|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Israel's Apologetic and Our'sI am reading through Genesis right now, and just wanted to post some
thoughts that I have gleaned from my reading and discussing with
someone much more knowledgeable than I. There has been much ink
spilled over the authorial nature of the Pentateuch in general and
Genesis in particular. Formgeschichte (Form Criticsm) sought to break
the text of the Pentateuch into separate authors of seemlingly
different types of passages, thus denying essential Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch. This debate I do not wish to delve into, but I will
make my presuppositions known: I do hold to essential Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch and I believe that God inspired the redactors of the
Pentateuch who edited it. I have also been heavily influenced by
Biblical-Theological readings of the Bible, so that is what I will be
attempting.
After finishing chapter one and moving on to
chapter two (there are two separate recounts of creation in chapter one
and two), I found something interesting. What I found was that YHWH
was not used until chapter two after God had created Adam. This is
especially important, because YHWH is the covenant name of God, and the
one he revealed to Moses in Exodus chapter 3, where God recounted the
salvation history (De Heilshistorische) of the Israelites before the
bondage of slavery. It is significant that it was used after the
creation of Adam, and not before because it represents a covenantal
relationship. God created man after His likeness to worship and bring
glory to Him.
Gleaned from conversing with someone else, it
is interesting that it was not used in chapter one, because chapter one
discusses a more general creation and counteracts the pagan notions of
deity of the day. God created the heavens and the earth and is the
sovereign Lord of the universe. He is the covenant God and we owe our
obedience to Him. The pagan deities are impotent to save, but as we
see in chapter 3 after the fall (the protoevanglion), God was going to
come in the flesh and save His creation, to restore it to its pre-fall
glory.
I think this is significant for apologetics. Often when
we read apologetics, it is purely Philosophical/Theological in
orientation, but I think there is a need for a biblical-theological
apologetics, as well. We all share the imago dei, and instead of
providing "proofs" for the truth of Christianity, it needs to be lived
out. We should show others what the restored humanity looks like.
Christ's redemption restored us to God. May we show others what it is
like to be truly human.
| | |
| A Kuyperian VisionAbraham Kuyper was a brilliant man, whom the Lord used to do many
things for his Kingdom (he was, among other things, a Theologian,
Statesman, University founder and Philosopher). The Dutch movement,
which has Kuyper as a key figure, called Neo-Calvinisme (Neo-Calvinism)
has had a far reaching impact on my life.
Originally
Neo-Calvinisme was a polemical term used against Kuyper and his
followers (for background info on this see John Bolt's excellent work,
"A Free Church Holy Nation" for background information). However, now
many in the Dutch Reformed camp gladly take this title and what it
stands for. What exactly was Kuyper's vision and how is it applicable
to today's Postmodern, Post-Christendom society?
Kuyper's
oft-repeated claim, "There is not one square inch over all of creation,
over which Jesus, who is Lord over all does not claim, 'MINE!'" has
become axiomatic of sorts in some circles (see his "Sphere Sovereignty"
in 'Abraham Kuyper: A Cenntenial Reader' for a fuller explication). It
is indeed a far-reaching and beautiful statement of the sovereignty of
the one true Lord. This statement reflects the rejection of any sort of
dualism on the part of Kuyper. This was not only a rejection of the
many dualisms of the pietism of that day, but also of the liberal
academy (such as that between the "Jesus of faith" juxtaposed with the
"Jesus of history"), of which he was intimately familiar.
Another
important idea in the though of Kuyper is that of the antithesis
between believing and unbelieving thought. This was to become very
prevalent in the thought of a couple of different schools of thought,
such as that of Reformational Philosophy (seen in the thought of Herman
Dooyeweerd and Th. Vollenhoven and their followers), and more of an
apologetics route (seen in the thought of Cornelius van Til (and those
who take his approach).
This is one of Kuyper's most important
achievements, I think. It has been the one that has helped me to
develop a truly Christian philosophy (which is the goal of
Reformational Philosophy and van Til's apologetics). However, his view
on common grace also stirred many in Dutch Reformed community, to make
the understatement of the year. While, non-believers do not believe in
the Triune God, they still are not totally inept and have done many
good things. This is how Kuyper justified that fact, and I think he was
correct.
There are many other things I would like to say,
but alas, time and space constrain me. What does this mean for us
today? It means that we should take the good from unbelieving thought
and engage it critically from a distinctly Christian vantage point.
This is all too important as the west becomes more and more
Post-Christian.
As for Postmodernism, I think it can understand
Postmodernism as a Theological entity (which I think it is). It can
appropriate the thinkers without accommodation.
