Another Video

This one is a little longer ... and a little more cheesy!

I can't get this one embedded, but here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEH2dK-KKKA

Video

From The Church You Know ...

TNIV

While the TNIV has received many insults hurled at it and those responsible for it, comments have mostly been over some the gender-inclusive (or gender-accurate, etc.) translation and not other changes.

The NIV has a glaring translation problem that has annoyed me for years now: the mistranslation of the Greek word for "sign" in John's Gospel. The NIV consistently translates this word "miraculous sign". However, it has been demonstrated (if you think that is too strong of a word, then how about "seriously cast doubt upon") that the word does not refer to the miraculous in John's Gospel. Praiseworthy is the TNIV for correcting this error and simply translating "sign" as "sign" and understanding John's use.

Now, regarding the gender-inclusive stuff ....


just kidding :)

Creationism

Christianity Today just posted an article about a conversation Preston Jones (history professor at John Brown University) had with Bad Religion's (the punk band) Greg Gaffin, who apparently has a Ph.D. from Cornell. Gaffin is an atheist. Here is a quote:

"In those months of dialogue I also saw the devastation wrought by the passion for pseudo-scientific theories on natural history among some Christians. Many of my students believe that six-day creationism is an essential Christian belief—that if the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally, then the whole Bible is a fraud. What tragic nonsense!
Before Greg and I corresponded, I didn't care. "You wanna believe the earth was created six thousand years ago? Whatever." But Greg helped me see that this kind of gaping ignorance promotes the perception that theologically conservative Christians are the enemies of learning."

Christianity Today included this at the end of the article: "This article, as with all "Speaking Out" pieces, does not necessarily represent the views of Christianity Today." That's all and well, but this history teacher just got duped by an informed evolutionist. While there surely are many Christian's who use pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution, this man must not be very well read on some of the most recent Christian arguments against evolution.

What did I learn from this? Well, if a history teacher debates the issue of evolution with someone who has a Ph.D. in it, they will probably lose ... and be convinced. I wonder why CT would publish this? As an advertisement for this man's book, maybe?

Prosperity Gospel

Is it okay for a Christian to be rich? Well, Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:17-18, "Instruct those who are rich in this present world ..." now, if it wasn't okay to be rich, what would follow; something like "sell all and give to the poor," but Paul doesn't say that ... "not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share." Nothing about them being evil or in sin because they are rich.

However, the Prosperity Gospel goes from "it is okay to be rich" to "God has planned for all Christians to be rich". A logical jump of mammoth proportions!! Christianity Today online just reported about a recent Time magazine article and they included this about Rick Warren, a non-Prosperity Gospel preacher:

"This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?", [Rick] Warren snorts. "There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol. You don't measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't everyone in the church a millionaire?"

CT online says:
"It's smart for Time to make Warren the piece's chief critic of the Prosperity Gospel. (One of his favorite lines, "I don't think it is a sin to be rich. I think it is a sin to die rich," doesn't appear.)"

Go Rick Warren. That was the exact theological, technical word that I was thinking of regarding the Prosperity Gospel: baloney!

Jill Briscoe and CT online

Jill Briscoe answered a question about women in ministry at ChristianityToday.com. She is the executive editor of “Just Between Us,” a magazine for ministry wives and women in leadership. She also serves as Minister-at-Large at Elmbrook Church in Milwaukee.

Her presentation in this article was very superficial and her knowledge of this subject that obviously is close to her heart is somewhat disturbing. Her argumentation is weak, as the comments below are intended to show.

She said: “So, after becoming a Christian, imagine my dismay when I first joined a church where women weren't allowed to do any of the things in which I knew they excelled!”
Response: I’m sure there are churches like this, but it seems to me that the majority of churches that I’ve been a part of would say that women can’t teach MEN, not that they can’t teach. The Bible never says they can’t teach … just not over men.

She said: “It wasn't that those who challenged me thought I shouldn't be exercising my gifts—it was that they believed "God thought" I shouldn't! This went against the very root of my identity and calling.”
Response: So she must believe that God has called her to teach men … the very thing the Bible speaks against in 1 Timothy 2:12. So, what should we trust more: someone’s subjective experience in their relationship on God’s life OR what the Bible clearly (yes, 1 Tim 2:12 is clear) declares? The answer may seem obvious to some, but obviously not all. This is similar (though the example I’m about to give is a much worse situation) to when a man says that God told him to divorce his wife and marry his secretary … after all, God wants him to be happy, right?

She said: “They believe Paul felt that because Eve was deceived, women are gullible and therefore mustn't teach men.”
Response: Somewhat of a straw man. Actually, Paul gives two reasons for why women shouldn’t teach men. The first one she ignored because it is a nearly impossible argument to defeat … because Adam was created first. Thus, it is bound up in creation (not culture). Instead, she focused on the second argument that is: a) controversial, and b) not held by all who are complementarians. So, somewhat of a straw man: she mentioned what some would consider the weaker argument used by complementarians (those that say women should not teach nor have authority over men in the church) and she ignored the stronger, more often used, argument.

