Category Archives: Theology

Why I read commentaries (part 1)

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

Why read commentaries?  Lots of reasons.  But one reason is for gems such as this, mined from Craig Blomberg’s 1 Corinthians (Zondervan, 1994) in the NIV Application Commentary:

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 1:8-9, Blomberg writes,

“How can Paul be so thankful and positive [vv. 4-9] about a church rife with divisions and abuses [as the church at Corinth clearly was]…?  Verses 8-9 supply the answer: God’s character provides the guarantee.  He will remain faithful to his promises ultimately to perfect his people, however immature they at times seem to be (vv. 8a, 9).  When he returns, when the age of the fulfillment of all the remaining biblical promises arrives, then believers will be made wholly blameless (v. 8b).  Acquitted of their past sins, they will be fully prepared for the life to come.  Even now, his people are in the process of being remolded, even if it is with fits and starts…” (p. 37).

The “Reason Rally”: One comment

Posted on by TimDoubleU
1

On March 24, 2012 a “Reason Rally” will be held in Washington D.C. drawing “non-theists”/atheists from around the country to (according to the “about” page of their website) “unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society…”

In an article describing this rally, event organizer David Silverman, president of American Atheists, further clarifies the purpose of this rally: “…the main point of the rally, Silverman says, is not to tweak the faithful. It’s to encourage closeted atheists to take heart.  ’The message is that if you can come out, you can out come out,’ he says. ‘And if you can’t come out, at least you’ll know you’re not alone, and maybe sometime soon you’ll be able to come out of the closet to your family.’”

The sense I get from these sorts of purpose statements is that  ”coming out of the closet” and identifying oneself as an atheist will be liberating for the individual.  Maybe it will be.  Maybe it will liberate this “closet atheist” to finally start living a certain way, unriddled by the guilt they feel has been imposed on them by whatever beliefs about God/believers/religion they’re rejecting (or never believed in in the first place).  Maybe it will be liberating to finally answer the questions they’ve been asking with responses they (for whatever reason) are more satisfied with.

Mabye…but not necessarily.

Continue reading →

Cultural Challenges on the Near Horizon (courtesy of Al Mohler)

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

Recently Al Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky) posted an entry on his blog that addressed both (1) his hope for the church because of the young ministers entering and preparing for ministry, and (2) challenges/issues that are on the (near) horizon that demand careful response and attention by the church.

This article was one of those pieces of writing that kept me thinking for a while even after I read it, so I figured it was worth referring along.  Here are some (brief) excerpts from Mohler’s post that will give you a sense of what he’s covering (and hopefully whet your appetite to reading his whole article – we’ve provided a link to it at the end):

 

Continue reading →

Transformative Eschatology: A third way beyond eschatomania and eschatophobia

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

This weekend in Brookside’s class, “Fuel for Faith: An Important Class about Christian Theology,” I’ll be teaching on the category of systematic theology called “eschatology” (i.e., the study of the end times and the renewal of God’s design).  Mention a study of the end times to someone, and you’ll usually get some variation on one of two responses.  (Allow me some – but maybe not much… – exaggeration as I make a point.)

First, there’s eschatomania.  The eschatomaniac is the person who – upon hearing about an end-times discussion – suddenly (and often dramatically) pulls out charts and diagrams (and maybe even the rare flannelgraph, if you’re lucky) to explain their position.  For this person, the numerous references to Jesus’ return and the end of the world have become dislocated from their biblical contexts, and have instead become a sort of code to break in-and-of itself.  And, often, this person’s study of the end times hasn’t only led to deeper study of select biblical texts and a few charts; rather, eschatomania often leads people to a strong, evangelistic zeal for their position, a closed-mindedness/borderline arrogance toward other orthodox options, and a narrow focus on this category of theology to the neglect of others.

Second, there’s eschatophobia.  The eschatophobe is the person who – upon hearing about an end-times discussion – does their best to remove himself from said discussion by a radius of at least 100 yards.  Perhaps they’ve had a negative experience in some end-times discussion in the past, are aware of the unfortunate controversy and division that can result from such a discussion, and/or simply don’t know what the Bible has to say about this topic.  This person’s fear of anything slightly related to the end times has them avoiding biblical passages that deal with this topic and studies that introduce them to this area of theology in a balanced way – and the result is that an important component of the Christian faith in absent from their lives, minds, and worship.

I wonder, though, if there’s a third way beyond eschatomania and eschatophobia – an approach that takes what the Bible has to say about eschatology seriously, and yet allows that material to cultivate transformation rather than to breed speculation.  Enter: transformational eschatology.

Continue reading →

History in the making (er…discovering)?

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

Is the Bible we have today the same Bible that was circulating in the first century?  Yes.

We have every reason to believe that our English Bibles are tremendously accurate, and agree with the originally-inspired Greek and Hebrew languages in which God’s Word was first recorded by the inspired human authors.  For those who suggest that various levels of corruption or human invention have been introduced to the text over the centuries, there is a discipline called “textual criticism” that helps protect the integrity of the biblical text.  To be super (too?) brief (and maybe a little confusing if you’re new to this), textual criticism weighs internal and external manuscript evidence to help us accurately identify which words the Gospel writers, the Apostle Paul, or any other biblical author actually wrote.  And within the last few weeks, an evangelical expert in textual criticism by the name of Daniel Wallace has hinted at recent findings that will further strengthen an already-compelling case for the validity of the New Testament.

Continue reading →

The Trinity: One big deal

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

I’m in the middle of teaching a class at Brookside called “Fuel for Faith: An Important Class about Christian Theology.”  Each week for 8 weeks we cover a category (or two) of systematic theology and learn from God’s Word (primarily), our class textbook (Wayne Grudem’s Bible Doctrine) and each other.

Last week we had some great interaction about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – I’m grateful for a class that’s willing to ask some tough questions, think deeply, and be formed by God’s Word.  One of the things we had the chance to discuss was whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is really that big of a deal.  Does it really make a difference whether we worship God as “one God in three Persons” (the traditional understanding), as “one God in three manifestations” (an early heresy commonly known as modalism) or as three aligned but ultimately independent gods (tritheism)?  Are the differences between these views really big enough to impact the way we live and how we worship?  And most importantly, what’s the clearest way to formulate how the God of the Bible reveals himself?

Continue reading →

The Historical Adam: To be, or not to be?

Posted on by TimDoubleU
Reply

Anyone who’s been part of church culture for any length of time knows that the relationship between science and the Bible is often a delicate one. Are they competitors or complementary (or, at times, both)? What do we do when the claims of one seem to conflict with the claims of the other?

These questions have been central in the ongoing “creation versus evolution” debate, and are popping up in fresh ways as a recent burst of information is bringing the existence of a historical Adam into fresh consideration. This is likely something you’ll hear about on the History or Discovery Channels, or get into conversation about over some Thanksgiving meal with extended family or friends.

Knowing this, here are a few articles (and one book), written by evangelical Christians, that can introduce you to this topic. Keep this in mind, though: these articles present a variety of evangelical approaches to this topic and may at times even conflict with each other. As always, read with your thinking caps on and with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word.

Here are some articles that will introduce you to things:

Here’s a book that tackles this subject from a firmly evangelical viewpoint: