Month: May 2024

Wide are God’s Mercies: Giving Public Praise to Our Lord for His Ongoing Work at Our Church

/ davidsschrock

nathan-dumlao-KYiGu8qqEcM-unsplashMy companion stretched out his hand against his friends; he violated his covenant. 21 His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords. 22 Cast your burden on the Lord, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved.

– Psalm 55:20–22 –

Recently, I received an email that brought to mind a dozen or so events from the last ten years. The email was intended to lay charges against our church, myself, and my fellow elders. And, in a world that offers multiple perspectives, those accusations are certainly one interpretation. However, as we learn from Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

Today, I have no interest in examining the charges made. They have been examined often over the last six months and before, but I do have an interest in giving thanks to God for the charges that have been made and for the events they recall. For in fact, all of things that were brought to light are, from another angle, testimonies of God’s grace. And thus, I want to give public praise to God for all the ways that his mercies have been made new over the last decade.

When Paul defended himself in 2 Corinthians against the charges of the super-apostles, he boasted in his weaknesses. In what follows, I will do much of the same. But more, I will boast in the kind and loving work of God in a local church that was once featured negatively in a book by Nancy Pearcey.

As with all local churches, ours is made up of members who have feet of clay. And yet, with clay feet we are learning to walk with our Lord, and looking back on the last three decades, God has demonstrated his mercy and grace again and again. And for that reality, I am profoundly grateful. And I share these ten reflections as a testimony to the wideness of God’s of God’s past mercies, which funds the promise of future grace.

Continue reading →

The New Church Down the Street: How Churches and Church Plants Can Love One Another

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

vlah-dumitru-qx7RXtIKpAE-unsplashYou think of how many church plants, unfortunately, often happen today. Maybe they happen just down the street of another church that agrees with them entirely in their theology. And you think, well, maybe we should have had a conversation before you started a church just down the street. Was this going to be a conversation? What’s going on here? (Caleb Morrell)

When I moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee in 2002, I spent the first six months of my tour there in church parsonage situated in Ringgold, Georgia. Driving from the church where I worked to the home where I lived I must have passed a dozen Baptist churches. Coming from Michigan, I was astounded at the number of Baptist churches in East Tennessee. Sort of like Bubba in Forest Gump, there were Southern Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, Independent Baptists, Missionary Baptists, and Primitive Baptists—not to mention all the Baptists who were ashamed to call themselves Baptist.

Speaking with only a slight sense of hyperbole, there was a Baptist Church on every street. And sometimes right across the street. I mentioned my living quarters above because on the road to my house there two Baptists churches—Salem Baptist and New Salem Baptist. The actual name of the church has been changed to protect the (not so) innocent parties.

Driving past those churches I always wondered what the backstory was? Was this a church plant, with a new method for evangelism or a worship style? Or more likely, was it a church split? A group from Salem Baptist decided that they knew better and so they formed a committee to start a new church. Yet, instead of finding a location down the road, they took up residence right across from the church.

Now, I don’t know what actually happened and it may not be anything like what I imagined, but even if this story was entirely like something that came from the mind of Joseph Bayly, it would caricature a real problem—churches begun without any consideration for their neighbors. Indeed, for all the healthy ways churches plant churches, there are also unhealthy church plants that actually undermine the testimony of the gospel in a given area.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I found myself in such a situation in 2015. And I am grateful to God that he prevented our band of eager church planters from starting something that have been born with a spirit of competition. Indeed, with the perspective of hindsight and from a number of recent conversations with pastors and aspiring church planters, I am increasingly convinced that too many church plants are begun in ways that compete with other local churches.

Yes, God loves to grow his church and to plant new churches even in places filled with churches. Yet, as Ecclesiastes 8:6 has said, there is a proper time and procedure for everything under heaven, and that includes planting a church. And so, in light of a recent conversation with Caleb Morrell on the importance of Baptist associations, I want to republish some of his remarks from our podcast and then offer four brief reflections on how church plants can love their neighbors by working together with other churches. Continue reading →

The Sons of God: Three Interpretations of Genesis 6:1–4

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

luigi-boccardo-OGSbrFW_dos-unsplashFigment. Absurd. Gross.

These are but three of the names John Calvin calls the position I hold on Genesis 6. And while, he doesn’t employ his most common insult (stupid!), I am sure he would have little trouble applying that label to the view that angels had sexual relations with women, such that the Nephilim (or giants) were the resultant offspring.

For indeed, when considering who the sons of God were in Genesis 6, he excoriates the ancient view that believed the sons of God (=angels) came from heaven to consort with the daughters of man. He writes in his commentary on Genesis 6, “That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious [strange or unusual].” [1]

Following this view, he adds another, namely, the idea that the sons of God were royal sons and the daughters of men were commoners. The problem in this case was the way that the nobility chased the commoners, resulting in offspring of mixed hereditary stock.[2] On this second view, whom he assigns to the “Chaldean paraphrast” (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud), we can agree that this interpretation fails to follow the terms of Scripture. (Yet, it is not far from another view that will be referenced below.)

In contrast to both views, Calvin then offers his—the idea that has become popular among so many evangelicals today. He sees the sons of God as the male heirs of Seth and the daughters of man as the female offspring of Cain. While Calvin frames this division in theological terms (i.e., the sons being chosen by grace and the daughters being left in their common condition), his reading is purely human, and wreaks nothing of gross absurdity.[3] Or, so he believes.

Historically, his view, which goes back to Augustine and before that to Julius Africanus (c. 160–240), can be summarized under the title of the Sethite position, while my position, which goes back to the Jewish interpreters of the Second Temple period might be titled the Fallen Angel position. Additionally, there is the view that understands the sons of God in royal terms, but not like that described by Calvin, what I’ll label the Kings of the Earth position.

In what follows, I want to lay out these three positions and begin to explain why I believe Calvin’s mockery of this position is wrong. As always, it is not a light thing to disagree with such an eminent theologian, but as a Baptist, Calvin’s insults don’t bother me. I’ve disagreed with him before, and here I will do so again. I will argue that his Sethite view is reasonable, but not ultimately persuasive. Better, we should read Genesis 6 in the context of the whole Bible, and when we do we will discover the fact that the angels of heaven left their proper abode, consorted with human women, and thus invited the judgment of God which led to the cosmic flood. Continue reading →

What Should We Do With 1 Enoch? A Biblical Approach to Extra-Biblical Literature

/ davidsschrock / 5 Comments

konrad-hofmann-XFEqU_bf5nA-unsplashIn Genesis 6 we find the curious introduction to a group of people (?) called the Nephilim. In verse 4, the ESV reads, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

Thus concludes one of the strangest passages in all the Bible. For centuries, the four verses that begin Genesis 6 have occasioned debate on whom the Nephilim are, who the sons of God are, who the daughters of man are, who the mighty men of old were, the men of renown, and how these characters all fit together. Are these all descriptions of human beings, sons and daughters of Adam? Or, is something more nefarious afoot? Are the sons of God fallen angels? And if so, who are their offspring?

To these questions and more, I will attempt to give an answer in this post and three more to come. Below, I will consider what it means for Christians to use extra-biblical sources, and how we can properly benefit from reading 1 Enoch. In the next post, I will lay out the options for reading Genesis 6, and explain the strengths and weaknesses of various positions. Then third, I will make a canonical argument for understanding the sons of God as fallen angels and the Nephilim/mighty men as giants. Fourth, I will draw some theological conclusions related to Genesis 6 but also to Christ and his rule over the cosmos. Continue reading →