She said: “Others think Paul was addressing specific circumstances in Ephesus …”
Response: She can now make this argument since she ignored the argument from creation. So, she points to culture as the reason for Paul’s argument, ignoring the very reason he gave for the command of 1 Tim 2:12 (“for Adam was created first”).

She said: “Years ago, when I discovered I had gifts half the Christian church didn't think I should have …”
Response: For the record, I don’t deny (along with many, if not most, who hold my position) that women can be gifted in teaching. They can also be gifted in pastoring (if you believe in such a gift). That is NOT the issue. The issue is the USE of the gift. She very well may have the gift of teaching (I don’t deny this), however, if she is teaching men she is MIS-using that gift according to God’s clearly revealed Word.

She said: “I don't want to get to heaven and hear him say, ‘Half-done, thou half-faithful servant.’”
Response: Well, at least she didn’t try to manipulate emotions J

She said: “I don't believe women should bury their gifts or let anyone else bury them.”Response: We are in agreement. Don’t bury your gifts women; men, don’t force them to … however, use them appropriately. Just as with most gifts, there are appropriate and inappropriate uses for our spiritual gifts.

Duvall and Hays

Daniel Wallace has posted some comments on his blog regarding inerrancy. Andreas Kostenberger has responded with some of his thoughts. Alan Bandy has also added some comments into the discussion. In preparing for a class this morning, I ran across another view from J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays in the 2nd edition of Grasping God's Word, an introductory hermeneutics book (published by Zondervan). They raise the issue this way: "which comes first, faith in Christ or belief in the inspiration of the Bible?" This is under the title (on page 410) "The Chicken or the Egg?" They conclude: "In actuality, it seems to us that the two go together and are inseparable. We believe in the divine inspiration and trustworthiness of the Bible because we know Jesus Christ, and we know Jesus Christ through the testimony of the Bible."

Inerrancy Discussion Continues

Andreas Kostenberger has an interesting post on inerrancy ... and he cites Wallace's post. This was a really good read, I thought.

Realized Eschatology in John's Gospel: Part 4

Reflecting back on the Gospel then, the disciples did not receive eternal life at 2:11, nor did the “many” in 2:23, nor the Samaritan’s in 4:39–42, nor the Jews in 7:31; 8:30, 31; 10:42; 11:45; 12:11, 42. No one was able to receive eternal life until after the Holy Spirit was given (see 6:63; 7:38–39; 16:7). Referring to the disciples, Culpepper says “that their faith (will) be incomplete until after the completion of Jesus’ work at his death” (Culpepper, Anatomy, 91). This is why I have attempted to discern how John portrayed the belief of those presented in the narratives in my Th.M. thesis, rather than whether or not they received eternal life. Taking salvation-historical considerations into account, the non-receiving of eternal life is not a reflection of how a person’s or group’s belief is portrayed. Terms such as “adequate” and “inadequate” are not completely appropriate, then, in this dialogue. Rather, I have tried to use terms such as “positive,” “negative,” “neutral,” “inchoate,” “spurious,” “deficient,” and others like it which are more suited for this discussion.

Daniel Wallace Challenged on Inerrancy

Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, was challenged on a blog on his views on inerrancy. He responded in this very forthright article from bible.org.

Forthcoming Commentaries

I found a great site that details forthcoming commentaries in many of the major series being published today. See here.

Realized Eschatology in John's Gospel: Part 3

Because the Holy Spirit had to have been given before eternal life can be bestowed upon anyone, we can glean from this an understanding about how Jesus talked about soteriological realities during his earthly ministry. Though he may have talked about the results of believing in terms that were vivid and current, his words were really for a future reality. This applies to our discussion of eternal life and believing.

During Jesus’ earthly ministry no one received eternal life and no one received the Holy Spirit (in the current dispensation/administration way). As C. K. Barrett said, eternal life “in John resembles ‘kingdom of God’ in the Synoptic Gospels. That which is properly a future blessing becomes a present fact in virtue of the realization of the future in Christ” (Barrett, John, 215). The results of believing are for a different age. Just as no one in the Old Testament received eternal life or the permanent indwelling (sealing) of the Holy Spirit, no one before the exaltation received either as well. Abraham was reckoned as righteous before God, and therefore those in John’s Gospel whose belief is deemed as a complete response to what Jesus was calling for may be thought of in those terms. However, it would be inappropriate to attempt to analyze individuals or groups in John’s Gospel in terms of whether or not they have received eternal life. This is the wrong question. The correct question is to attempt to understand how John is portraying the belief described in each narrative. From this, we can then develop Johannine definition(s) of believing. Therefore, with Raymond Brown, “the full gift of life does not come during the ministry of Jesus but only afterward through the resurrection” (Brown, John, 1:lxviii).

