Baumbach Blog

New Blog Site

2006-09-05T08:35:00.000-05:00

I've started blogging again, after a bit of time off. You can find the new page by clicking the post title.

Feasting and fasting

2004-09-07T09:21:00.000-05:00

In a recent post to his blog, Doug Wilson wrote of the benefits of observing a weekly "Sabbath Feast" on Saturday night (you can read the post here). What a fantastic way to "rejoice and be glad" in the Lord's Day! I'm going to suggest, though, that this rather intuitive suggestion seems strange to many of us because of our already-existing abundance. God has richly blessed all of us in this land--we feast nearly every day of the week, at least when it comes to the amount and availability of food. We feast so much that we have to have places like Weight Watchers to teach us how to avoid food! This kind of "feasting", instead of instructing us about the character of the Lord, serves to reveal our idolatries and lusts. Our god is our collective stomach, and we worship it throughout the day without even thinking about it. Our abundance is crowding out or faithfulness.

As God's people, we need to be people who are accustomed to living simple lives. This doesn't mean that we all need to move out to rural Missouri and grow all of our own food (although it might not be a bad idea for some of us). A weekly feast would be much more meaningful, though, if we were more disciplined during the other six days. We are too busy and too lazy to prepare simple meals--so we all end up at Ruby Tuesday or Burger King, consuming more calories than we could possibly consume on Thanksgiving Day! And when was the last time any of us actually missed a meal (for reasons other than being late to work)? An occasional, purposeful fast would probably teach us a great deal about how to feast.

All things considered, we should strive to live simply, give thanks to God for the plenty we are surrounded by, and save the feasting for the first day of the week! The only folks endangered by such a lifestyle would be those who run the local Weight Watchers . . .

Laughing in his sleep

2004-08-31T19:16:00.000-05:00

I went into my son's room to wake him up this morning (its a call day for me, so I don't go into work until later in the day) and, right as I was getting ready to nudge him awake, he started laughing. Not an hysterical laugh like when I tickle him until he collapses; no, this was a good, round, hearty giggle-to-overt-laughter kind of thing. What a great moment. I've never seen anyone laughing in their sleep (and, of course, I think my son's got a particularly contageous one) and it startled me at first. When he stopped, I woke him and asked him what he was laughing at. He didn't remember, just "a funny dream, I guess." Praise the Lord for laughter--what other God would allow his people to laugh even while they sleep?

Kudos to Moscow . . .

2004-08-27T10:57:00.000-05:00

For the three or four of you who actually read this blog, this is probably restating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway. Much of my thinking regarding the Bible and its application to life has come via the ministries of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Douglas Wilson is the pastor of this church; the church's other ministries include the magazine Credenda/Agenda, a publishing house called Canon Press, Classical Christian schools called Logos School (through High School) and New St. Andrews College, and a sundry of other things that you can read more about at their website. I have never attended this church, nor have I met Pastor Wilson, but my thinking has been deeply affected by both, and to both I am grateful. Much of my musings on this blog come from thoughts provoked by someone in or around Moscow; when they are direct quotes, I will of course cite them, but just consider this a blanket "thanks" to Pastor Wilson and all the folks "out there." If you are actually reading this, you would probably also be interested in Wilson's blog, as well as Peter Leithart's blog. Again, thanks guys. Keep up the good work.

More book recommendations

2004-08-27T10:50:00.000-05:00

The following is from an e-mail I sent to our Sunday School class regarding some suggested reading material. The titles of the books are hyperlinked, so clicking on them should take you to where you can purchase them.

The book I'm going to use as a source for our upcoming study of Samuel is by Peter Leithart, and is called A Son To Me. We won't expect to cover all the material in it for the lessons, just hit the high points. Reading along is not a requirement; I only provide this for those interested in "digging deeper" than we can get in a thirty minute SS class.

Here is a list of book recommendations covering some of the material we've been studying the past few weeks during our "Introduction to reading the Old Testament" series. All of these are excellent; I've listed them in order of recommendation:

-Through New Eyes by James Jordan--a great book on OT imagery and its use in forming a Biblical world view
-A House for My Name by Peter Leithart--an overall survey of the OT, complete with study questions
-The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress--great book on seeing Christ in the Law
-Primeval Saints by James Jordan--an excellent study of the overall themes of the book of Genesis
-He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt--great book on reading and understanding OT narratives

Sex and pietism

2004-08-27T08:52:00.000-05:00

It seems Viagra has added a new twist to its advertising: in several new ads, the featured "middle-aged man" has his head strategically positioned in front of the "V" of the medicine's name, giving the man the appearance of horns coming out of his head. "Return to the mischief" (or something to that effect) the caption reads. Sex, it seems, at least to the Viagra people (and also to the ad's assumed audience) is equated with sin in general and Satan in particular. At least if you're going to enjoy it.

An interesting phenomenon of this age is the open acknowledgement by the world that sexual promiscuity is indeed sin. Las Vegas calls itself "Sin City", referring blatantly to that town's affinity for lasciviousness; "What happens here stays here," the slogan says, as the commercial reporting what happens there goes out to all parts of the country. The world, it seems, is proud of the equation of promiscuous sex with sin.

We, as Christians, should be happy to concede this point, as it is one that we've been making for thousands of years. However, we should also be quick to explain ourselves. A middle-aged or elderly man enjoying sex with the "wife of his youth" is most certainly not sinning, and should not accept his equation (at least in the mind of the Viagra folks) with Satan. Enjoyment of sex within the boundaries set by the Lord is a vital aspect of the Christian life--just ask Solomon or St. Paul. Once again, we see that the law is gracious--it presents to us the boundaries wherein we may enjoy our fellowship with Yahweh and one-another. Is God being miserly in confining our sexual activities to marriage between a man and a woman? Of course not--he's being good to us. We need to remind ourselves of this constantly.

The temptation to concede the whole point to the world, however, places us in danger of giving in to the evils of pietism. Think for a moment about alcohol--should we all do without wine and beer because some use it irresponsibly? Obviously not, but that hasn't stopped us from substituting grape juice for the element the Lord gave us to represent his blood in the Supper. What about sex? Until we as Christians decide to think and act like Christians, the world will take its point and we will remain pietists.

