Take a Moment...

Why your friends are "pro-choice" (and what to do about it)...

Why zombies matter...

The relationship between seminary training and practical ministry...

William Lane Craig "Eastwooding" Richard Dawkins...

Bluestocking feminism...

Take a Moment...

Marriage is a mess and homosexuals didn't do it...

When we say "Gospel," do we really mean "the Spirit?"

God is not a Hipster.

Catechisms and Confessions as devotional literature...

Facing up to sex-trafficking...

Take a Moment...

Is it true Jesus never addressed same-sex marriage?

"Let me see you adopt those ugly black babies"

You can't make God love you...

Pay attention to grammar!

5 things we do today instead of preach the word...

Peter, Paul, and Inspiration

Peter Enns has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University, has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) for 14 years, was a Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation, and is currently on faculty at Eastern University teaching courses in Old and New Testaments.

In other words, Enns is no slouch. In fact, I have appreciated the limited interaction I have had with him. He is cordial and helpful, as well as intellectually honest (which has left me asking many questions). To be sure, the depth and intensity of these recent questions have been rivaled only by my introduction to Calvinism many years ago, and my (sort of) recent interactions with hell (if so inclined, you can also read my review of Rob Bell’s Love Wins).

Part of the recent din surrounding Enns is the discussion over the historicity of Adam. This discussion has undoubtedly held a prominent place within the blogosphere over the last few months (not least by Enns, Scot McKnight, and Kevin DeYoung). And yet, amongst these various discussions, I have not yet read anything on the doctrine of inspiration as it relates to Pauline and Adamic studies (which I know could simply be my own oversight).

What might be most helpful is to define inspiration:

By inspiration of Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.[1]

And, of course, inspiration is a consequent of revelation:

God created thoughts in the mind of the writer as he wrote.[2]

Therefore:

While revelation is the communication of truth from God to humans, inspiration relates more to the relaying of that truth from the first recipient(s) of it to other persons, whether then or later. Thus, revelation might be thought of as a vertical action, and inspiration as a horizontal matter.[3]

And, herein lies a critical question: If we believe Paul’s writings were inspired (2 Tim 3:10), that they were supernaturally influenced, are we not attributing error to God if we attribute error to Paul? This question stems from Enns’s assertion in The Evolution of Adam that Paul’s assumptions about human origins might not necessarily display a unique level of scientific accuracy (95). Simply put, if Enns thinks Paul was wrong about the historicity of Adam, is this not also an affirmation that man’s error can supplant God’s sovereignty in revelation and inspiration?[4]

It seems that this is where Enns is headed. In his writings on inspiration, a major theme is accounting for the incarnational aspect(s) of inspiration (i.e., the human-ness of the authors). Accounting for the human element is necessary (God is not a puppet-master), and yet, I feel a sense of unease focusing too much on the humanity of scripture (although we must understand that the text was written in a specific historical and cultural context). For instance, it seems most appropriate to affirm that God himself took on human form rather than a man becoming divine.

Paul Helm puts it nicely:

[I]f the account of his deity is controlled by data about his humanity – including his physical and mental growth, his bodily weakness, his ignorance, his emotional life – the result may be a Christ who is very different from a Christ whose divine nature is given priority.[5]

This is also, at least for me, the appropriate interpretive process for the Bible; namely, the Bible is breathed by God and authored my humans. Bruce Waltke, in his review of Enns’s Inspiration and Incarnation, states, “To be sure, the Scripture is fully human, but it is just as fully the Word of God, with whom there is no shadow of turning and who will not lie to or mislead his elect”.[6]

So, what are we to think?

Is Paul wrong?

Is Enns Wrong?

What do we have the right to conclude about the nature of revelation and inspiration?

How should revelation and inspiration affect our interpretive process?

These are some of the questions I am currently working through…

---

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 225.

[2] Ibid., 213.

[3] Ibid., 225-226.

[4] Enns has appropriately pointed out that this syllogism only works if the above definition of inspiration is affirmed. But, converesely, Enns’s affirmation that God’s purposes in revelation and inspiration will not be supplanted by the human element is only true if we accept his definition of inspiration. 

[5] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/01/analysis-extra-inspiration-and.html

[6] Bruce K. Waltke, “Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation,” The Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 1 (2009): 94.

Take a Moment...

