongue is not functioning properly. She is also have some difficulty remember simple things, like how to open the gate on her fence: these little things are the most frustrating to her because they are things she feels like she should know and should be able to do.

I would covet the prayers of my few readers as I'm sure my sister and the rest of our family would. A few good friends encouraged me on the night of her surgery, and I told them that these are the days that I am so grateful to be a Calvinist. I did say it to try and lighten the mood, but in all seriousness I am grateful that God is sovereignly controlling all events and that none of them are outside of his control and knowledge.

Here are a few pics of baby Alton and one of my sister from just a few days ago. I stole them from her blog, but you can visit hers to see more and to follow her recovery (a link to her blog is in my sidebar).

Edwardsean Theology, Part 5: Speaking to Frogs? Man as a Responsible Agent

2006-07-25T19:35:00.000-04:00

I was conversing with a good friend during the last few days, contemplating together the content of my last post. He stated rather profoundly that Edwards, “Wasn’t telling frogs to get saved!” (paraphrase) This statement came in the context of Man as a responsible agent. Much of Edwards motivation in Anthropology was to undeniably assert that Man had a moral responsibility to God and was required to fulfill it. Man, however, is in every way unable to do so. Man is a responsible moral agent: preaching the gospel to a member of the human race is different than preaching it to a frog!

Edwards defense against mediate imputation is that original sin is the cause of Man’s moral corruption: hence, man’s evil inclinations are produced. As I previously stated, man’s guilt is not based on acts, but upon essence: unregenerate Man is guilty because of what he is.

These teachings do not contradict the idea of Man as a free and responsible agent. (If we deny this, then we really would be preaching to frogs!) Edwards principle of dichotomist ability was his way of making each man personally responsible for his sin. Man’s natural abilities gave him a choice – his spiritual principles (i.e. corrupted morality) informs those choices and determines them (inevitably, wrong choices). Hence, Man is free as well as responsible.

Edwards was very strict concerning Man’s condition. He states:

“They [unregenerate men] are totally corrupt, in every part, in al their faculties … Their heads, their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of corruption (Discourse IV: “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” Works, I:670).”

To Edwards, Man is indeed without an excuse (see more in his Works, I:676). To Edwards, Man’s inability (technically speaking) is linked to his unwillingness, not his inability. Man, in his constitution, is a moral being, as well as a responsible agent. Very simply, that is how mankind was created!

As a Calvinist, I do not contest the idea that Man is a free and moral and responsible agent. To say otherwise is to contest the very way in which Man is created. We, like Edwards must recognize that despite the utter depravity and inability of Man, He is still a responsible agent, balking against the claims of the Creator. Let us remember this when we preach/teach/converse with others, that we are not speaking to frogs!

Edwardsean Theology, Part 4: The Principle of Dichotomist Ability in relationship to the Free Will of Man

2006-07-17T19:16:00.000-04:00

I have mentioned and harped on Edward’s unique view of the inclinations of man ever since starting this series. It is due to the unique nature of its proponent (Edwards, a Calvinist) that I have placed such emphasis upon it. As I had already noted, this dichotomy does not bode well with my own Calvinism for reasons that I will recount and elaborate upon.

Edwards never went so far as to say that man cannot come to Christ, but rather that his bondage is self-inflicted (self-willed) and voluntary – Man “will not come to Christ.” Edwards wrote that, “We may learn the reason why natural men will not come to Christ: they do not come because they will not come.” Edward’s dichotomy between the natural ability and spiritual principles taught that man has the natural capacities to make free choices. The idea of free will is not problematic for the Calvinist: as I stated in Part 3, “Man is free in the sense that He possess the faculties of moral agency (i.e. the “affections”: mind, will, and emotions). Edwards assumed that their was nothing outside of Man informing the choices: hence, he was volitionally free. This is natural ability.