Sunday School Notes from 8/22/04

2004-08-21T11:54:00.000-05:00

Introduction to the Old Testament III: Common Themes, Continued
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, August 22 2004

I. Miscellaneous Other Themes
a) Faith vs. unbelief (as opposed to Law vs. Gospel)
b) Water
i) Flood/baptism (compare 1 Peter 3:20b-21)
ii) Wells (throughout Genesis)
(1) Digging wells (or having them filled up—Gen 26:15)
(2) Meeting and marrying by wells (Isaac/Rebecca, Jacob/Rachel, Moses, Jesus [Jn 4])
iii) Red Sea (Exodus 14) and Jordan River (Joshua 3)
(1) Both waters divided
(2) Both delivered God’s people into a “land of promise”
(3) Again, note the inescapable connection to baptism—water kills the wicked and delivers the righteous
c) Garden/Promised Land/Tabernacle/Temple vs. “east”, “wilderness”, etc.
d) Kingly lordship (often associated with wearing robes) vs. slavish servitude
i) Example of Joseph (Gen 37ff)
ii) Jacob (“robe” of animal skin) and Esau (mess of porridge)
iii) Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4)
iv) Israel as a whole
(1) Was supposed to rule the nations for God’s glory (“creation mandate”)
(2) Saw great splendor during David/Solomon
(3) Ended up servile under pagan rulers (Ezra/Nehemiah)
e) Egypt
i) Many of the great among God’s people either sojourn in or arise from here
(1) Abraham (Gen 12)
(2) Joseph (Gen 37ff)
(3) Moses (Exodus)
(4) Jesus
ii) Pharoah as the prototype of God’s hardening (Romans 9)

II. Abraham = the primary prototype of the faith we as Christians are to have
a) Romans 4:1-25
i) Paul, in arguing for justification by faith alone, is setting forth the example of Abraham
ii) He begins with statement found in Gen 15:6, that Abraham “believed Yahweh, and it was counted unto him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3)
iii) He then contrasts the verbs “worketh” (or “to work”) and “believeth” (or “to believe”) (4:4-5)
(1) Working is connected with the verb “reckoned” in the KJV; Paul says the “reward” is “reckoned” to him that works, but out of a sense not of grace but of debt
(2) Believing is connected, again in the context of “reward”, with the verb “counted”; belief “on him that justifieth the ungodly” is therefore counted for righteousness
(3) Thus, the righteousness that was counted to Abraham came not because of what he did but because of what he believed
iv) Paul then shows us that this righteousness was counted to Abraham before he was given the sacrament/sign of circumcision (4:10-11)
(1) This makes him the father “of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also” (4:11)
(2) So, Abraham’s faith and belief was the paradigm for both the Jews (who claimed him) and the gentiles; Paul is trying to show that justification comes not from the law that was available only to Jews, but from faith that is accessible to all
v) Paul then goes on to describe and characterize this faith in detail; this is a pivotal point of understanding for us, because this is the faith that we are asked to have (4:18-22)
(1) Notice first in v. 18 what Abraham believed: “. . . that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken [in Gen 15:5], ‘So shall thy seed be’”.
(2) Verse 19 tells us why this was such a hard thing for Abraham to believe—he was nearly dead, “about an hundred years old”!
(3) Now for the nuts and bolts: look at vv. 20-22
(a) He “staggered not” at the promise of Yahweh through unbelief
(b) Instead, he was “strong in faith”
(c) This strength of faith gave “glory to God”; how? Abraham was “fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform” (v. 21)
(d) Verse 22: “And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness”. Abraham was given righteousness for not staggering at the promises of Yahweh, as unbelievable as they were (Heb 11:1)
(e) This is the kind of faith, the strength of faith and belief that was “counted for righteousness”; and this is the kind of faith and belief we, too, are asked to have
b) Galatians 3:6-9, 29
i) Paul is using the same theme here in Galatians to argue again for the avenue through which righteousness is imputed to God’s people
ii) Note in verse 7 that it takes faith, not physical connection, to be a child of Abraham; this recalls Paul’s argument from Rom 4
iii) In verse 8, Paul makes the connection between what was promised to Abraham and the gospel
(1) The gospel is what Abraham believed when he was told in Gen 12:3, “In thee shall all nations be blessed”, although Abraham himself didn’t have a picture of Jesus of Nazereth in his mind
(2) Abraham, though, in believing that Yahweh would do this, was in fact also believing in how Yahweh would do this—belief in God always encompasses belief and trust in all that he has done and will do
(3) Thus, Abraham believed in what Yahweh would do and how he would do it (thus, he believed in Christ)
iv) Again, Abraham’s faith is set before us as the example for us to follow—we, too, are Christ’s (like Abraham) and are therefore “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (v. 29)

Sin and gravel

2004-08-20T13:32:00.000-05:00

Proverbs 20:17 (in the Authorized Version) reads, "Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel." Doug Wilson has made the point that this is true, really, for all (or, almost all) sin. After all, sin wouldn't be enticing if it weren't "sweet" to begin with. As with most of the Proverbs, there are great applications to child-rearing here. We all-to-commonly tell our children to avoid sin because its bad. "Don't hit your sister." "Don't talk to your brother like that." We address their sin on a superficial level, often for no better reason than the fact that it bugs us. "If you two don't stop fighting like that, I'm gonna send you both to your rooms!" But kids are much savvier than that--they know, when we prohibit them from something, we are keeping them from something that, at least on the surface, has some sweetness. So often, though, in reprimanding them, we ignore this fact and present them with the dictum; knock it off or else, we say. It's bad to hit your sister. But the kids know that it is actually, in some circumstances, kind of fun to hit her--especially if you can get her to hit you back, all-but ensuring that she will be the one to get into trouble. If we dealt with their sins more honestly, though, we would likely short-circuit this thought process from the beginning. "I know it seems fun to do x; but you must remember that ultimately it will turn out for the worst." Sin is sweet at the first; but, the Proverb above tells us, it ends up as appetizing as a mouthful of gravel.

