"If God is absolutely sovereign, in what sense can we meaningfully speak of human choice, of human will?"
D.A. Carson addressed this and other, broader questions in his 1975 doctoral dissertation. I know, I'm late to the party, but questions regarding God's sovereignty and "free will" still plague sincere believers today, and Carson's treatment is a good antidote to some of the muddled thinking going on out there.
In Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility Carson explores the Old Testament's apparent nonchalance about speaking both of God's absolute sovereignty and, at the same time, man's responsibility in choosing.
Carson also examines the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the Greek Septuagint, the apocrypha and psuedepigrapha, the targums and rabinnic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other intertestamental literature. To be honest, I skipped this. Call it lazy, but I went straight to the discussion of the tension as it appears in the gospel of John.
From John's gospel Carson explores all the different ways in which the apostle expresses the theme of divine sovereignty, particularly with regard to how men come to have faith in Jesus.
Much of Carson's discussion is technical, but much is also useful for pastoral concerns and the interests of laymen who wish to clarify their understanding of how God can be sovereign while man is held responsible, especially in the area of salvation.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Holiness of God redux
I had read R.C. Sproul's The Holiness of God while in college in the late 1980s, and recently finished a re-read.
Even when Sproul first wrote the book, he recognized that many people left the church because they found it boring. Yet the church that contemplates the holiness of God will be anything but boring.
I still have the same copy that I read 20 years ago, and it was interesting to see what I had marked the first time. This time around, one thing that stuck with me was Sproul's observation that while we talk a lot of God's grace, his love, his mercy, the Bible nowhere says "God is grace, grace, grace, or love, love, love, or mercy, mercy, mercy. It does say, however, that God is holy, holy, holy."
If you've previously read The Holiness of God, get it out and re-read it. If you never have, get one.
Even when Sproul first wrote the book, he recognized that many people left the church because they found it boring. Yet the church that contemplates the holiness of God will be anything but boring.
I still have the same copy that I read 20 years ago, and it was interesting to see what I had marked the first time. This time around, one thing that stuck with me was Sproul's observation that while we talk a lot of God's grace, his love, his mercy, the Bible nowhere says "God is grace, grace, grace, or love, love, love, or mercy, mercy, mercy. It does say, however, that God is holy, holy, holy."
If you've previously read The Holiness of God, get it out and re-read it. If you never have, get one.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: Covenant Theology
[This is the fourth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear -- www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com -- regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]
Among the arguments that one cannot be Southern Baptist and Reformed is the notion that to be Reformed means, necessarily, that one also hold to "Covenant Theology." As Puryear defines it, however, the point of disagreement comes primarily into focus on the issue of paedobaptism: the practice of baptizing infants because they are de facto members of the covenant by virtue of having been born to believing parents.
Again, Puryear falsely presumes that everyone claiming to be Reformed Baptist adopts paedobaptism, or, if they deny it, they are either mistaken or deceiving themselves and others. This is demonstrably false, and a tactic of logic unbecoming serious discussion of issues.
Even so, let it be known that this Reformed Baptist -- and all the others I know -- reject paedobaptism and that aspect of "Covenant theology" decried by Puryear and others.
However, is it prudent to pit "covenant theology" against "Baptist theology," as Puryear expressly does?
There is no doubt that in the Old Testament God promises a "new covenant." In the New Testament, Jesus describes himself as securing the "new covenant" by the shedding of his blood and the breaking of his body, both of which we commemorate in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Hebrews tells us that Christ obtained for us a "better covenant" through his sacrificial death and perfect obedience.
This "new covenant" -- of grace, as it were -- is absolutely crucial to our understanding of grace, the security of the believer, salvation, and sanctification. No Southern Baptist should acquiesce to any theological framework that rejects an understanding of our place in this covenant.
"Covenant theology" is traditionally framed against an understanding of "dispensational theology," and in that framing, Southern Baptists occupy a sort of de-militarized zone between them (although dispensational theology is quite popular with some prominent Southern Baptists). Puryear quotes Bart Barber's description of covenant theology in terms of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments,and, it would seem, how this relates to the "pattern" of the New Testament church. It is unclear what this means, but apparently has to do with membership in the body: in the Old Testament, membership was determined by blood; in the New Testament, by conversion and profession (Baptism).
But this treatment makes two fundamental errors. First, covenant has to do with much more than the determination of membership lists, and cannot be limited to an expansion of the 'church' from ethnic identity to trans-ethnic spiritual identity: the terms of covenant are also vital. Second, it comes to rest in a position that seems satisfied not merely with a Southern Baptist understanding of 'new covenant,' but with an understanding of Southern Baptist thought with 'no covenant.'
Puryear and others have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. They have identified an objectionable aspect of "covenant theology" (which is essentially Presbyterian), pinned that proverbial tail on the "Reformed Baptist" donkey, and cast them all out of the SBC barn.
Among the arguments that one cannot be Southern Baptist and Reformed is the notion that to be Reformed means, necessarily, that one also hold to "Covenant Theology." As Puryear defines it, however, the point of disagreement comes primarily into focus on the issue of paedobaptism: the practice of baptizing infants because they are de facto members of the covenant by virtue of having been born to believing parents.
Again, Puryear falsely presumes that everyone claiming to be Reformed Baptist adopts paedobaptism, or, if they deny it, they are either mistaken or deceiving themselves and others. This is demonstrably false, and a tactic of logic unbecoming serious discussion of issues.
Even so, let it be known that this Reformed Baptist -- and all the others I know -- reject paedobaptism and that aspect of "Covenant theology" decried by Puryear and others.
However, is it prudent to pit "covenant theology" against "Baptist theology," as Puryear expressly does?
There is no doubt that in the Old Testament God promises a "new covenant." In the New Testament, Jesus describes himself as securing the "new covenant" by the shedding of his blood and the breaking of his body, both of which we commemorate in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Hebrews tells us that Christ obtained for us a "better covenant" through his sacrificial death and perfect obedience.
This "new covenant" -- of grace, as it were -- is absolutely crucial to our understanding of grace, the security of the believer, salvation, and sanctification. No Southern Baptist should acquiesce to any theological framework that rejects an understanding of our place in this covenant.
"Covenant theology" is traditionally framed against an understanding of "dispensational theology," and in that framing, Southern Baptists occupy a sort of de-militarized zone between them (although dispensational theology is quite popular with some prominent Southern Baptists). Puryear quotes Bart Barber's description of covenant theology in terms of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments,and, it would seem, how this relates to the "pattern" of the New Testament church. It is unclear what this means, but apparently has to do with membership in the body: in the Old Testament, membership was determined by blood; in the New Testament, by conversion and profession (Baptism).
But this treatment makes two fundamental errors. First, covenant has to do with much more than the determination of membership lists, and cannot be limited to an expansion of the 'church' from ethnic identity to trans-ethnic spiritual identity: the terms of covenant are also vital. Second, it comes to rest in a position that seems satisfied not merely with a Southern Baptist understanding of 'new covenant,' but with an understanding of Southern Baptist thought with 'no covenant.'
Puryear and others have thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. They have identified an objectionable aspect of "covenant theology" (which is essentially Presbyterian), pinned that proverbial tail on the "Reformed Baptist" donkey, and cast them all out of the SBC barn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)