To Edwards, Man can indeed make right choices if he wills to, but he never will due to the corruption of his spiritual principles. I must admit that I initially found Edward’s view appealing: he presented an anthropology that affirms Calvinistic doctrines while seemingly explaining the effects of the Fall upon mankind’s inner parts. His conclusions do not seem outrageous: Man does have true choice, but true choice can never be a contradictory choice. Man’s natural ability could, on its own, truly choose right: however, this truly true choice of right would contradict his fallen spiritual principles. Hence, his only true choice would be to follow his inclinations and therefore choose evil. His spiritual principles inform his natural abilities: therefore, Edwards can theologically explain why it is that man will always choose evil outside of regeneration. It is due to corrupt communication between the two parts. A true choice cannot be contradictory and since Man must follow his inclinations, he chooses sin.

Edwards admitted this: Man has two wills (i.e. the rational will and the will of the appetite). The rational will had “sufficient” but not “efficient” grace (refer back to Part 1 on this point as it relates to Adam’s original sin). Edwards used this piece of his anthropology to affirm that Man cannot save himself because he lacks the moral ability. Man’s is not, in Edwards view, naturally depraved, but morally depraved and the unfortunate progression/conclusion is that in Edward’ anthropology, Man is only partially depraved!

This conclusion is what has not allowed me to accept Edwards view on this particular point. Edward’s view does not allow me to say “Total Inability” and really mean “Total Inability”: Edward’s view harbors a part of man that is, though even in a “hypothetical” way, able to choose right. While yes, Edwards would always and most definitely say that Man would never actually choose good, I am still more than uncomfortable to go so far as to say that a part of man is actually able to do good.

Interlude: Katharine Jefferts Schori

2006-07-14T19:09:00.000-04:00

I found some down time to reflect on an interview that I recently read in TIME: I was more than disturbed by its content. Perhaps it is good that I do not know what is going on among the Christian liberals, but nontheless, I fear that much of America views this as the new "norm" of Christianity. The interview can be found here. Please read and comment: perhaps we can get a few thoughts.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 3: Human Depravity and Free Will

2006-07-10T20:15:00.000-04:00

Edwards was a strong Calvinist, and it is not surprising that his views on depravity reflects this tradition. To Edwards, all of mankind was infected by original sin (i.e. original sin was universal, including even infants). The era in which Edwards ministered was characterized by spiritual decline (hence the controversial “Half-Way Covenant”) leading some to hypocritically act outwardly moral. Edwards confronted this kind of living, saying instead that the work of the Spirit (regeneration) was the only means by which one could be moral.

Edwards has puzzled me concerning this aspect of anthropology: in a previous post, I wrote on the inclinations on man and Edwards view on the “natural abilities” versus the “spiritual principles” dichotomy within man. It seems as though his dichotomy would contradict his view of depravity: however, if we remember correctly, Edwards protected himself by claiming that the Fall affected the spiritual principles, which informed the natural abilities; therefore, man would always naturally choose what is wrong.

I promised in that first post that we would delve into the Edwardsean view of free will, so here we go! I hope that we will be able to complete it here, but I believe we may have to carry over to next week.

As I previously mentioned, Edwards ministry occurred during a time of spiritual decline in New England. For example, one of Edwards first major treatise (Misrepresentations Corrected) confronted his cousin Solomon Williams’ view of church membership. Williams taught that there was a level at which an unregenerate person can consent to the gospel, and that this consent could potentially lead to an effectual transformation. Edwards refuted his teachings by claiming that not only did it undercut the doctrine of regeneration, but was indeed a mere rewording of the old Pelagian heresy! (crediting the unregenerate with the ability to be accepted by God). Edwards proceeded to write his famous work (Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency) in which he defended the scriptural doctrine of human responsibility and also attacked the idea that the human will was “self-determining” or possessed in and of itself the ability to determine itself (i.e. “choose”).

We will end this discussion by noting Edwards answer to the doctrine of human responsibility, and discuss next week the details of his dichotomist view in relationship to free will.