In the end, Abraham Kuyper is my hero, plain and simple! | | |
| ENTPSo I took a test to try and see if I could maybe see what personality type I resemble, and it said that I was an ENTP. I read what it had to say about ENTP, and it described me to a "T". I just thought this was interesting.
| | |
| Worldviews behind Music
I
love music. I grew up around music, since my dad is a professional
musician in country music. However, often enough, we do not think
about the lyrics we listen to and the influence which they have on us.
I am as guilty of this as the next guy. There are two songs which I
enjoy listening to, but the more time I have listened to them I have
just had to wonder what is the worldview behind these songs? Two songs
I would like to look at for a second are John Mayer's "Waiting on the
World to Change" and Nickelback's " If Everyone Cared".
To my
knowledge, neither band claims to have any roots in Christianity, but
my critique will rest on a Christian theological reading of their views
implicit in their music. I critique the two songs together because I
believe they are saying the same thing through diffferent lyrics.
First
Mayer's song: The song has a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing
melody (I am not a huge fan of Mayer, though, so this is one of my
favorite songs of his). It is well-written, and I get the idea that
Mayer believes in what he is singing. My critique will rest on the
chorus on us "waiting on the world to change." My question which I am
posing is thus: is it possible for the world to change? If it is so,
should we wait on it to change?
Second Nickelback's song: I
am a pretty big fan of a lot of Nickelback's song and this one is no
different. It is very well done musically speaking. The question they
pose is if everyone did the things they mentioned in the song, would we
see the "day in which nobody died"? Is this a possible outcome of the
things which they said? Are any of the things they say possible? In
what follows, I will attempt to answer these questions.
My
critique will rest on a brief exegesis of the first part of Ephesians 2
(all translations, unless otherwise noted will be from the English
Standard Version). First of all in this present age is the world ever
going to change? Christian theology will tell you that it will not, so
it is futile to wait on it to change. This is a pessimistic view of
humanity, is it not? Why can the world not change?
As much
as our ears may not like to hear it, the reason is sin. It has clouded
the human mind. It has made us deaf to the trumpets declaring the
majesty of God.
We also will not live to see the day when
nobody will die, because the very idea neglects the simple fact of
Adam's sin (Romans 5:12). Adam's sin is imputed to man, and he is
guilty of violating the holy, righteous law of God by virtue of being
born. Some may say that this not fair. However, does God have to be
fair to us humans (Romans 9:14-18).
Where then is hope to be found? It is to be found in Christ alone, as Ephesians 2 teaches us. 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in
which you once walked, following the course of this world, following
the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in
the sons of disobedience-- 3among
whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the
desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath,
like the rest of mankind.
In verse one, Paul mentions that we
were "dead in the tresspasses and sins in which we once walked." I
prefer to bring out the temporal adverbial use of the participial verb
of being in a little different way, becuase of the contrast Paul makes
a little later. "And while you were dead in the tresspasses and
sins." Why is this important? In verse 4, Paul says that God did not
leave us to our desires and makes us alive, so this is a very important
contrast.
3among
whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the
desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath,
like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
The
next part is the most important part, and it is what the Gospel is in
its essence. God made us alive in Christ and has seated us in the
heavenlies with Christ (for a great exposition of this see Richard
Gaffin's Resurrection and Redemption...great book!). When Christ saved
us, He saved us and seated us with Him. We do not need to wait on the
world to change; it has already been changed! The Resurrection changed
all of history, and how we are to look at it. That is what Christ
bought us, namely a new way to be human.
This is where I have to
make a plug for my hero: Abraham Kuyper and the so-called cultural
mandate. Christ was raised from the dead, if he was not, our faith is
in vain and we have no hope (1 Corinthians 15:16-19). However we do
have hope and we are to take this hope to the nations, so they will not
think that some idealistic "waiting" will somehow allow the world to
change. It just will not happen. However with the redemption and
coming consumation of all things, the world WAS changed, and we should
rejoice! Pax Dominus Vobis Cum. | | |
| My Training Progression  Me with Bishop N.T. Wright at AAPC in Jan. 2005. 
Me (far right) with a group of friends in late January 2006 at around 220 lbs.. 
Me in April of 2006 at 200 lbs.  .
Me in July 2006 at 185 lbs. 
Me in January 2007 at 170 lbs. This is why I have become so devoted to fitness. My ultimate goal is 155 at 9-10% body fat. Of course, God will give me the strength to continue to work hard. Soli Deo Gloria! | | |
|
