Continue reading »]]> Last week Tanya and I had the privilege of heading up to Katoomba for a conference entitled NextGen 2012.  Basically, imagine 400-500 young Christian men and women who lead youth groups or children’s ministries getting together to think hard about how to read and teach from Scripture.  It’s great.

In God’s grace over the last three years I’ve been able to teach about Systematic Theology.  Amongst the myriad privileges in doing this, I’ve found it amazing to see young people start ‘connecting the doctrinal dots’.  The method which is taught is highly centered on Scripture and attempts to get the delegates to manually search the Scriptures and bring the pieces together.  The methodology is illustrated by examining the doctrine of the Resurrection – which really opens the eyes of the delegates (especially the implications for the renewed creation!).  Finally, the delegates get to choose their own doctrines to examine – in my group some topics were: ‘faith’, ‘the person of the Holy Spirit’, ‘the visible church’, ‘multiculturalism and ecclesiology’, ‘and neighbour-love’.  I love that part of the course!

If there were any critique of the course material I would suggest that firstly, it is unhelpfully dependent on Abp. Peter Jensen’s “The Revelation of God”, and secondly that there is no mention of philosophy or historical theology.  The latter is a shame because historical theology provides a colourful illustration of what systematic theology is, and how it operates. Not to mention that we are traditioned creatures situated in theological traditions!

Anyway, I came across this great little explanation of Systematic Theology today.  Enjoy!

The imperative task of the dogmatician is to think God’s thoughts after him and to trace their unity. His work is not finished until he has mentally absorbed this unity and set it forth in a dogmatics.

Accordingly, he does not come to God’s revelation with a ready-made system in order, as best he can, to force its content into it.

On the contrary, even in his system a theologian’s sole responsibility is to think God’s thoughts after him and to reproduce the unity that is objectively present in the thoughts of God and has been recorded for the eye of faith in Scripture.

—Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 1: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 44.

Continue reading »]]> Interesting thoughts from Broughton Knox on helping families grow in Christ together:

“The congregation should nourish the spiritual life and fellowship of the family.  For example, up to half-a-dozen leaders should be chosen in each congregation whose first ministry should be to minister to families, i.e. to fathers and mothers, to encourage them to ensure that their home is a school of Christ.  Fathers and mothers should spend an hour a day teaching their young children the Christian faith and its consequences for living.  They will never persevere in this unless encouraged to do so by the leaders visiting them in their homes to enquire and exhort them along this line.  It is a task too large for the full-time minister single-handed.  A large part of his time will be devoted to preparation for preaching, for unless his preaching and teaching reaches a proper level of fulness of content, fathers and mothers will never be able to keep on teaching their children day by day, and unless homes have this depth of Christian knowledge and commitment, congregations will remain weak and shallow and evaporating.” (Sent by Jesus, 53-54).

Very interesting – I quite like the idea of families ministering to families within the church.  Seems much more like what the NT church might have looked like, and contra this modern (weird) idea of the minister doing everything!

Continue reading »]]> Complimenting the successful Catechist production by Steve McGuinness, there is the MTC Filing Cabinet by Jason Au.

The Filing Cabinet is a place where different student essays get uploaded and given for public consumption.  It’s quite brilliant – Jas has organised the essays into: Doctrine, History, New Testament and Old Testament.  They cover topics from the English reformation, to Middle Knowledge, to Psalms and Sovereignty, to Apocalypticism and History.

Check it out: http://www.earngey.info/collegeblog/

I’ve got three essays up there:

Risk, Middle Knowledge and Providence.
How did official religious policy change with the Glorious Revolution of 1688?
Calvin’s Ecclesiology: Word and Sacrament

Enjoy!

Continue reading »]]> The cannon ball that fires a devastating blow through the hull of David Bentley Hart’s Doors of the Sea surfaces in one of the questions for our 3rd year Philosophy exam.  Hart’s vitriolic reading of the Reformed tradition simply falls over due to this important plank of Reformed theology.