Edwards stated that Man is free in the sense that He possess the faculties of moral agency (i.e. the “affections”: mind, will, and emotions). Therefore, Man is a responsible agent. Man is however, unable of spiritual good because these faculties do not have the constitutional disposition inclined to good. Original sin has tainted the affections. Edwards correctly taught that the acts of Man’s will are dictated by moral necessity: Man’s choices, therefore, are determined by his nature. An unregenerate man has a fallen nature and so he will never “will” to please God or choose the things of God. Regeneration is then a divine act, an implantation of a new nature: Man’s acts (repentance and faith) are then contingent upon the first act of God. Needless to say, Edwards successfully defended the Calvinistic idea of Conversion.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 2: Original Sin and Imputation

2006-07-04T15:24:00.000-04:00

As I was preparing this post, I realized that before discussing Edward’s view of depravity, it might be wise for me to first discuss his views on original sin and other closely related issues.

There has been a great deal of disagreement among scholars as to whether or not Edwards held to a mediate or immediate view of imputation. Edwards did hold to the idea of original sin, and also to the idea of imputed sin. The reason for the controversy over Edward’s view is due to 1) some of his writings seem to indicate one or the other, and 2) some of Edward’s theological views relating to the nature of man have been interpreted to substantiate one or the other.
Let us first define what Edwards meant by original sin. To Edwards, original sin was both the innate sinful depravity of the heart along with the imputation of Adam’s first sin (implied is the imputation to all of mankind). His view is widely accepted in reformed circles and is a standard view.

Next, let us discuss Edward’s view of original sin as related to federal or representative headship. Edwards advocated a bit of a hybrid form of federalism, and it has been called the “principle (doctrine) of personal identity.” Edwards seems to indicate that Adam’s posterity actually consented to and participated in Adam’s original sin, hence their possession and guilt of that original sin. According to Edwards, Man’s constitution is an “oneness,” a “sameness” that places all men on the same level in sin of which Adam is simply the first. This principle of personal identity was merely Edward’s way of explaining Adam’s sin as a continuation within his posterity. Those advocating that Edwards held to a mediate view of imputation have accused him of saying that Adam’s sin was not imputed to them, only repeated by them.

Now for the great debate: did Edwards hold to mediate imputation (inherited moral corruption as the cause of guilt/liability) or immediate imputation (Adam’s race is imputed with his sin and that is the legal basis for their depravity). I have followed the lead of my Church History professor who states that, “Edwards did teach a type of immediate imputation, combining in that doctrine both the imposition of guilt and the inheritance of a sinful disposition” (notes, “Theological Systems in American Church History,” Dr. Gerald Priest). Edwards taught that Adam was the head: that is federalism. As far as the two views are concerned, inherited moral corruption is a consequence of the imputation of guilt/liability, not the cause of it. Gerstner concisely states the Edwardsean view of imputation: “What Edwards is saying most clearly is that when Adam represented them he did more that that – he was identified with them – by a divine constitution, the very same constitution by which God identifies all of us with our separate selves” (Rational and Biblical Theology, II:333).

We can say, however, that Edwards did confuse the issue a great deal (hence, the continued debate by interpreters of Edwards). We should endeavor to be less esoteric in our own writings: be clear, be precise, but be most of all biblical.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 1: The Inclinations of Man