8 things to help you understand introverts

Same-sex marriage won't be enough

An angry God

Context is key

Is Jerry Sandusky really such a bad guy?

Why Can't Liberal Folks Just Get It?

Inconsistency is bothersome.

Over the last couple of weeks, the president and COO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, has taken considerable flack from liberals regarding a statement he made during a radio interview, namely that legalizing same-sex marriage is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

To be sure, Cathy does support traditional marriage as the biblical definition of the family unit, and Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, does donate to organizations promoting traditional family units (see Alan Noble's detailed post about “the Chick-fi-Asco”).

And yet, regardless of where you fall within the spectrum of same-sex marriage approval (or disapproval); regardless of where you fall within the spectrum of considering active homosexual behavior to be sinful (or not); what is bothersome is inconsistent behavior.

Specifically, not a few liberal biblical scholars have announced that they will no longer eat at Chick-fil-A because of their “intolerance” towards marriage equality.

Have they forgotten the Oreo cookie?

If they have, or, if you have, the rainbow-colored Oreo cookie made an appearance several weeks ago supporting gay pride, and liberal biblical scholars applauded.

But why is it acceptable for Kraft (the parent company of Nabisco who makes Oreo cookies) to express their convictions with a rainbow-colored cookie, and yet unacceptable for Dan Cathy, or Chick-fil-A, to express their convictions during a radio interview?

Inconsistency ad abundantiam.

Why is one form of expression appropriate and the other inappropriate? Because one is being “intolerant?” Which side is being “intolerant?”

This torrent of disdain that has swirled around a fast-food chain using their freedom to express their convictions (which is, in fact, the same type of freedom that the self-proclaimed “champions of equality and tolerance” wish to preserve for pro-homosexual convictions), this raging against the “theologically conservative propaganda machine”, is nothing more than a demonstration of liberal intolerance.

James White tweeted earlier this week that being inclusive really “means exclusively the liberal left’s views. If you are inclusive, you exclude everyone else!”

He could not be more right.

Is it not inconsistent for these “champions of equality and tolerance” to applaud the “coming out” of the Oreo cookie, but frown upon the statements made by Dan Cathy supporting traditional marriage?

Where is the equality in that?

Take a Moment...

Rob Bell's new video on "rediscovering wonder"

Gay is not the new Black

Should baptism be spontaneous?

How should we respond to Old Testament Polygamy?

The faithfulness of Jesus Christ: Part One and Part Two

A Simple Request to Rachel Held Evans

Rachel Held Evans is an eminent Evangelical blogger. She is a skilled writer, a courageous thinker, a charitable arguer, and, most importantly, a Christian. Although we disagree on certain points of exegesis and praxis, she is an individual whose talents and abilities should be recognized and appreciated.

Of course we know that, often enough, glowing acknowledgements are connected to some type of “but.”

In this instance, my “but” comes in the form of a request; namely, that Held Evans would be willing to call out and rebuke her readers and followers for the comments they make and the attitudes they demonstrate with as much tenacity as she does to those she disagrees with (and, eventually writes about).

To be sure, this is an issue on either side of any exegetical, theological, or cultural argument. However, what is bothersome is that those who align themselves with conservative exegesis and theology (e.g., Calvinists, complementarians, etc.) are often heavily critiqued for their so-called arrogant and aloof attitudes, whereas those providing the critique (the self-proclaimed “champions of equality”) are often given a free-pass despite demonstrating attitudes that are analogous to those they are critiquing.

In part, this request comes from the recent foofaraw surrounding Jared C. Wilson’s post about the modern celebration of perverted sexual authority/submission due to the recent success of 50 Shades of Grey. Held Evans responded, but it was not her response that left me frustrated, rather it was those commenting.

Although there were several worthwhile exchanges and comments, and, again, recognizing that vitriol can come from either side of an argument, those commenting on her posts (not just this one in particular) often resort to ad hominem and hasty generalization, which are fallacies no thinker wants to be guilty of.

So, again, here is my request (and this time it is not just to Held Evans):

Please check yourself and your readers. If you comment, ask yourself whether Jesus would submit that ad hominem attack. If you blog, do not be afraid to call out and rebuke your readers when necessary. Your readers visit (and read) your blog because they think you have something worthwhile to say (even if they might not always agree with you); but your allegiance is not ultimately to your readers, it is to Jesus.