In Henri Blocher’s Evil and the Cross (p99, 1994), a paragraph is given to the topic of the decretive and preceptive will of God (which I’ve blogged about before).  It’s worth quoting in full, especially if you’re sitting the exam and want the context of the quote for our question!

“Theologians distinguish between the decretive and preceptive will of God, or the will of eurestia (ie. what God is pleased to have his creatures do).  When we read ‘God wills’ or ‘God wishes’, it is not always with the same meaning.  The wicked sons of Eli did not repent ‘for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death’ (1 Sa. 2.25), and yet we read that God takes ‘no pleasure in the death of the wicked’ (Ezk. 33:11).  In the first case, God willed in the sense that he has written the deed in his book (Ps. 139.16), that he has included it in the programme of everything that happens, in his universal plan or decree.  In the second case, we are dealing with his desire that all should be saved, and it also involves his call, commandment or precept that they should turn and be converted.  We should note carefully that, even at the heart of the decree, if evil is willed in a certain manner, it is not willed as something good.  God wills what is good directly, simply, for himself; he wills evil only in a different manner, while hating it at the same time. It is, to be sure, sovereign, but it is also a permissive will that is being referred to.  Divine causality with respect to good is efficient (i.e. God acts efficaciously, every grace and good gift comes down from the Father of lights, Jas. 1:17).  With respect to evil, it is deficient (i.e. God is content not to act, as if he failed to assist; he did not bring forth the will to do good, nor the deed).  Whereas God himself works good by making it work, evil is always the deed of one or of several created beings, exclusively.“

I might add, that I do very much appreciate D.B. Hart’s theology – especially since he’s a theologian of the classical variety.  But I did find his ridiculous misrepresentation of the Reformed tradition quite frustrating!  Blocher sets out the key nuance very well. If Hart had recognised this, I’m sure his Doors of the Sea would have been much more convincing!  After all, what he’s proposing in primary and secondary levels of causality (p83ff) already exists within the Reformed tradition.

Continue reading »]]> Well, the CBE International Conference runs with the motto of “Better Together” in 2010 and promises to be a fascinating and challenging time of engaging with God’s Word.  Held in Melbourne, Australia, this conference features a star-studded line-up of theologians and experts in various fields, from various backgrounds: Graham Cole, Kevin Giles, Tim Foster, Shane Clifton, Funmi Para-Mallam, Cheryl Catford, and many others (listed here).

The mission statement of CBE International is as follows: CBE International “affirms and promotes the biblical truth that all believers—without regard to gender, ethnicity or class—must exercise their God-given gifts with equal authority and equal responsibility in church, home and world.”

The conference will be covering theologial topics such as: Trinity and Gender Roles, Reading Genesis 1-2, an Egalitarian reading of 1 Tim. 2, Equality and Difference, Gift-based ministry, Submission, Authority, Headship, and Ecclesiology.

It’s my aim to present the material from the conference in such a light as to be fair to the speaker and not insert too much of my own opinion into the matter (yet – that’ll come at the end!).  Also, though I have recorded them, I should note that I won’t be uploading the questions nor answers from the Q&A sessions.

There are various lectures given to all throughout the day, and a number of workshops throughout the weekend as a whole.  Here’s a list of the lectures and workshops on offer.

Lynley Giles closed the first evening tonight with wise words: although there are people at the conference with different opinions, we ought to be loving and respectful as we seek to search the Scriptures and build one another up in Christ.  I trust these blogposts will reflect this.  And be as challenging and interesting to you as the conference will be for me.

Continue reading »]]> This is probably the most theologically sharp article I’ve read in the Briefing for a long time.  It concerns the very serious doctrine of hell.

Jonny Gibson, a good friend, and constant source of encouragement and theological sharpening, has put together the article for the Briefing.  Simply put, I have not read such a biblically comprehensive and pastorally sensitive account of the doctrine of hell for a long time, if ever.  Can I seriously commend this to you to read – I’ve been stirred up and challenged in my thinking, evangelism, preaching and pastoral duties as a result of reading it.  Above all however, I’ve found that these articles have brought me back to gratitude, and a desire to give glory to God.

