Ray Ortlund, pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, TN and author of, among others, God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery, has a short post on the Reformed culture.
He writes, Read the rest of this entry »
currently reading
shows
why study barth?
25 February 2009 — art
I started reading Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics last spring. I’ve slowly been working through his massive work and am currently on the fourth volume (Church Dogmatics II.2-The Election of God; The Command of God). I have enjoyed thinking through the implications of many of his points and how that interacts with the Reformed theology that I’ve been taught. I’ve been helped along the way by reading Barth’s shorter Evangelical Theology as well as other’s work on Barth, such as Bruce McCormack’s brilliant collection of essays entitled Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth as well as Eberhard Jungel’s God’s Being Is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl Barth. Some of my friends and I have even started a Barth reading group at WTS in order to talk through some of Barth’s main points.
One thing that struck me when I started reading Barth Read the rest of this entry »
proverbs and truthiness
24 February 2009 — artOne of the issues one deals with when studying Proverbs is how to interpret its content. Once one gets past the issue of translating Proverbs, which is difficult in some places because of the terseness of the Hebrew text or the obscurity of the language used (cf. Prov 20.1), one’s mind should turn towards understanding what the author may have meant in her or his immediate context. Moving onward from that, one then attempts to understand the implications the teachings of the Proverbs have for us today. Exegesis 101.
When this is being done, it should be kept in mind that the genre of ‘proverbs’ is different than the rest of Scripture. It reflects the Hebrew poetic structure of the psalms, prophets, Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song, but it also defines itself as being different. The book is said to be comprised of not only proverbs, but also riddles, dark sayings, and words of the wise (Prov 1.6). In other words, Proverbs is not law. It is not a collection of universal truths that are valid in all times and in all places. Rather, in the words of Tremper Longman from his excellent commentary on Proverbs, “proverbs are true only if stated at the right time and in the right circumstance” (31). Read the rest of this entry »
midrash mondays 39
23 February 2009 — art
Every Monday there will be a midrashic fable posted from Louis Ginzberg’s classic collection Legends of the Jews. This week the midrash is about the children of Adam and Lilith.
We have read some midrashim about Lilith before as she was the first wife of Adam created during the first creation story. She became a ‘she-devil’ because she desired to be equal to Adam. God then created Eve in the second creation narrative. In this midrash Adam has told the wives of Lamech that they must continue to live with their husband, even though Adam was not currently living with Eve. During the night Adam would get conjugal visits from Lilith, from which sprung a whole host of demons. The story that follows concerning Rabbi Hanina is what happened to one of those demons. Read the rest of this entry »
free pdf of piper’s newest
22 February 2009 — artA PDF copy of John Piper’s newest book entitled Finally Alive is available for free on Crossway’s homepage. Click here to download it directly. Agree or disagree with Piper, he is an author that is worth reading, especially when he is dealing with issues closely related to the Christian life.
From the publisher’s description of the book:
When Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘You must be born again’, the devout and learned religious leader was unsure what Jesus meant. It would seem nothing has changed. Today ‘born again Christians’ fill churches that are seen as ineffectual at best, and even characterised by the ‘mosaic’ generation as ‘unchristian’.
The term ‘born again’ has been devalued both in society and in the church. Those claiming to be ‘born again’ live lives that are indistinguishable from those who don’t; they sin the same, embrace injustice the same, covert the same, do almost everything the same.
Being ‘born again’ is now defined by what people say they believe. The New Testament however defines Christians very differently.
“When Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7), he was not sharing interesting and unimportant information. He was leading him to eternal life… If he does that for you (or if he already has), then you are (or you will be) truly, invincibly, finally alive.”
I’m looking forward to reading through this book as soon as I have the chance.
quinquagesima
21 February 2009 — artFor the past few years I have participated in the ancient tradition of Lent. This Wednesday many people will attend Mass in the morning and then shlep around all day with a black spot on the middle of their Gulliver. I, of course, will be among them.