Kids must be taught the principle of foresight. Many things seem good at first, including many sins. That's why we do them. But, as the Proverb teaches us, it's the end that counts. And that means a mouthful of gravel. In nurturing our children in the Lord, they must be instructed to think through things, to see their end. It is ridiculous to think of a man who just jumped off of a 100-storey building and says "O.K. so far" around the 25th floor. We need to teach our kids to make the same kind of connection when they begin down the road of a particular sin. "O.K. so far" they might say after lying about cleaning their room, and they might be right--for a time. Wise parents, though, will teach them what gravel tastes like before it gets to the point that the serving of gravel is enough to do serious harm to them.

God on film?

2004-08-14T20:19:00.000-05:00

It is always intriguing to read what the unbelieving world thinks of Christians, particularly when it comes to our interactions with the media. In an article in the August 16 issue of Time (a periodical I don’t read all that often), there is a story about how Christian ministers are using movies to inspire their sermons and make the gospel message “relevant” to their congregations. While the story cites a smattering of pop evangelical ministers who seem to derive a smattering of pop evangelical messages (e.g., “Peter Parker [the hero of the Spider-Man movies] gives us all a chance to be heroic”) from a smattering of popular movies (including such raunchy fare as Catwoman and Anchorman), it inadvertently (and unintentionally, I might add) makes some very insightful points.

One minister/critic sets forth the rationale some modern pop evangelical ministers have for using film as a medium for communicating their message: “[The culture has] moved from wanting to understand truth rationally to understanding truth as it’s embedded in story.” The conclusion here is excellent, but the road to it is a little muddled, in my opinion. Faithful Christians have long understood the gospel as a part of the story—the Lord gave us a book of stories, not a systematic theology text. In other words, this is not some new discovery postmodernism has given to us. J.R.R. Tolkien, famous for authoring the Lord of the Rings trilogy, felt very strongly that not only was the Gospel a story, but all stories that resonate with us because of their “truth” are true because they contain at least a sliver of the Gospel in them. Thus, when we see Peter Parker’s desire to give up the exciting life of Spider-Man for the sake of those he loves, we see a hint of the self-sacrificial love of the Lord Jesus. For more on the idea of the Gospel as story, see this issue of Credenda/Agenda.

The problem, however, with the Time piece, or at least with the theology and worldview represented therein, is that the pop ministers are not trying to find the Gospel in the films, but instead are trying to find good messages that they see as “relevant” to their congregants (e.g., “Discovering my true identity” from Catwoman). They even cite Paul’s argument before the Areopagus as an example of this kind of “cultural relevance” argument. This is a dangerous first step down a very slick slope; Paul was calling those unbelievers to faith in the God Jehovah, not some touchy-feely sense of togetherness and wellness that one gets from many of the pop evangelicals quoted. The sermons of Paul were exegetical almost across the board—and that accusation could never be leveled at a pastor preaching a sermon series on “God on Film.”

God has revealed much to the world by his common grace—so much so, in fact, that all men are without excuse when they don’t turn to him (Romans 1). Lets all pray fervently that the pastors and shepherds of our land don’t turn away from the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” when presenting the Gospel to their congregations.

Sunday School Notes for 8/15/04

2004-08-14T11:48:00.000-05:00

Introduction to the Old Testament II: Some Common Themes of the Old Testament
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, August 15 2004

I. Seed of the Woman vs. Seed of the Serpent—Gen 3:15
a) All men, including all biblical characters, fall into one group or another
b) Can be thought of not as “marble and granite” (two different kinds of the same thing) but as “Yankees and Red Sox” (two different eternally opposed teams or armies)
c) Can be seen throughout biblical stories (some more obvious than others); examples . . .
i) David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)
(1) Note how Goliath is described (v.5)—“coat of mail” actually means “scales” (not used in any other description of armor in the bible)
(2) How does Goliath die? (vv.49-50)
ii) Other “head crushings”
(1) Abimelech (Judges 9, esp. v. 53-57)
(2) Dagon, the Philistine god/idol (1 Sam 5:1-7, esp. v. 4)
iii) Saul and Nahash (1 Sam 11)
(1) “Nahash” means “serpent”
(2) Saul’s first test as king is a battle against a “serpent”
(3) Compare to Adam in the Garden (Gen 3) and Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4)
II. Death and resurrection—God often uses death (or near-death) in the process of making (or re-making) things
a) The flood (Gen 6-9)
i) Wickedness is rampant, culminating in the Sethites (“son’s of God”) intermarrying with the Cainites (“daughters of men”)—Gen 6:1-2
ii) God breaks and destroys the world (note: He does this by water)
iii) Out of that death, He delivers a “remnant”—Noah and his family
iv) The world is renewed—note the parallels in language between Gen 9:1-7 and Gen 1:27-31
v) Compare all this language with the story of Moses’ deliverance as an infant from the Egyptians (Ex 2, esp. v. 3)
b) Joseph (Gen 37-50)
i) Jacob’s sons (God’s “people”) act wickedly
ii) Joseph “dies” by being sent to Egypt as a slave
iii) God raises Joseph from nothing to a position of power and influence
iv) God’s people are “saved” and “reborn” through the faithfulness of Joseph
c) Israel in the Exodus
i) God delivers His people “with a mighty hand” from Pharoah
ii) Israel turns to wickedness and grumbles
iii) God “destroys” His people (an entire generation) in the wilderness
iv) His people are reborn through “a remnant” being saved
v) The world is renewed in the Promised land
d) Exile and restoration
i) God destroys and exiles His people at the hands of Assyria (northern kingdom) and Babylon (Judah)—2 Chron 36, 2 Kings 24-25
ii) God “saves” a remnant of his people (e.g., Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah)
iii) His people are “reborn”, and Jerusalem is “renewed” (though less gloriously)
e) The death of “deep-sleep”; examples:
i) Adam “dies” in order that Eve may be “born” from him (Gen 2:21-23)
ii) Abram “dies” in order that God may covenant with him, promising him new life as father of nations (Gen 15)
III. Miscellaneous Other Themes
a) Faith vs. unbelief (as opposed to Law vs. Gospel)
b) Water
i) Flood/baptism (compare 1 Peter 3:20b-21)
ii) Wells (throughout Genesis)
(1) Digging wells (or having them filled up—Gen 26:15)
(2) Meeting and marrying by wells (Isaac/Rebecca, Jacob/Rachel, Moses, Jesus [Jn 4])
iii) Red Sea (Exodus 14) and Jordan River (Joshua 3)
(1) Both waters divided
(2) Both delivered God’s people into a “land of promise”
(3) Again, note the inescapable connection to baptism—water kills the wicked and delivers the righteous
c) Garden/Promised Land/Tabernacle/Temple vs. “east”, “wilderness”, etc.
d) Kingly lordship (often associated with wearing robes) vs. slavish servitude
i) Example of Joseph (Gen 37ff)
ii) Jacob (“robe” of animal skin) and Esau (mess of porridge)
iii) Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4)
iv) Israel as a whole
(1) Was supposed to rule the nations for God’s glory (“creation mandate”)
(2) Saw great splendor during David/Solomon
(3) Ended up servile under pagan rulers (Ezra/Nehemiah)
e) Egypt
i) Many of the great among God’s people either sojourn in or arise from here
ii) Abraham (Gen 12)
iii) Joseph (Gen 37ff)
iv) Moses (Exodus)
v) Jesus