P.S. For those scratching their heads, wondering what is going on, be sure to click the above links as well as those following to catch up on the responses and commentary surrounding said foofaraw: Doug Wilson responds, Doug Wilson's daughter, Bekah, defends her dad, J. R. Daniel Kirk responds, Morgan Guyton has one question, Michael Bird has sex with his wife not to her, and Scot McKnight wants it taken down.

The Christian and Alcohol

Alcohol (and the consumption thereof) is a major point of division amongst Evangelical Christians.

Over the past few years, as I have deliberated about alcohol (and the consumption thereof), and as I have talked with Christian peers, I have noticed an interesting trend. Specifically, those raised in “Christian” families tend to express their “freedom in Christ” and their desire to “redeem” alcohol, whereas those raised in secular families seem to be more wary (of course, no specific quantitative study was completed for verification – rather, this is simply a general observation).

For instance, my parents and I disagree on alcohol (and the consumption thereof).

My parents, raised in what I will simply term “non-Evangelical families,” had the difficult task of not only working out their own salvation, but also pointing our family to King Jesus. Part of this task included the decision to be completely abstinent from alcohol (as opposed to their pre-conversion lifestyles); therefore, we did not have alcohol in our home, nor have I ever seen my parents consume alcohol. To be sure, I owe much to my parents for praying, struggling, guiding, and disciplining me throughout my upbringing. And yet, as I enter adulthood, as I attempt to “make my faith my own,” I have come to disagree with them on this point of Christian praxis.

Several years ago, my family was sitting around a campfire and the topic of alcohol came up. Sparing you the details, my mother indicated that the main problem with Christians consuming alcohol is that you do not want to be liable for causing a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.

I have heard this argument before. I am sure you have too.

In fact, this argument left me so uneasy that I decided to write my seminary capstone paper around this issue.

My conclusion?

Paul’s point in Romans 14 – 15 is that if you are less scrupulous you ought not persuade your more scrupulous brother into doing something outside of his faith context. Conversely, if you are more scrupulous you ought not judge the less scrupulous for being such.

In other words, if you believe you can drink alcohol to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), please do not attempt to persuade your brother into also drinking alcohol if it is outside of his faith context. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Conversely, if drinking alcohol makes you operate outside of your faith context, then simply do not drink alcohol. However, remember that it is not your place to scornfully judge your brother (not least his Christian status) for the freedom he experiences. God is our judge, and we will all give an account before him (Rom 14:4, 12).

With that said, a few ruminations on alcohol:

First, alcohol (i.e., the substance) is not sinful.

Second, I am convinced that drinking alcohol is also not sinful. For clarity’s sake, “drinking” alcohol is quite different than being “drunk” on alcohol. This is a distinction that needs to be made.

Therefore, what can be sinful is the heart attitude behind this action (or inaction).

In short, do not persuade when you should not, and do not judge when you should not.

P.S. If you are interested in reading my paper in full, you can email me at danieljfick@gmail.com to request a copy.

P.S.S. Preston Sprinkle has a couple of interesting blog posts about alcohol.

A review of Peter Enns' "The Evolution of Adam"...

Questions about contextualization...

Evangelical resistance to the Gospels...

Jonathan Edwards, the Holy Spirit, and Evolution: Part One and Part Two

A biblically positive view of women...

Take a Moment...

Gandhi likes Jesus but not Christians; should we care?

How to cope with not being able to go to Together for the Gospel...

Sinners in the hands of a wishy-washy God?

Why was Jesus crucified?

A guide to raising your hand in class...

Take a Moment...

What's next for Mark Driscoll...

Who will succeed John Piper?

Does Calvinism make people jerks?

Should Christians boycott Starbucks?

Singing the Blues with Jesus...

Take a Moment...

So, the computer I was using on Tuesday did not want to be helpful, ergo no Tuesday "Take a Moment..."

If you came looking for links, my apologies.

Hopefully we are back on track...

Two posts on Lent (a day late I know...): Tim Gombis and Joel Willitts

4 ways blogging has made me a better person...

Love your theological enemies...

An infographic of the Ordo Salutis (order of salvation)...

Go beyond the sex questions...

I Disagree With Your Disagreement...

Sometimes I enjoy disagreeing just to be a provocateur. And, as I near my one-year anniversary of blogging, I have noticed, followed, and contributed to not a few online disagreements. Some, admittedly, have had little couth (my actions included), and some, more recently, have had a bit more tact.