Interesting fact: the Sunday preceding Ash Wednesday, which is this Sunday, is known as “Quinquagesima Sunday” in reference to the fifty days before Easter Sunday using inclusive counting. Lent, which is celebrated during the forty days before Easter Sunday, does not include weekends in its counting scheme.
Does anyone reading this celebrate Lent? If so, what is your thought process in determining what to give up for Lent? I’m asking because I am praying about what to give up for Lent and cannot quite make up my mind. I want it to be something sacrificial as well as something that will give me more time to spend in prayer and personal Bible study. Any suggestions in how to think through what to give up during Lent will be appreciated.
As a side note: if you are going to comment and say something about Lent being a Catholic tradition, blah, blah, blah, then don’t bother commenting. You still celebrate Christmas.
ecclesia reformanda
19 February 2009 — artA new journal has been brought to my attention. It’s called Ecclesia Reformanda: British Reformed Theology and, from the looks of its inaugural issue, it will be a journal worth reading. The first issue has been published and you can see the abstracts and books reviewed here.
The description from the website:
matthew’s double whammy
19 February 2009 — art
Matthew 27.3-10 presents a number of troubles (I suppose this title could be “multiple whammy”). The most obvious is the inconsistencies with the recounting of Luke’s version of the suicide of Judas (Acts 1.9-10) where nearly every aspect of their two stories is in conflict. That is the most obvious tension point in this passage, but there is another one that presents a double whammy for evangelicals who would like to 1) affirm biblical inerrancy, 2) downplay the importance of the exegetical methods of second Temple Judaism when it comes to understanding the NT, or 3) do both at the same time. I would propose that you absolutely cannot choose the third option. Let’s turn to the text.
The ‘double whammy’ passage, as I have affectionately named it this morning during my devotions, is found in Matthew 27.9-10:
enns reviews god’s word in human words by kent sparks
18 February 2009 — artPete Enns has posted the first part of a two part series centered on Kent Sparks’ book God’s Words in Human Words. In this first post Pete has briefly outlined some central points of the book. He promises that his second post will recount the SBL session which took place this past fall in Boston that was a discussion on Kent’s book (and which I was fortunate enough to attend).
I found this point in Pete’s summary to be particularly thought provoking:
One cannot appeal to evangelical theological prolegomena to adjudicate the proper influence critical scholarship should have. In fact, those who appeal to such prolegomena without also being fully conversant with biblical criticism and its more solid developments are (ironically) in no position to critique the theological matter, even if that discussion turns back on theological prolegomena.
This is a sore point to be sure. Sparks is saying “the gate-keepers have no clothes.” If Sparks argues, “such-and-such point of evangelical doctrine is wrong for this demonstrable reason,” a response such as “it is not evangelical theology to say such things,” or “here is a list of evangelicals who would take offense at that,” or something similar, is inadequate. A defense of evangelical theology against Sparks’s arguments cannot be simply a reassertion of evangelical theology.
I’d encourage all interested to read the entire summary.
richard hess on the documentary hypothesis
18 February 2009 — art
In his book Israelite Religions, Richard Hess includes an excursus entitled “The Documentary Hypothesis and Its Evaluation” (46-59). This excursus was brought up in recent post on James McGrath’s comments about the Midwest SBL regional meeting. I mentioned a few of Hess’s objections in the comment thread, but thought that I would go through them one by one in this post and attempt to show why I do not find his objections to the Documentary Hypothesis (hereafter DH) necessarily compelling.
The first comment I’d like to make concerns Hess’s description of the DH. The majority of his explanation is concerned with older formulations of the DH from which major scholarship has moved forward. He does include a few sentences that speak of the changes in the DH over the past 100+ years, such as scholars combining J and E into a single source, although that statement is un-nuanced and does not actually do justice to such a view. Read the rest of this entry »
-
-
Recent Comments
Jonathan Bonomo on fight!!! art on fight!!! Matthew D. Schultz on fight!!! Mandy on evolving in monkey town by rac… Adrian on evolving in monkey town by rac… email me
squads
-