Children and the Proverbs

2004-08-11T16:02:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of the previous post (about the Leithart book), isn't it interesting to note that the book of Proverbs, with all of its advice about the adulteress, the woman with out discretion, and the wife of noble character, was written for children (sons in particular, as Doug Wilson argues in Future Men--another must-read for parents of sons). Four times in the early chapters of Proverbs are we reminded by specific pleas from Solomon (4:1, 5:7, 7:24, 8:32) that not only did his audience include children, it was (and is) children. Even his plea regarding the enticements of the "strange woman" was to "ye children" (7:24). How often to we shy away from teaching these things to our children--"Wait 'till they're older," we say--only to find out that they've already started learning the opposite at school, the skating rink, the playground, etc. Parents, fathers in particular, should pay heed to this warning. Read Proverbs--all of it--with your children!

Book Recommendation

2004-08-11T15:54:00.000-05:00

I am about three "parables" in to Peter Leithart's Wise Words, found here. I cannot recommend this book highly enough, particularly to families with youngish children (late elementary-early teen)--although adults will find much encouragement from it as well. Leithart has taken principles from the book of Proverbs and woven them into short stories or parables rich with Biblical imagery. This book has been a great read for our family worship times, and has stimulated some wonderful discussion within our family. Give this one two thumbs-up, five stars, and a drool mark!

By the way, Leithart also has a weblog, found here. It is a little on the scholarly side for my every-day usage, but his sermon notes and meditations are insightful and encouraging.

Federal Vision stuff--Rich Lusk's responses

2004-08-07T09:12:00.000-05:00

Rich Lusk has posted a couple of responses to Michael Horton, Modern Reformation, and Westminster West. You can find them here and here. If you are at all interested in the "Federal Vision" discussion, I would highly recommend them to you.

Arthur a Pelagian?

2004-08-07T09:04:00.000-05:00

I saw the new movie "King Arthur" this week. Fantastic film. It does, however, deserve its PG-13 rating, more for rather adult sexual situations that manifest themselves (rather unnecessarily, I might add) than a tremendous amount of graphic violence (most of the violence, while present, is tastefully-done). They have done a surprisingly good job of dwelling on the connection between faith and "kingly-ness" that the Proverbs so often speak of. It is interesting, however, that while they made Arthur a Christian, they connected him to Pelagius instead of, say, Augustine. Oh well, you can't expect too much from an unbelieving Hollywood. Enjoy this film for what it is, though, and you'll be pretty satisfied.

Understanding Dispensationalists

2004-08-07T08:24:00.000-05:00

I spent the last week on vacation catching up on some reading for Sunday School, etc. I read a few essays out of the book Continuity and Discontinuity, found here; this is a collection of essays in a point-counterpoint format between Covenant theologians and dispensationalists.

I have never seriously paid much attention to what the Dispensationalists have to say--at least, the scholarly dispensationalists. We are all familiar with the popular dispensationalists (who hasn't heard of the "Left Behind" series?) even if we don't know them by name. It seems that they, by winning the hearts of most publishers of popular Christian books, have won the day when it comes to the average Christian's understanding of the Scriptures, the OT in particular. By God's grace, I was brought up in my faith in the richness of Covenant Theology, and always had a healthy skepticism for their elaborate end-times schemes, their supposedly "literal" interpretation of Biblical prophesy, and their circle-the-wagons mentality towards Christian living. However, many modern American evangelicals take what they say for granted. I'm hoping to uncover some of the fallacies of their thinking in some upcoming Sunday School lessons, which is the reason I was reading some of their stuff this week.

Two things struck me as I read. The first is the fact that there is really a wide swath of common ground between the two points of view. I had always understood dispensationalists to claim that there were different means of salvation for different "dispensations" of God's dealing with mankind. While this idea was set forth in the original Scofield Reference Bible, it has since been refuted by more recent dispensational scholarship (as set forth, I understand, in the New Scofield Reference Bible). Apparently, there is much common ground, at least on the scholarly level.

The second thing that struck me was how hyper-individualized the dispensationalists are--and this, I suspect, is the source of their difficulties with covenant theology in the areas in which they do disagree. They spend a great deal of time trying to figure out exactly what it was that an OT believer actually had faith in. How, they ask, can a Covenant theologian really believe that Abraham had faith in Jesus of Nazareth? How could he have applied the "Four Spiritual Laws" to Joseph? How could someone like Rahab have been a "Christian"? What I think they are missing is an understanding of God's covenant faithfulness to his people, not simply to individuals. God's purpose in redemption is to save a people unto Himself, not just to be the Lord and Savior of individual lives. Taking that into account, we can look at a believer like Abraham, about whom we are told he "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness", and understand better the substance of his faith. Paul tells us in Galatians 3 that the gospel was preached to Abraham--and that gospel was "in you all nations shall be blessed." Abraham believed this, and it was credited to him as righteousness. He didn't have to follow some four spiritual laws to become connected with Yahweh; he simply believed what Yahweh told him. We, as Christians in the post-advent period of history, are in a same (but more glorious) position; we have the (now more gloriously-revealed) promises of God to be our God and take us for His people: we, too, must believe. The faith that is exercised in this belief is better understood by us as being in Christ--faith in his life, death, and resurrection that justify us before our Father and unite us to His glorified Son. But, in the bare bones reality of the situation, we have the same faith as Abraham. There is no difference. Dispensationalists want toot nit-pick particulars of a faith we cannot possibly be asked to understand, at least in the terms that they want to present it. Covenant theology teaches that God has always chosen his people and utilized the exercise of their faith/belief in attaching them to Himself. There is no discontinuity here at all.