To be clear, I am not opposed to disagreement. In fact, one of the most important things I learned in seminary was that interacting (via reading, discussion, etc.) with those from a differing perspective is just as important (if not more so) as interacting with those from within your own boundary markers. If your actual desire is to engage people with issues (i.e. hand-to-hand, eyeball-to-eyeball), rather than simply fire rhetorical artillery from a safe point, we must cultivate our ability to understand their argument(s) from their vantage point.

So, then, how are we to disagree?

Each semester, I begin my various philosophy classes with three academic virtues for studying the discipline. It might not be obvious, but there can be a fair amount of disagreement (student v. student and, often, student[s] v. Instructor) as our differing philosophical perspectives (e.g. the existence of God, ethical systems, epistemological frameworks, etc.) become more apparent. Therefore, if these academic virtues can work towards fostering a healthy classroom environment, perhaps they might also be useful as we think through web-based disagreement. The three academic virtues are:

1. Contextual sensitivity,
2. Presuppositional awareness, and
3. Open-minded humility

Now, I cannot take credit for creating the definitions behind these virtues, but I can offer some insight into how these virtues might affect our disagreement(s).

First, contextual sensitivity ought to help us accept others’ differences (e.g. race, gender, philosophical/theological perspective, etc.) at face value. Second, presuppositional awareness ought to help us recognize both the presuppositions we bring to the “dialogical table,” as well as the presuppositions embraced by our dialogue partners. Third, open-minded humility ought to help us remember that we might be wrong in our suppositions, and, therefore, ought to come to the “dialogical table” with a deep sense of humility.

So, proceed in your disagreement(s), and may we do so with wisdom, grace, and humility.

Postscript: Please also be sure to read Stephen Altrogge's helpful insights (here and here) on how to disagree.

Take a Moment...

Much discussion surrounding Piper's recent message (note - I love John Piper; he's been a "game-changer" for me; but he still can make mistakes...): Rachel Held Evans, Tim Gombis, Michael J. Kimpan, Michael F. Bird, and J. R. Daniel Kirk - Part 1 and Part 2.

Kevin DeYoung offers 10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam; James McGrath responds...

Know your enemy...

Win the man, not the argument...

Truth...

Take a Moment...

Preston Sprinkle (a Pauline scholar) breaks down the New Perspective on Paul: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5...

Kevin DeYoung and Carl Trueman weigh in on the recent Elephant Room 2 chaos...

Sex-trafficking at the Super Bowl...

Should you publish your own book?

Why Jesus died...

Take a Moment...

Some preliminary thoughts on The Elephant Room...

Teens and Porn...

The Conversion of Saint Paul...

Freaking out about 2012...

Naturalism, Knowledge, and History...

Take a Moment...

A Christian Psychology and Reponse to Homosexuality...

Driscoll on Britain: Offensive, Wrong, or Neither?

Paul's Letters and Early Christian Worship...

How to remain a Christian while in Seminary...

You are not Jesus...

Why Tebow [Doesn't] Te-blows

I love hype.

I love college football for that singular reason.

I love the NFL playoffs for that singular reason.

Tim Tebow has now been involved with both.

But, frankly, the hype surrounding Tim Tebow is exhausting. Regardless of which side you are on…

There are some who say,

“It was called a God thing :) ‘God searches the whole earth to find those who’s hearts are perfect toward Him.’ He is blessing Tebow.”

… and there are others who say,

“Amazing grace? Lol. Grace has nothing to do with it. Why can’t he just be a good player?”[1]

In light of these statements, I would like to make two recommendations: For those thinking that God shines down His “special” grace allowing Tim Tebow to throw, for instance, 80-yard game winning touchdowns – please note that this is highly unlikely, if not wholly (not to mention the apparent lack of special "grace" in his most recent 9/26 completion/attempts ratio with one fumble lost). But, conversely, for those thinking that grace has nothing to do with Tebow’s success – please note a theological concept entitled “ common grace”, not to mention also considering God’s sovereignty.

Proponents of Tebow’s overt witness for Jesus, those claiming that he gives all the glory to God and thereby receives (or deserves) God’s special blessing on his professional football career need to remember that God does not need us (Acts 17:24-25), as though he needed anything (which includes our worship or attribution of glory to God – although this also does not mean we should not worship and glorify God), and thereby is not required to bless anyone in anyway for their overt witness or attribution of glory to God.