2006-06-26T19:52:00.000-04:00

I must admit that Puritan Theology has never been one of my particularly strong subjects, much less examinations of Edwardsean Theology. In this post, I do not intend to discuss the entirety of Edward’s ministry and theology, but rather begin a discussion on his particular views in Theology. Edward’s has been accused of being an Enlightenment Lockean rationalist, a Newtonian scientific philosopher, a Neoplatonic pantheist, or even a Medieval mystic. Many concede that Edward’s probably relied on philosophical processes a bit to heavily, but I would argue that this did not earn him the label of “an Enlightenment Lockean rationalist” or any other. He was indeed orthodox, and strongly Calvinistic.
Edward’s followed Puritan Theologian William Ames in his understanding of the imagio dei in Man. According to Ames, Man consisted of two components; those natural abilities and those spiritual principles. In the Fall, it was only those spiritual principles of man that were destroyed. Edward’s dichotomy taught that while the spiritual principles of man were utterly lost, his natural abilities still remained intact. The question then, for Edward’s, lie in the inclinations of the two parts: which prevails? Adam’s situation then, is indeed quite the conundrum since both parts were still intact. He was created with the inclination not to sin; why was it that he sinned? Edward’s attempt to answer this question has raised flags and furrowed many brows. If Adam was indeed created in holiness (though unconfirmed) what was it that inclined him to sin?
After Adam, the answer was simple; because of Adam’s sin, all after him were inclined to sin. Edward’s attempt to explain Adam’s situation is unwarranted and has produced great confusion. Edward’s explanation was that Adam failed to call upon God’s efficient grace and thus fell from his state of unconfirmed holiness. Therefore, while Adam’s inclinations were naturally toward God and good, he acted contrary to them and chose evil. What a paradox! Edward’s insistent on explaining what perhaps should have been left alone draws into question the nature of fallen man. Edward’s seems to have left the door open, ever so slightly to the idea/concept that there may be a portion of Man’s being that is not completely unable. How does Edward’s justify his said adherence to Total Depravity? Next week, we shall discuss the Edward’s view on depravity, and perhaps segway into some of his view on free will and his famous work Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency.

Entry 1

2006-06-23T09:22:00.000-04:00

Well, summer school is almost over and I have carved out a few moments to write a quick post. I decided to write this first post about different things on my blog, and my tentative posting schedule. My desire is to, for the time being, post once a week on Monday’s. My hope is that this schedule will allow for me to have meaningful posts as well as ample time for meaningful discussion in the comments.
Concerning the nature of this blog, it will attempt to be theological in orientation. I am appealing to the theological blogging community to aid in my personal study and understanding of Scripture. I look forward to future comments and discussion, and the edification that I trust will occur.

The name of my blog was an attempt to play off of “Peter, Paul, and Mary” (since my first name is Peter and my middle is Paul). “Graphe” is Greek for a written document, used at times in Scripture to refer to Scripture itself (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore, my blog is about “me, myself, and the study of Scripture.” The Latin phrase under the title is also of importance. If you allow your cursor to rest over the picture, the English translation of the Latin phrase will appear. “What is not biblical is not theological” will be a mantra for me in my attempt to remain grounded in God’s Word, His self-revelation to mankind. Theology must find its basis in the Word, lest it degenerate into philosophical conjecture and ungrounded human hypotheses. I respect both Biblical and Systematic Theology, and understand that both must be founded on a solid exegesis and a solid exegetical method.

Items in the sidebar are self-explanatory. Buy a mac, listen to good preaching, go to seminary, read lots on Calvin and by Calvin, drink Starbucks, be a Cubs fan, get a Pit bull and read the NIV. Sheww! Moving on...

At the bottom is the infamous quote of the great reformer Martin Luther during his trial at the Diet of Worms. His famous words have inspired many (including myself) and still signify the great devotion to the Word that the reformers exemplified. Every Christian of every era must take this stand; there must be a conviction so strongly felt that such words, when said, strike a cord with other Christians, and harden the hearts and minds of the unregenerate.
I end this post by again appealing to the blogging community for your aid. It is with great hesitation that I have begun a blog. Placing my thoughts and reflections on the Internet was not an appealing notion. One of my professors stated that, “There are no ‘Lone Ranger’ Christians.” It is with this in mind that I humbly submit myself to the criticism of friends and other fellows, endeavoring to more fully understand the revelation of our God.

Here I am blog world

2006-06-05T18:02:00.000-04:00

It seems as though blogging is the next big craze and I am a bit late getting on board. I have tried to hold out as long as possible, but with the prompting of some friends I have started my own blog. This entry was only necessary for me to set up my template and other options, so hopfully I can get those done in a reasonable time so that meaningful posts can begin.