Proverbs Chapter 2--Wisdom and deliverance

2004-07-31T21:48:00.000-05:00

Proverbs 2 continues with the theme of a father exhorting his son. Notice the verbs used in the first four verses--receive/incline to the words and commands of the Father, and cry out/seek wisdom; verse 5 continues: "Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." God is specifically identified in verse 6 as the source of wisdom. Note that the way for God's people to "understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity, yea, every good path" is only through this wisdom that only God gives. What this means is that all wisdom that we see in the world has its source in God--and true wisdom will lead the one who cries out and receives it to the LORD.

Wisdom, though, has a definite effect--positively for the one who has faith, negatively for the one who wallows in unbelief. Notice verse 10 and following: when wisdom "entereth into thine heart"--conversion language--the one converted will find himself delivered from folly. This deliverance is specifically from two types of folly--the "evil man" who "walks in the way of darkness" and the "strange woman" (obviously the adulteress spoken of in later chapters--she shows up often) whose paths lead "unto the dead". So, wisdom delivers from folly--and, as we have seen, folly, when left unchecked, leads to death.

The end of the matter? Seek wisdom from the LORD "as silver, and . . . as for hid treasures". It is the LORD that delivers--but He does so in time and space through the means of wisdom.

Sunday School Lesson, 8/1/04

2004-07-31T14:47:00.000-05:00

Introduction to the Old Testament I
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, August 1 2004

I. Introduction
a) “The great doctrine of the NT is that there is no new doctrine in the NT!”
b) Why and how do we study the Old Testament?
i) Does how we read and study the OT affect how we live today?
ii) Does how we read and study the OT affect how we read the NT?
c) Brief intro to/comments upon Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism
d) The OT stories are our stories, and contain the history of our people.
II. The OT forms the background and lays the groundwork for our understanding of all of the Word of God
a) Dt 5 & 6—God’s words are life-giving, and are to be passed on to the generatio to come forever (5:29)
b) Ps 19 (esp vv. 7-14)—note here that the “law” converts!
c) Ps 119:105—a guide for our “path”
d) Prov 2 (esp. vv. 1-9)—the words of the LORD are the source of wisdom, and will deliver from folly
e) Prov 7:1-3—words/commandments/laws are to be “kept”
III. The OT Scriptures are the Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles
a) Luke 4:1-13
i) Jesus defended himself from the attacks of Satan using the OT Scriptures
ii) Compliment this with Paul’s statement that the “sword of the Spirit” is the “word of God” (Eph 6:17)
b) John 3:1-21
i) Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee who knows the OT Scriptures
ii) Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding that the OT teaches that a man must be born again, born “of water and of the Spirit”, to enter into the kingdom of God (see esp. v. 10)
iii) The implication that Nicodemus, by knowing the OT, should have known this great doctrine of salvation
c) Luke 16:19-31, esp. vv. 27-31
i) Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, tells this parable
ii) In the parable it is Abraham (compare Gal 3:6-9), to whom the rich man appeals, asking him to send Lazarus (who would have to be raised from the dead to do so) to warn them of their danger and point them to salvation
iii) But Abraham tells him that “they have Moses and the Prophets—let them hear them” (v. 29)
iv) Thus, the word that came in the OT is sufficient unto salvation!
d) Luke 24:13-35, esp. vv. 25-27
i) Two disciples on the road to Emmaus
ii) Jesus shows them how all of the scriptures speak of and point to Him (v. 29)
e) 2 Timothy 3:14-17—note that Paul is talking about the OT here

Federal Vision Confusion

2004-07-30T14:21:00.001-05:00

The Reformed establishment seems to have been falling over itself in an effort to shout down the "Federal Vision". If you are unfamiliar with the "discussion", this hubbub started after a ministerial conference in 2002 at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA. Four pastors, who included Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissell, John Barach, and Steve Wilkins (the pastor of AAPC), presented lectures on various topics relating to covenental theology. Some of the teaching at this conference raised eyebrows and hackles, and a not-so-gracious "discussion" ensued (with one denomination in particular declaring all four men "heretics" without anything resembling due process). In response, AAPC held at its 2003 ministerial conference a point/counterpoint discussion between the four presenters from the year before and four men asked to respond to their teachings (Morton Smith, Joey Pipa, R.C. Sproul, Jr., and one other I cannot remember at this time). While this seemed, for the most part, a fairly helpful time of discussion, the parties involved continued to seem to be talking "past" one another; again, one of the respondents dropped the "H" bomb on Wilkins and company (i.e., called what they were teaching "heresy"). An MP3 CD with all of the 2002 and 2003 lectures and Q/A sessions can be purchased here, so you can decide for yourself if this rhetoric was justified.

Later in 2003, Knox Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida held a colloquium, moderated by Calvin Beisner, to try to hash out some of the differences among discussants; papers from both sides of the discussion have been published recently in a book form, available here or here. While a step in the direction of open discussion (at least no one called anyone else a heretic), one still gets the sense that the two sides are talking past each other, and that leaves interested bystanders like me frustrated that no one is really addressing the issues being raised by the men on the Federal Vision side. This problem, in my opinion, has worsened of late, since a conference at Westminster Seminary California and an accompanying issue of Modern Reformation from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and Michael Horton. The MR issue can be found here, and the WSC conference recordings can be found here. In my humble opinion, both of these have done a massive disservice to the entire debate, especially when one considers how solid groups like the Alliance and Horton's MR have been in the past. In fact, laymen like myself rely on these folks to help us sort through just these kind of issues! I hope in future posts to address what I see as the shortcomings of these critiques, but, for his part, Doug Wilson has dealt nicely with them from his side of the argument on his weblog under the heading of "Auburn Avenue Stuff" found here; see especially the "Yelling at my windshield" posts for his response to the WSC lectures.