It consists of a short version for print, an extended version online, a theological reflection, and a pastoral reflection.  Get them here:

Extended version online: here.
Theological reflection: here.
Pastoral reflection: here.

(h/t: The Briefing)

Continue reading »]]> Oliver Crisp is a name serious evangelical thinkers should know.  He’s written some incredibly brilliant books on the Incarnation, and his style of writing is something I greatly appreciate.  I really struggle with reading theologians who write such obfuscated prose, and Crisp certainly does not do such.  He’s an analytic theologian, who basically means he uses logic and argument carefully in his theology and sets it out as such.  Oh, and he’s also a fine artist.

Anyway, here’s a brilliant interview with him regarding: theology for the church, creeds, election, Christology, theological method, zombies, religious art, and blogging.  Here’s a snippet from the full interview:

Q: How do you see the relationship between your work in academic theology and the Church’s task of proclaiming the gospel?

A: Theology that is not done in the service of the Church is seriously defective, in my view. Although I work in a so-called ‘secular’ university, I am very conscious of the need to address the Church in what I do. I hope that in some small way my own work may be of use to the Church through the trickle-down effect of students of theology and prospective ministerial candidates getting trained in theology and reading the sort of stuff I write. I have taught in both secular and confessional contexts in the UK and North America, and I think effective theological education is of vital importance for the life of the Church. If we want an educated and effective laity, we need an effective and educated clergy to teach them.

Q: You are an artist and the cover of God Incarnate features your painting, “Jesus of Nazareth”. What is the theological reasoning behind your attempt to portray Christ in that way? I mean, isn’t it Nestorian to try and depict Jesus’ humanity apart from his divine person?

A: It would only be Nestorian if I said ‘this is a picture of a human person called Jesus of Nazareth’.  But this is not supposed to be a portrait of a human person; it is supposed to be a portrait of God incarnate.  So I’m not really sure why this is Nestorian. I think more Protestants should read St John of Damascus’ Three Treatises on the Divine Images.  There is much more there to challenge Protestant sensibilities about religious art that one might think.  As to the theological reasoning for my portrait of Christ, I wanted to depict Jesus as a Semite (not a white European) and in an aspect that emphasized the seriousness of dealing with the God-man. I was tired of seeing the sort of saccharine, ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’ portraits of Christ one often sees in popular religious devotion and on the cover of books.

Continue reading »]]> This is a cracker of a podcast! Punk music, Latin, Skateboarding, Christology, Purple hair, Impassibility, and Haggis – all in one episode!

Seumas MacDonald, a great bloke whom I’m had the pleasure of meeting recently joins us on this podcast.  Seumas is currently undertaking his MTh at Moore Theological College and is putting his Latin skills to use as he studies through St. John Chrysostom’s sermons! I’ve found Seumas to be a really lovely and thoughtful bloke who has a serious love of theology – check out his blog here.  And his recently installed languages blog here.

In this podcast, we discuss how Seumas came to faith in Christ, find out a bit about St. John Chrysostom, and delve into the subject of Impassibility: Does God Suffer? Really great thoughts and insights from Seumas, and I heartily recommend his thoughts and suggestions on how to think Christologically.

Read:
Seumas has some follow-up thoughts from the podcast.  Great resources particularly on the subject of Impassibility.

Listen:

PS:
I have no idea what happened at 34:52.  It sounds we were possessed for 5 seconds.  But I can assure you that it probably has more to do with the encoding of the file!

Continue reading »]]> (h/t: Ben Myers)

These are a classic.  Kim Fabricius and Ben Myers have put together some simply hilarious poetical guides to modern theology.  Here’s just a few samples.  Go and check the origin post out!

Reminds me of the Critters and Creatures of the Theological Kingdom I blogged about a while ago! Also, here.

Karl Barth
Had to hire a cart
Having no other tactics
To transport his dogmatics.

Colin Gunton
Detected dysfunction
In St Augustine, his nemesis,
Who didn’t have quite enough perichoresis.

