On Reading

December 30th, 2007

How much time should Christian ministers give to reading?

One hour per day,

One day per week,

One weekend per month,

One week per year.

This last weekend was my weekend, and I didn’t get even half as much read as I hoped.  But, in a conversation with my wife, I realized that I haven’t posted any reading log posts in nearly 6 months.  So, I’m going back over the next few weeks and hope to post extensively on the books I read this year.

Soteriology and Theology Proper

December 23rd, 2007

In a conversation with a friend the other day, I was trying to articulate with words some views that I have come to accept over the last two years.  Basically, I believe that the doctrine of God is what serves as a foundation for the Christian faith.  Thus, it is the most important theological issue.  Period.

Furthermore, I have concluded (at least for the time being) that a Chrsitian is anyone and everyone who has faith in the Triune God of the Christian faith (i.e. - a conception of the Perfect Being, including a high, Chalcedonion, orthodox Christology).  This means, according to my interpretation, that faith in God is what saves, not faith in a right system of soteriology.  So, consider Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy for a moment.  Are these people who worship the Triune God not Christians because they misunderstand that justification is by faith alone and not by works?  Or, as one scholar has recently suggested, are members of the Eastern Orthodox tradition damned because they fail to understand the PENAL aspects of substitutionary atonement?  No, says I, they are saved because they have faith in the right God, and it is faith in God that saves, not faith in a particular understanding of justification, or faith in a specific view of the atonement.

But, what does the Bible have to say about this?  I just want to invite everyone to consider the larger narrative, particularly the Old Testament for a moment.  Throughout the Bible, God identifies His people by His name, not by a particular means by which He saves them.  Furthermore, God’s people identify themselves by which God they worship (i.e. - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), not the God who saves us apart from our works.  Maybe this is why the early councils of the church (Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon) were focused on clarifying questions as to which God Christians worship, and what the correct interpretation of the Bible was with respect to the doctrine of God.  The Patristic Era was a time where these issues were in view, and they were carefuly to call “heresy” any view which misunderstands who God is.  That is why doctrine as it pertains to Theology Proper is infinately more important than any other area (such as eschatology, soteriology, bibliology, anthropology, ecclesiology, etc.)

So, does this undermine the importance of justification by faith alone?  Does this support an eccumenical attitude that undermines local churches?  Only if your local church is built on calling other people heretics.  But, if your church is built on God first, the Gospel second, and denominational distinctives later, then this view actually promotes discussion in which emotions don’t necessarily flare and prevent actual dialogue.  Moreover, this in no way minimizes the differences between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other Protestant traditions.  In fact, it puts these distinctions in their proper place - differences which can be had among those who profess to worship the right God.

Such an attitude must prevail if we are to overcome the fundamentalism tearing the Body of Christ to shreds.  Otherwise, it won’t be long until the conversation that I had while studying for a Hebrew final becomes the norm.  You know, the one where my study partner said that everyone is wrong and damned to hell as a heretic because they don’t get the Gospel exactly right according to such-and-such interpretation of soteriology (which, in this case, included MacArthur, all Lordship Calvinists, but also all antinomians, anyone who believes that you can lose your salavation [including Luther, Calvin, and Wesley in particular] and pretty much everyone else who isn’t a dispensational, fundamentalist, Landmarkist Baptist).  I’m glad that I don’t go to that church!

Any thoughts?

Why the mode of baptism isn’t the main thing

December 8th, 2007

Discussions among Baptists of the correct mode of baptism often rely on faulty etymological arguments.  While the proper candidate for baptism is, at least for many, an issue worth dividing over, mode is not.  In his short article covering both OT and NT uses of the word for baptism, alastair.adversaria has done a terrific job of demonstrating that baptism is meant to portray much more than Southern Baptists have historically intended baptism to symbolize.

Check out his article: “On the Mode of Baptism.” 

Sky3c sponsored by Seven Jeans Sale