In the most recent developments, Steve Wilkins has co-edited a compilation of essays on the Federal Vision thinking, entitled, appropriately, The Federal Vision. This can be found here. I have not made it through all of the essays in the book, but James Jordan's is the most intriguing I've read in a long time. As I said, I hope to post more as I have time and insight.

Comments enabled

2004-07-30T14:21:00.000-05:00

I've just enabled the comments, if any of my three readers want to make one.

Proverbs 1: Wisdom, Repentance, and Delight

2004-07-28T12:24:00.000-05:00

I'm beginning a study of Proverbs in my devotional time, and, the Lord willing, hope to post some thoughts here.

The Proverbs, like the rest of Scripture, routinely present an antithesis between faith and unbelief. Each portion of the Word may present this antithesis from a different angle, but the antithesis is always there. Proverbs paints that antithesis, at least in this first chapter, as being between wisdom and folly: wisdom is "the fear of the LORD", and folly is the despising of that fear (1:7). Wisdom rebukes and chastens us, and those that have faith (or wisdom) will turn towards it and away from folly at her reproof (1:23). Thus, repentance is a vital aspect of wisdom--repentance of folly and of unbelief.

When we encounter situations in our lives that demand faith--and what situation does not?--to fear the LORD is to be wise, and to be wise is to turn from unbelief and toward faith. But notice the language of the chapter: wisdom (and, as we're equating them, faith) does not exist in a void--it does something. To be wise is to act wisely in situations that arise. The son is told to "walk not in the way of" those despising wisdom. We are told this elsewhere in Psalm 1:1, and there we also learn that our delight is wrapped up in wisdom and faith. Faithfulness leads to delightful living, and delightful navigation through difficult situations. Wisdom equals faithfulness equals delight, so when we are turning from folly and seeking wisdom, we will find ourselves delighting in the LORD and in His Law.

Faith equals delight in the LORD, and delight means delight in obedience. Faithfulness shows forth in our actions, and our actions should always be guided by the perfect Law of the LORD. Repentance equals faithfulness, which equals delight.

Stone Mountain and faithful obedience

2004-07-25T16:06:00.000-05:00

I don't know why this trip last weekend to Stone Mountain park made me think so much, but here is another application, this time to child-rearing (and covenant faithfulness!).

As you may know, Stone Mountain is a giant piece of granite that is sticking out of the ground east of Atlanta, Georgia. Three sides of it are quite steep, requiring a Swiss Alps-style cable car to bring you to the top of it. Once deposited upon the mountain top, you are free to wander around seeing the sights. On the three steep sides, there is a fairly stout-looking fence that would prevent anyone who slipped over the side from falling all the way down.

Last week, we were discussing the subject of obedience with our kids, and relating their obedience (both to God and to us) to that of the Israelites right before passing into Canaan. In Deuteronomy 28, Moses is exhorting the people to remain covanentally faithful--and telling them that if they do so, the Lord will bless them far beyond anything their obedience deserves. If, however, they were to neglect God and be unfaithful in their actions, the Lord would bring all kinds of curses upon them.

Children often play on the edge of a firm boundary, and the mountaintop of obedience is no exception. We will set firm rules for our kids only to find them, instead of clustering safely around us, flirting with the very precipice of disobedience. Why do they push it? Why, instead of being as gracious as they can to their brother or sister, do they see how ungracious they can be before receiving a warning from Mom or me? But that is what they do time and again.

Exhortations to faithfulness and obedience, whether from the Lord or from parents, are always given out of grace for the ultimate goodness of those exhorted. This was true of Israel in Deuteronomy 28, and its true of my children today. Neither Israel, nor our children, realize the true danger they are in if they choose to disobey. Perhaps in our parenting, we need to stress this more--obedience is life, and disobedience leads ultimately to folly and death. Last week, I asked our children how comfortable they were playing on the top of Stone Mountain, knowing there was a sturdy fence to keep them from slipping off. Then I asked them what it would be like if there was no fence; where would they play? Would they be as comfortable playing near the edge? Uniformly, they said that they'd stay right at the apex, where it was safest. They realized the danger of straying too far, and reacted to that danger with a move of safety. "Why don't you treat obedience to us like that?" I asked them. The danger is (typologically, at least) the same and, past a certain age, there won't be much of a fence, either. We must exhort them to stay close to the "law" set down by us (and by the Lord)--obey and be faithful, and you will receive abundant life, blessings beyond your dessert. Stray and you will find folly and death. Israel received the same instruction from Yahweh, and we should heed it to. As Jesus said, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love" (John 15:10). "Obey, for my law is life . . ."

Sunday School Lesson Notes for 7/25/04

2004-07-24T23:49:00.000-05:00

Glorification
Relationship Builders Sunday School
Sunday, July 25, 2004

I) Introduction
     a)      The end result of Redemption is glorification (WSC Q/A 1)
     b)      Glorification has three objects
          i)        God is glorified in redemption
          ii)       God’s people are glorified in redemption
          iii)     God’s creation is glorified in redemption

II) God’s glorification in redemption
     a)      Ultimately, God has in His sights his own glory in all that he does
          i)        Would seem selfish/haughty if it were a man doing so
          ii)       However, would we want God to seek anything else? (He would not be God!)
     b)      Several aspects of redemption bring glory to God
          i)        God is glorified in the pervasiveness of redemption
               (1)   “all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD” (Num 14:21)
               (2)   see also Isa 11:9, Jer 31:33-34
               (3)   Entire nations are called upon to give the Lord their glory (Ps 29, 96:7-10), and God is glorified by “increasing the nation” (Isa 26:15)
          ii)       God is glorified in the means of redemption (or, how He does it)
               (1)   Salvation itself is said to glorify the name of God (Ps 79:9, 1 Pet 5:10-11)
               (2)   Salvation and delivery of “thy beloved” causes God to be glorified “above all the    earth” (Ps 108:5-6)
               (3)   God is glorified in the suffering, death, and victory of Jesus (Jn 12:28)
               (4)   Passing over transgressions glorifies the Lord (Pr 19:11, Isa 44:21-23)
          iii)     God is glorified in the effects of redemption, for example:
               (1)   God is glorified in supplying our needs (Phil 4:19-20)
               (2)   God is glorified in setting worship right (Lev 10:1-3)