David B. Hart
Is not terribly fond of Bultmann, Bonhoeffer, Tillich or Barth,
Crucially not to mention
Balthasar, Jüngel, Lash, Moltmann, MacKinnon …

“Jürgen Moltmann,
Can
The world,” we ask, “live without hope?”
“Nope.”

Bishop Rowan,
All-knowing, ho-ho-hoing
Like Santa, he’s weird:
Maybe it’s the beard.

Bishop Tom Wright
Stays up all night
Writing and writing (and writing) books about the apostle to the nations.
And a resignation.

Crisply Oliver
Decided to follow a
Clean analytical method. But something still seemed left unsaid
So he took up his paintbrush instead.

Continue reading »]]> John Frame writes the following:

“It is a bit surprising that the name of Moise Amyraut (Latin form Amyraldus; hence “Amyraldianism”) is not better known in a time such as ours when so many evangelical Christians want to be known as “four point Calvinists.” Many, indeed, in our time seem to want to say (a) that Christ atoned in some sense for the sins of every human being, (b) that nevertheless all men are not saved, and (c) that in the final analysis it is God, not man, who determines what persons shall be saved and which ones lost. But making these propositions work together in a Scripturally and logically cogent way is a task requiring considerable subtlety of mind, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever done it better than Amyraut. Further, Amyraut wove these propositions into the context of a rather distinctive theological approach—a method, emphasis, and style significantly different from those of other theologians of his time (1596–1664). I suspect that the appeal of “four point Calvinism” even today can be best understood by reference to Amyraut’s general theological mentality—a mentality shared to some extent by many today who know little of Amyraut. Thus, both proponents and critics of the “four point” position can benefit from a study of Amyraut’s theology and approach to theology”

It’s been quite interesting to do a little bit of reading about Amyraldianism over the last couple of weeks.  Here’s a few things I’ve discovered:

1. There are different streams of “Hypothetical Universalism” in 17th century thought (Cameron, Testard, Amyrald).
2. Francis Turretin, who famously opposed them, saw them as “our ministers” and thus not outside of Reformed orthodoxy like Roman Catholicism or Arminianism.
3. It is a form of Covenant Theology.
4. It utilises separate Antecedant & Consequent wills, rather than Calvin’s one will, with 2 aspects: Secret/Revealed.  That is, a scholastic distinction between separate wills or decrees.  Amyraut sees a hypothetical universal decree to save all upon the condition of faith, and an absolute decree to grant faith.  The former is antecedant to the decree of Christ’s death.  The latter is consequent to it.  Calvin on the other hand saw that God’s will was simple and one.  And yet it had two aspects: the Secret aspect pertaining to God’s chosen individuals, and the Revealed aspect pertaining to the universal Gospel call.

Basically, Amyraldianism has to do with a re-ordering of the divine decrees, and the insertion of a hypothetically universal decree of salvation.  Let me explain:

In Eternity, there is an antecedent hypothetical decree for the universal salvation of all on condition of their faith.  Logically next, Christ is decreed to die with that intention.  But, logically next – God, foreseeing that nobody would be saved due to total depravity created a consequent decree to grant faith to a particular number.  Do you see how the granting of faith in the consequent will fulfills the condition of the antecedent will?  That’s the logic of Amyraldianism.  I think it’s quite brilliant, actually.

Amyraldus (according to Mark Thompson, the Latinised versions of names were in vogue back then!) wrote the following in his Brief Traitte. See how it pertains to the antecedent decree:

“The sacrifice that He has offered for the propitiation of their offenses has been equally for all.  And the salvation that He has received from His Father in order to communicate it to men in the sanctification of the spirit and the glorification of the body is destined equally to all, provided, I say, that the disposition necessary in order to receive it is also equally present.”

I’ll post up some of my thoughts on this position soon, but for now – I think it’s at least interesting that Turretin considered Amyraldians “our ministers.”  This ought to ease at least some of the tensions between those who hold to Particular Redemption and those who hold to Amyraldianism.