Here is the video introduction to the Jude’s Epistle from Zion’s The Bible Book-by-Book series. The audio is below it if you want to listen or download to your iPod, etc.
Here is the video introduction to the Epistles of John from Zion’s The Bible Book-by-Book series. The audio is below it if you want to listen or download to your iPod, etc.
Here is a list of the books I am reading for edification and/or enjoyment. Note that this does not include such things as commentaries or books I am reading or using for my teaching/preaching responsibilities. These are in no particular order except that fiction is last.
Though most sensible people know this, some do not so let me issue a disclaimer right off the bat:
Just because I’m reading a particular book (fiction or non-fiction) doesn’t mean that I agree with everything in it nor does it mean that I endorse it nor does it mean I’m willing to argue the author’s point of view with you in the comments or via email.
I bought this book a few years ago, the summer when Wright wrote Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (as a response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification). I bought it simply because I had been out of the loop while in seminary and wanted to catch up. I breezed through it, hitting the high points, and decided it was time to pick it up again and actually work through it. My choice of this one over the first and third books in the series was based solely on chapter 12, “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion,” which, I admit, I am reading while reading the rest of the book.
A friend of mine studied under John Frame and hearing him talk about Frame made me want to dig into his works. I agreed (for the most part) with his critique of the theology of Westminster West in The Escondido Theology and really should have begun working through this series before. This is the first book in the series so it seemed like a good place to start.
I read Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation and really didn’t understand what the fuss was all about, though I didn’t agree with all his conclusions. I’m reading this book to see how his thinking has changed since he was forced out of Westminster and to see if any change is for better or for worse. I also am reading it to be able to interact with critiques of it and because with creation begin a hot topic right now it really is irresponsible of me not to familiarize myself with the latest literature on the issue that lies within my area of expertise (which is theology and biblical studies, not science).
I decided recently to quit pansy-ing around in the gym and get back to the weights like I did back in the day. Much like Arnold says in the foreword (and you shouldn’t have to ask who Arnold is), these two guys are the best of the best right now. I’ve learned quite a bit so far and I’m updating my knowledge base since a lot has changed since I last picked up the weights in the late 90s. Note that there is some adult language in here so if your sensitive to that be forewarned.
Every summer I read scifi or fantasy and several people I know have been going on and on about this series. I have not seen the show but I’m more than halfway through this novel and it is as good as anything I’ve read in a while.
I saw the movie because I was bored one night, it was free on Amazon Prime, and I wondered what the fuss had been all about. Obviously I liked it enough to read the book and both the book and movie have many connections to what is going on in our society now. I’ve just started this one and I admit, it’s hard to put down.
Read any good books yourself lately? I’d love to hear about them and a good recommendation will surely end up on my reading list.
When the early church accepted the Gentiles into the fellowship of the faith (it’s outlined in Acts 10 and 11 and revisited again in Acts 15) we see worked out in salvation history what Paul would later write about in Ephesians 2:12-14:
that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
This breaking down of the barriers is still happening today, and not just between races but between people of all kinds who had hatred and ill-will toward one another. It breaks down barriers between abused and abuser, between criminal and victim, between the hater and the hated.
The Gospel breaks down the barriers of human distinction, erected by us as fallen humanity, and unites in Christ those who are far off, far from God and far from one another.
Spreading the Good News of this reconciliation through Christ is our mission. Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2 and states it pointedly in 2 Cor. 5:18-20:
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.
If God so loved the world that Jesus came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it, then who are we to try to limit the mission of God to redeem humanity? (see Peter’s statement in Acts 11:17.)
This is especially true (and relevant) in an age and a culture where race is still an issue. Contrary to what some say, we do not yet live in a post-racial culture.) There are still ill feelings over the sad legacy of American slavery, foreign terrorists who do not look like “the average American (whatever that is) are trying to kill us, domestic terrorists are growing and they thrive on and stir up racial hatred, and illegal immigration is still an issue with people coming here fleeing oppression and poverty or simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
While we might ask many questions about these issues in terms of policy and law, the question for the church and for the followers of Christ is: “Can we look with compassion on these who are so different and see them as God sees them: as people in need of the grace, mercy, compassion, and deliverance of God?”
If we cannot, we need to rethink whether or not we have actually received this message of reconciliation.
If we can, then why are we not reaching out to them when they are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, etc.?
If the early church had done what you do, what many of our churches do, where would that leave you, Gentiles?
An online friend, Derek Rishmawy, pointed me to this video which I notice has been making the rounds this weekend.
I don’t know Andrew Wilson (and I’m not sure I’ve heard about him before I saw this video). But he handled himself well.
It was kinda fun (and frustrating at the same time) to see how long Rob Bell could go on trying not to answer a simple, straightforward (not loaded) question! When he is asked a theological question (based on Biblical Theology, not a proof text), he looks completely baffled.
If you want to watch the video (it’s 20:47 long), I’ve embedded it at the end of this post. Here are my thoughts on Wilson’s performance versus Rob Bell’s with some implications for those of us who are called on to defend the faith informally.
Wilson does three things that we could all learn from to help in informal debates of this type, not just about homosexuality, but about any topic where we are called on to defend the position of Scripture.
(1) Wilson does not resort to cliches or comedy, and he stays on the topic at hand no matter how wide his opponent wants range in the conversation.
(On a not-wholly-unrelated note, if I hear “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” one more time I’m gonna grab a strap and start flipping tables.) Bell, on the other hand, kept resorting to sound bites he has used previously or that other opponents have used previously. As I’ll note again in this post, it was as if Bell was prepared for a different type of opponent and wasn’t prepared for someone to actually argue the point.
(2) Wilson argues from all of Scripture rather than simply proof-texting.