III) His People’s glorification in redemption
     a)      Individual glorification has its basis in union with Christ
          i)        Jesus will come in his own glory—Titus 2:13
          ii)       Glorified together with Christ—Rom 8:17, Eph 2:5-6
          iii)     the church as a glorified bride—Eph 5:27
     b)      Our glorification is bound up and associated with the coming of Christ in glory
          i)        Glorification is glorification with Christ; that is, there is no glorification outside union with Christ
               (1)   Heresies that argue against this
               (2)   “unknown Christian”
          ii)       we will rejoice when Christ’s glory is revealed—I Pet 4:13
     c)      Other texts
          i)        The wise—those that fear God—shall inherit glory (Prov 3:35)
           ii)       God’s glory is our hope—Rom 5:2
          iii)     God’s glory shall be revealed in us—Rom 8:18, 1 Pet 5:1
          iv)     Glorification is the end of justification—Rom 8:30
          v)      Our being received into union with Christ glorifies us and God—Rom 15:7

IV) Creation’s glorification in redemption
     a)      The creation eagerly awaits its redemption/glorification—Rom 8:20-23
     b)      Creation will be made new—2 Pet 3:12-13, Rev 21:5
     c)      Reversal of the curse—Rev 22:3,4
          i)        Redemption leads to renewal of “all things”, from renewed men to a new heavens and a new earth
          ii)       The “old order” is not merely destroyed—it is renewed/resurrected (remember, God always works via death and resurrection—this is his pattern for redemption)

Stone Mountain

2004-07-18T22:47:00.000-05:00

We took the family to Stone Mountain park outside of Atlanta today. Apparently, Stone Mountain is the largest formation of granite of its kind in the world, and some daughters of the Confederacy types thought it was a good idea to carve a giant relief of General Lee, Lt. General T.J. Jackson, and Jefferson Davis into its side. Now, personally, Lee and Jackson (along with J.E.B. Stewart) are some of my all-time heroes (unfortunately but honestly, I know little about Jefferson Davis). However, a monument such as this seems rather unfitting for men of their valor and faith--they most likely would have balked at such a remembrance (while, I would bet a U.S.A. dollar to a C.S.A. dollar that Lincoln had started planning his monument before he was assassinated). Men like Lee and Jackson deserve to have their stories--their whole stories, mind you--told to sons and daughters for generations to come, both here in the South and in the rest of the country. Their legacy, though, would best be perpetuated by sons and daughters of the country they truly loved perpetuating their faith and hope in the Kingship of Christ. A monument in rock is one thing; thousands of Christian men and women crying out for the "crown rights of King Jesus" to be manifest in their cities, states, and nations is quite another. My guess is that both of these men (all three, maybe) would choose the latter. Unfortunately, up to this point in history, all they have is the former.

Thunder and lightning

2004-07-16T09:04:00.000-05:00

Last night, we had pass through Dothan one of the most memorable storms I have experienced. I left work to pick the kids up from our church, and drove through blackness interrupted at least once per second by brilliant flashes of lightning. Transformers were popping off as I drove around "the circle" that encompasses Dothan, trying to get across town to get to the kids before the "really big stuff" hit (whatever that was). When I got to them, and piled them into the car, I spent the better part of the evening consoling them (particularly my younger two) and comforting them. One of the thoughts that came to me as I did so (Leigh was out for the evening) was how comforting it was to realize that we will never be subject to the wrath of God. Throughout his Word, we read of lightning and thunder being associated with His conquering power and wrath (e.g., Ps 77:17-18, 144:5-6). Until we experience a real thunderstorm (like the one last night) though, we don't really have a good idea of what that means. We feel real fear when we see lightning strike a tree in the field--we can barely comprehend the raw power that is in a single bolt of lightning. Yet, we who are in Christ should feel real comfort when we see that; comfort because we know the wrath of God is monumentally more horrible than that single bolt of lightning and ear-splitting peal of thunder, but we need not fear that wrath because it was poured out for our sakes on Christ. So, a good thunderstorm should be an occasion to say "Glory to God!"--glory because we are saved from His wrath, glory because He is so powerful, glory because he will judge the wicked, glory because He keeps His promises to us!

Adam, Joseph, Joshua, and Jesus

2004-07-16T07:12:00.000-05:00

I've been finishing up the book of Joshua in my recent devotional times; coming to Chapter 24 today, some interesting parallels have come to mind. (I don't claim any of these as original--I've probably heard some of them, all of them, or some combination of them before. It just takes awhile for things to sink through my extra-thick calvarium.) We know, to begin with, that the names "Joshua" and "Jesus" are equivalents of a sort; so, right off, the Lord wants us to make some kind of connection in our study. The question that comes to mind at the end of Joshua, though, is this: Why does the author finish the book with the seemingly-random bit of information about the burial of the bones of Joseph?

First, it is important to note that these bones were buried in the same place at which Joshua celebrated the renewal of the covenant between Israel and Yahweh, Sechem. This was also the very place at which Yahweh appeared to Abram in Genesis 12. Now, Joseph spends a great deal of time in Chapter 24 detailing some of the events of redemptive history to that point, namely the calling of Abraham and Moses, as representatives, from a land of paganism "on the other side of the flood." Why would he do that at this point in time? Furthermore, in the process of telling the story, Joshua also adds the fact that Yahweh has now brought them to "a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not . . . vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat" (24:13). He then calls upon them to put away false gods and serve and fear Yahweh (24:14-15). What is the significance of all this?

I think we are being asked to make some connections here--there are parallel pictures being pained and refined before our eyes by the Lord, using the brushstrokes of redemptive history. First, there is a connection between Adam and conquering Israel (under Joshua). Both were graciously placed in a land not of their making; both were objects of the undeserved favor of the Lord. Both were called upon to have "dominion" over their land, to cultivate it, to guard it against enemies. And both were called upon to remain faithful to Yahweh. Both would fall, too--but fall with the larger view of redemption in mind. Adam fell (throwing the entire race into sin with him) that the Second Adam might come, bringing glory upon glory to the Lord in the process; Israel would fall, over the course of years, and eventually die, too, finally being removed from the "garden" of God's favor by the Roman Legions in A.D. 70--but, again, that she might, as the Bride of Christ, experience redemption and resurrection, and again bringing glory to the Lord. The fall of the race of Israel is an Adamic fall--and her resurrection united with Christ is a "Second-Adamic" resurrection.