Carson's Quotables

D. A. Carson is known for some extremely quotable comments in is writings ... places where he waxes eloquent out of nowhere.

Here is one from his John commentary, commenting on John 6:45:

"When he compels belief, it is not by the savage constraint of a rapist, but by the wonderful wooing of a lover."

Realized Eschatology and John 7

Let’s start a John 7:38-39: “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Jesus uses the present participle of pisteuō. In the context, He appears to be referring to the current moment in which he makes the statement … that is, during his earthly ministry. The result of those who believe, in 7:38–39, as John clarifies for us (7:39), is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus seems to be saying that anyone who believes him at that moment will become the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (“From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water”). While much discussion on this verse has centered on the OT reference, that isn’t as important for us here. Some of the suggestions are Isa 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Prov 4:23; Ezek 47:1; Joel 3:18; and Zech 13:1. I prefer Zech 14:15-19.

Regardless, John says that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had yet to be glorified. When Jesus was glorified, the Spirit was given, and then those who believed would become a fulfillment of this. However, during Jesus’ earthly ministry this was impossible. Jesus said himself in John 16:7 that it was not until he left that the Holy Spirit would come. And as Raymond Brown concluded: “it is apparent the gift of the Spirit is Jesus’ way of granting eternal life” (Brown, John, 2:741). So how could eternal life be granted prior to the Holy Spirit being given?

Baptists and Calvinists ... getting along?

May all participants in the upcoming White/Ascol vs. Caner bros. debate continue with the charitable attitude displayed in the last few days. I do look forward to October 16th.

Realized Eschatology and the Fourth Gospel

Thinking about Leon Morris and my "first love" of Johannine studies, I thought I'd turn my attention to the Fourth Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel contains verses that appear to say that eternal life was presently available to those Jesus was preaching to during his earthly ministry. For example:

5:24: “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life.” (NET)
6:47: “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.”
6:54: “The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
10:28: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand.”

Other verses are complimentary to this theme: 3:15; 5:21; 6:40; and 17:3. Other verses said by the Evangelist also contain similar statements: 3:16, 19, 36; 8:51; 12:25. So, were people able to receive/have/possess eternal life during Jesus’ (earthly) ministry? Was Jesus referring “literally” to the present? Was the use of the present a literary device? What about a futuristic present … is there really any good evidence for that category?

Realized eschatology in the Fourth Gospel has been a popular topic of discussion (see references below). I propose that Jesus did not literally mean that during his ministry some were receiving eternal life.[1] Rather, he was speaking in the present about only something that could happen in the future. When one takes into consideration historical-salvation considerations, and in particular, the Johannine definitions of “eternal life” and “sin,” this dilemma can be solved.

So, to say it more boldly, Abraham did not have eternal life, when the disciples believed in Jesus they did not have eternal life, and no one actual had eternal life prior to the cross. How is that possible? We shall see ………


Note
[1] Contra Carroll, “Eschatology,” 66, who states: “the disciples of Jesus, who believe in him as the Son sent from the Father, already possess eternal life.” See also, Pamment, “Eschatology,” 84, “One may reason that since belief in Jesus is possible now, eternal life can be a present possession.”

Some sources for Realized Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel:
Charles H. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958).

Charles H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (New York: Scribner’s and Sons, 1938).

Roderic Dunkerley, “Unrealized Eschatology,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review 186 (1961): 51–54.

John T. Carroll, “Present and Future in Fourth Gospel Eschatology,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (Ap 1989): 63–69.

John F. Walvoord, “Realized Eschatology,” Bibiotheca Sacra 127 (Oct.–Dec. 1970): 313–323.

Robert Berkey, “Realized Eschatology and the post-Bultmannians,” Expository Times 84 (Dec. 1972): 72–77.

Robert Kysar, “Eschatology of the Fourth Gospel,” Perspective 13, no. 1 (1972): 23–33.

John Painter, “Theology, Eschatology, and the Prologue of John,” Scottish Journal of Theology 46, no. 1 (1993): 27–42.

Donald R. Sime, and Jere Yates, “Eschatology in the Gospel of John,” in The Last Things (ed. W. B. West and Jack Pearl Lewis: Austin: Sweet Publishing, 1972), 124–139.

Severino Pancaro, “Statistical Approach to the Concept of Time and Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 50, no. 4 (1969): 511–524.

Margaret Pamment, “Eschatology and the Fourth Gospel,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15 (1982): 81–85.

Some commentary sources:
Bultmann, John, 155–7, 164–7, 219–20, 236, 256–62, 402–403.

Brown, John, 1:lxviii, cxx–cxxi, 2:741.

Barrett, John, 215.

Leon Morris will be missed

I'm speechless ... Leon Morris' John commentary was the first book that got me excited about New Testament studies ... praise God for this man's life and work. See here. His obituary is here. Some sermons by Leon Morris here.

An Argument for Altar Calls: Part 7

Acts 16:9 “A vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us.’”

In Acts 16:9, parakaleo has been translated as “beseeching” (ASV, RSV), “requesting” (BBE), “urging” (ESV, NET, NJB), “prayed” (KJV), “appealing” (NASU), “begging” (NIV), “pleaded/ing” (NKJV, NRSV, NLT), and “calling upon” (YLT). The majority of translators used the sense of “to ask for something earnestly and with propriety” (Louw and Nida, 33.168). The Macedonian man was surely “inviting” Paul to come, but we know that because of the verb diabaino, to step or come across. That is the word that indicates an invitation, not parakaleo.

Matt 8:5 “And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him”

In Matthew 8:5, parakaleo is translated as “beseeching” (ASV, KJV, RSV), “request” (BBE), “appealing” (ESV, NRSV), “imploring” (NASU), “asking” (NET, NIV), “pleaded/ing” (NJB, NKJV, NLT), and “calling upon” (YLT). Again, the sense of parakaleo here is the same as that in Acts 16:9. Note that the NET and NIV translation of “asking” is probably inadequate, since this word means more of an urgent type of asking.

But it is in Matthew 8:6 when we read, “and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented,’” that and implied invitation is given. Jesus tells the man in the next verse that he will go to his house. However, parakaleo functions here as it normally does: an urgent appeal, not an invitation.

Acts 28:14 “There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome.”

Silva has stated that words should be translated in a way that provides the less dramatic impact on the meaning/interpretation of a passage. That’s helpful to remember in translation and when looking at parakaleo in Acts 28:14. While parakaleo in this verse has been translated as “invited” in the vast majority of major translations (ESV, NASU, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), the minority have translated it with its usual meaning: “entreated” (ASV), “desired” (KJV), “great encouragement” (NJB), and “called upon” (YLT). Looking up “invite” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, it yields this definition: “to offer an incentive or inducement to … to increase the likelihood of … to request the presence of participation … to request formally … to urge politely.” Notice that last definition: “to urge politely.” That is exactly what the majority of instances of parakaleo refer to … to urge. When inserting "urged” into Acts 28:14, we see that this normally understanding of parakaleo fits well … the aspect of an “invitation” is only borrowed from the following word, epimeno (“to stay”). Therefore, again, parakaleo does not refer to an invitation.

Therefore, this survey of texts reveals that parakaleo does not refer to an invitation. To suggest that altar calls are biblical because of the use of this word is inappropriate. This is not to say anything about altar calls in general … just this argument for them.

An Argument for Altar Calls: Part 6

In Acts 8:31, parakaleo is translated various ways: “invited” (CEV, ESV, ISV, NASU, NET, NIV, NRSV, TEV), “earnestly requested” (AMP), “besought” (ASV), “made” (BBE), “urged” (NJB, NLT), “asked” (NKJV), “desired” (GNV, KJV), and “called” (YLT). As you can see, “invited” is the most popular translation. So, does parakaleo refer to an “invitation” in Acts 8:31. No. The verb here still means to “urge” (NJB, NLT) or “ask,” (NKJV) but since the request (AMP) being made is to “come up and sit,” the request is for an invitation. In other words, parakaleo still refers to a request, but it this context the request happens to be for someone (Philip) to “come up and sit.” Thus, parakaleo still refers to a request/urge/asking, not, strictly speaking, to an invitation.

Dave Ramsey

I'll get back to the altar call discussion soon. However, I was finally able to pinpoint exactly what bugs me so much about Dave Ramsey's financial philosophy. He said this morning on his radio show (a paraphrase) that we should live differently than everyone else now, so that later we can live differently than everyone else. What he meant by that was that if we live frugally now, then we won't have to live frugally when we are older. That, right there, is one of the big problems with his financial advice.

We ARE supposed to try to live frugally. Ramsey encourages people to earn as much as they can and save as much as they can. John Wesley did the same in a sermon called: On the Use of Money. However, Wesley scolded the Methodists of his day the same way he would scold Ramsey-ites. Wesley said that while Methodists were good at earning, and good at saving, they missed the whole point of the earning and saving. Scripture wants us to do those things with a particular goal in mind ... as Wesley put it ... to "GIVE ALL YOU CAN."

We don't earn and save so we can be comfortable. We earn and save so we can give! So, we should live differently than everyone else now, so we can GIVE differently than everyone else later. Giving is the goal, not finanacial comfort and stability.