It was clear however, that Bell only knew how to answer the proof texts; he had no idea how to argue theologically, which tells me he doesn’t know how to actually “do theology.”
(3) Wilson fit the question of homosexuality in the wider contexts of sexual immorality, human sinfulness, and human fallenness.
Bell, on the other hand, argues mostly from anecdote and experience and uses that to gauge Scripture and guide interpretation, rather than the other way around. Wilson calls him on this later, after the question around 11:50.
Bell shows an entirely different method of debating the issue, and it reveals how he came to the conclusion he did. Some thoughts:
Toward the end (16:00), Bell explicitly states that personal experience and the “witness of the community,” which is essentially public opinion, determine where one must stand on this issue. There is little place for Scripture in Rob Bell’s theologizing except for validating his own preconceived view.
Around that same question (11:45 – 11:50), you’ll notice that Bell doesn’t answer the question he is asked but instead substitutes his own question and answers that question instead. That’s the kind of stuff that people don’t usually call him on but Wilson asks a pointed question in return. Bell’s response of “Your interpretation of verses?” smacks of desperation. It’s also Bell-speak for “You say ‘potayto’ I say ‘potahto.’
Wilson won’t let Bell paint it as a matter of two equal and opposing interpretive views and instead appeals to 2000+ years of interpretation. In other words, he doesn’t let Bell get away with it.
Bell also resorted to a ploy I’ve seen many people do when they get trapped: Instead of answering a straightforward (not a loaded) question, he simply kept asking for further clarification. Now, sometimes you need to do this if your opponent is asking loaded or misleading questions; Bell does it here (and others do it) because he has nothing else to say and he just wants to keep Wilson talking so he won’t have to answer.
Bell also sometimes looks to the moderator before answering. To be fair, this could just be because he’s on radio and doesn’t want to go over time or not be able to answer, but he also could be hoping the host will want to talk so he won’t have to.
At the end Bell tries to paint this whole debate as “This is why so many people don’t want to be part of the church.” But in saying this, he assumes that otherwise people would want to be a part of the church. All questions about God’s sovereignty aside, the fact is that most of the populace weren’t exactly beating down the church doors before this became an issue and before we started debating issues such as this, so why is it that this issue and its public debate is the one thing that keeps people out? Bell needs to think more deeply about this but I doubt he will.
Bell paints this interview as another example of his being persecuted. It apparently hasn’t occurred to him that when someone, especially someone of his stature, speaks out publicly on an issues, especially an issues such as this, he is in essence inviting people to critique his views and statements on the subject. I want to think that he can’t possibly be that naive, but I don’t know how else to parse it.
In trying to sum it up, Bell says, “This isn’t an issue of taking God seriously, this isn’t an issue of God’s holiness, this isn’t an issue of worship, this isn’t an issue of discipleship.”
Wilson calls him on it and asks, “Mightn’t it be an issue of God’s holiness?” Bell’s response is to mention several issues, some not mentioned in Scripture at all, and try to paint this as one among many issues. One of which is worry and anxiety, which he implies is on the same level as sexual immorality. While Jesus did (as Bell noted) preach against worry and anxiety, Scripture does not claim that those who worry a lot will not inherit the Kingdom of God, though it does say that about sexual immorality, homosexuality included.
Again, I want to be gracious so all I’ll say is that Bell has to be smarter than that.
In this last point, and indeed in the whole debate, Bell shows not only a lack of exegetical sensitivity, he demonstrates an inability to handle the Scriptures accurately.
In short, I really liked how Wilson handled himself; he was gracious but firm and displayed a skill in handling both the informal debate, the Scriptures, and biblical theology that all of us should emulate.
This video also confirms what I’ve long said about Bell: Rob Bell not a competent theologian nor a competent exegete. He can tell stories but somehow manages to get the moral wrong. He can ask questions (and many of the questions he asks need to be answered) but he either doesn’t answer them or he answers them in the way that he likes, regardless of what Scripture or the history of interpretation has to say.
I hope we see more of Andrew Wilson defending the faith and I pray God bless his ministry and make it fruitful.
Here’s the video. Watch it and tell me what I’ve missed.
Some say that prayer is unnecessary, even disrespectful, since God knows all and wills all. But God does command prayer for his benefit; he wills it for ours.
Calvin cites the example of Elijah (1 Ki. 18:41-46) who had already prophesied that rain would come yet prays earnestly and sends his servant to look for the rain. Elijah prayed “because he knew it was his duty, lest his faith be sleepy or sluggish, to lay his desires before God.” Though we know God watches us and even helps us unasked, we pray…
So that our hearts may be fired with a zealous and burning desire ever to seek, love, and serve him, while we become accustomed in every need to flee to him as a sacred anchor.
That there may enter our hearts no desire and no wish at all of which we should be ashamed to make him a witness, while we learn to set all our wishes before his eyes, and even receive his benefits with true gratitude of heart and even to pour out our whole hearts.
That we be prepared to receive his benefits with true gratitude of heart and thanksgiving, benefits that our prayer reminds us come from his hand (Ps. 145:15-16).
Moreover, that having obtained what we were seeking, and being convinced that he has answered our prayers, we should be led to meditate upon his kindness more ardently.
That at the same time we embrace with greater delight those things which we acknowledge to have been obtained by prayers.
That use and experience may, according to the measure of our feebleness, confirm his providence. [While we remember that he will never fail us and may call upon him at any time, even the point of necessity, we are reminded that he] “ever extends his hand to help his own, not wet-nursing them with words, but defending them with present help.”
On account of these things, our most merciful Father, although he never either sleeps or idles, still very often gives the impression of one sleeping or idling in order that he may thus train us, otherwise idle and lazy, to seek, ask, and entreat him to our great good. [And to his glory.]
Psalm 34:15 – “The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, And His ears are open to their cry.”