Second of all, there are connections between Joseph and Adam. In a way, Joseph accomplished (at least in type) what Adam did not. Joseph entered a strange land as a servant/slave, and eventually rose to a position of power and influence unparalleled in the world at that time. Joseph, through humility and servanthood, assumed more and more dominion over the greatest empire in the world at that time, all the while serving the monarch, pharaoh. Joseph accomplished, in a way, what Adam was asked to accomplish, but did not--he was fruitful and multiplied, he filled "the earth" as he knew it with his influence (and Yahweh's). He served his master as Adam should have served Yahweh. But even his accomplishments required development in the eschaton--the Abrahamic promise was not completely fulfilled, in that, even in all his dominion, Joseph was still in a strange land. And that brings us to Joshua ("Jesus").

Joshua had completed the conquest of the land of Promise, and was now calling Yahweh's people to remember what that Promise was. He brought them back to the place where the original promise was made, and called them to renew their devotion to Yahweh. He had, in a way, fulfilled (or Yahweh fulfilled through him) the Promise made to Abraham. But again, the accomplishment would need further development in the eschaton. The bones of Joseph--a type of the Second Adam, who accomplished, in type, what the first Adam did not--were buried in the place of promise and covenant renewal. This second Adam was dead--there was a need for a new and more complete Second Adam in the future. Joshua, also a type of the Second Adam to come, was also dying--but he had matured the fulfillment of the Promise to another level. Land was now a reality--but the eschaton was still ahead. Two "second Adams" would perish in this place of Promise, showing the people (and us) that the real Fulfillment of the Promise was still ahead.

Jesus, the Second Adam, would come--He would be the true Adam, fulfilling covenant obligations, protecting and defending the Garden, multiplying his seed through his Bride. He would be the true Joseph, entering the land as a servant/slave, rising to dominion under His Father's authority, being buried in the Land of Promise in order to rise again and complete the Promise in the eschaton. He would be the true Joshua, leading the conquest of the "land of Promise"--which is, for Jesus, the nations (Psalm 2:8, and Psalm 110)--and calling people to return in faith and repentance to their covenant-keeping God. He would complete what those before Him did not. These are the "riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and . . . the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ" (Eph 1:18-20). Praise be to God!

Don't get the wrong idea . . .

2004-07-11T14:59:00.000-05:00

Lest anyone think I am a kook after reading the last post, I don't think spanking and dying are the same--just similar circumstances. I don't "kill" my children if they disobey, but the temporary discomfort from spanking is a type of "dying" to the sin being disciplined. Sheesh, don't be so sensitive . . .

Redemptive History and Disciplining Children

2004-07-11T14:06:00.000-05:00

Recent episodes of discipline in our household have caused me to make a connection. Just today, I was disciplining one of my children for disobedience after church; directions were clearly given and understood, but the "aforementioned child" refused to fully obey them. It made me ask, "Why do you do this? You know I am going to have to discipline you because of this sin; in fact, you have brought "the rod" on yourself. Why do you do it?" Upon reflection, the whole circumstance reminded me of Israel's sin in the face of God's graciousness. "Why will ye die" asked Jeremiah to the stiffnecked people (Jer 27:13). God had graciously chosen them out of all the nations of the earth; He had delivered them from slavery to the greatest nation on the earth at that time, graciously given them the Law at Sinai, sent them prophets to bear them his word, forgiven their backsliding, kept a remnant alive after exiling them in foreign lands, and eventually sent them his very Son. Yet, they chose to die. They chose the path of foolishness, for the Psalmist tells us that it is "The fool that says in his heart there is no God" (Ps 14:1), and that is exactly what they were saying by refusing to hear the word (and eventually, The Word) of the Lord. Israel chose to die, and so the Lord gave them over to "the rod". However, as with our episode today, the purpose of the rod is always to bring reconciliation and redemption. Christ came, and although Israel rejected Him, she would be grown up and completed by Him and through Him. God would refuse to give his people utterly over to ruin--He would redeem them through the rod. Isn't that what discipline is all about? The rod, when administered to our children, is done to lovingly bring our children back from their foolishness, for it alone is the instrument the Lord has ordained to do so (Prov 22:15). "Why would ye die?" the prophet asked Israel; "why would ye die" we ask our children as they foolishly disobey. This pattern of correction vividly demonstrates to our children that, although they have willingly brought this on themselves, this correction, although unpleasant at the time, will restore them to fellowship within our family. Our hope as parents is the same as our God's--that through the rod our children will learn grace, forgiveness, and fellowship. Through the rod, they will know redemption and reconciliation, and the foolishness of turning away from us (and, thereby, turning away from God) will be driven from them. And our Hope is secure, for it is founded upon the very word and promise of God!

The Church and Sodomites

2004-07-10T10:47:00.000-05:00

I just finished listening to an excellent sermon by Douglas Wilson entitled "The Real Sin of Sodom". Wilson has, in recent weeks, been unpacking the Church's responsibility for the current situation in which our country finds itself, that of recognizing sodomite marriage as legitimate. I highly recommend that all concerned Christians (yes, all you who want to pass petitions calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage, etc.) pay attention to what Wilson is saying here, and in his most recent issue of Credenda/Agenda, which can be found here . He places the responsibility for this public sin squarely on the shoulders of the Church. It is a very interesting and provocative read.

New to blogging

2004-07-09T20:07:00.000-05:00

This is my first attempt at blogging. I must admit that I am a little apprehensive, but I hope that this will be a good place to communicate with family and friends, interact with current events and issues, and keep up with my own thoughts. It is likely to be a bit clunky for awhile, until I really get the hang of it, so bear with me. Once things get going, I welcome any comments about the posts (just keep them clean--my wife and kids read my e-mail, too!).