Conversely, those opposing Tebow’s outspoken faithfulness need to consider that God “makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45), ergo there is a certain measure of “grace” that is bestowed upon Tim Tebow (and everyone in actuality) because of God’s overarching graciousness towards the world and people he created.

Now, I have heard the retort of those opposing Tebow (or at least the hype surrounding Tebow), “How can God care about a football game when 30,000 children die everyday from preventable disease?” I think the answer is twofold: God’s sovereignty and the problem of evil. However, being that this post is specifically about Tim Tebow (not to mention the time and spatial restraints), perhaps that topic is best deferred to a different post.

But, maybe, just one thought on God’s sovereignty: if we affirm Scripture as inerrant and authoritative (which I do), and we have texts indicating that “God does as He pleases” (Ps. 115:3; 135:6), and that everything is done “according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11), perhaps what might be safest is recognizing that God is able and actually powerful and magnificent enough to govern everything from molecular biology to supernovas, from tsunami waves to healthy childbirth, from throwing a football to [insert your potentially meaningless task].

In conclusion, I think that moderation is best (isn’t that true for most things?). Whether you affirm God’s “special” grace in Tebow’s every step, or think that grace has nothing to do with it…you need to relax.

---

[1] Note that both of these statements are direct quotations from Facebook (1 comment and 1 status), and both are from professing Christians.

Jesus > Religion: Some Thoughts on the Bethke Video Chaos

If you can answer in the affirmative to being alive and within the stream of Evangelical Christianity, then you have most likely seen the following video:

And, if you scuttle around the blogosphere you will have most likely seen not a few critiques of this video. However, the critique that I linked actually brought about more frustration than the video did (I think I would prefer you to read Kevin DeYoung's critique or Jared Wilson’s critique instead).

There is a certain sense of arrogance-laced theological one-upmanship that is becoming the pervasive norm within the blogosphere (some might even argue that what I am attempting to do here feeds the problem). One particular introspective moment I had after reading Fitzgerald’s post was how I often find myself desiring to critique (wherein my focus is on finding anything negative within the argument/discussion/message/idea), instead of, rather, focusing on the positive aspect(s) of said argument/discussion/message/idea.

So, instead of critiquing Fitzgerald’s post (which it could certainly stand to have – oops), or instead of critiquing the video itself (which has already been done ad nauseam), in this instance, I want to briefly reflect on three parts of agreement with Bethke’s video.

1. And just because you call some people blind, doesn't automatically give you vision...


My fear is that this statement is more true than we recognize. My fear is that within, primarily, American Evangelicalism we have those within the varied theological streams using their theological one-upmanship or pseudo-biblical understanding to mask their inability to see their own blindness (Luke 6:39), or to portray themselves as pure, when they are, in fact, not (Matt. 23:27-28). May God grant me the grace to repent when I see this particular sin within my own life.


2. See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core. It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores...


The core is sin; which leads to the need, which is new life in Jesus Christ. Jesus came (at least in part) to redeem a people and provide for them an opportunity for transformation. Moralism, which is probably the better term to use (instead of religion), can only offer behavior modification; it can only offer the "10 steps to a more fulfilled life." But moralism lacks eternal significance. Christ and what he accomplished at the cross is what we ought to focus on, not behavior modification.


3. See because religion says do, Jesus says done...


Now, this depends; if Bethke is insinuating that religion is the means by which we are accepted by Christ, than the separation is appropriate (Eph. 2:8-9); however, we ought to also remember that Christ has called us to obedience (Matt. 28:20). Moreover, I believe that one of the most over-looked themes in the New Testament is that of patronage (see David deSilva's excellent work Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture). Patrons would often extend an unwarranted gift to a patronee, but then would expect some type of return, which, if not reciprocated would have led to a great offense for the patron and shame on the patronee. In short, if Eph. 2:8-9 describe how "religion" does not provide any salvific efficacy, Eph. 2:10 describes the importance of "religion" in the post-conversion life.


In sum, there is much to say both positively and negatively in regards to this video and its varied responses. My hope is that we would learn to not necessarily retreat from disagreement, but that we would, rather, look to affirm truth and disagree with charity.