Yesterday, I cited Marc Cortez‘s survey of Genesis 1:26-28 and what the image of God means. In his book, Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed , he lists structural, functional, relational, and multi-faceted as four ways that the imago Dei has been explained. Yet, he also exposes the fact that there are weaknesses in each position, and thus he contributes his own proposal which is a covenantal version of the multi-faceted view. Continue reading
Theology
The Imago Dei: Surveying the Options
This Sunday, I will preach on Genesis 1:26-28 and what it means to be made in God’s image.
This is a rich concept and one that has gone through a number of phases. In the early church, theologians conceived of the imago Dei as an essential aspect of humanity. More recently, functional definitions of man’s dominion over the earth have been considered the norm for what makes men and women ‘image-bearers.’ Still, these are not the only views on the matter. Taking his cues from the male-female division in humanity, Karl Barth suggested a relational view of the imago Dei.
So which is it? Could it be all the above? Is there another option not yet mentioned?
Marc Cortez, professor of theology at Wheaton College, has helpfully surveyed the options in his book Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed (see ch. 2, pp. 14-40). In what follows, I will outline his survey. Tomorrow I will consider his own covenantal proposal. Continue reading
Getting a Handle on Carl F. H. Henry
Last week, I attended the Carl F. H. Henry Centennial Celebration at Southern Seminary. While there, I was reminded (or better: learned for the first time) how important Henry was. His pupils have been my teachers; his name has been mentiond with reverence; and his massive, six-volume set has overlooked my office for a year now, but I have not cracked it. Until now.
But how do you get a handle on Henry?
He is a massive figure. In evangelical history, in this theological output, and in the density of his scholarship, he is a force to be reckoned with. So, how do you begin? Continue reading
Joy and Pleasure: A Series of Contrasts
In True Sexual Morality, Daniel Heimbach, a SEBTS professor of ethics, engages a predominate view of sexuality that he labels “Playboy Sexual Morality” (see pp. 267-81). In his chapter, Dr Heimbach makes a helpful distinction between pleasure and joy. Continue reading
What Total Depravity Is Not
In his Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce gives a classically Reformed presentation of sin. In four points, he affirms (1) all men have sinned, (2) all men are sinful from birth (i.e., they possess a sinful nature), (3) the world suffers from the corruption of sin, and (4) all parts of humankind are infected and affected by sin. Altogether, Boyce makes a Scriptural defense of ‘Total Depravity.’
However, in all of his efforts to affirm what Scripture teaches about sin and its effects, he simultaneously relates what ‘Total Depravity’ is not. In fact, he posits more statements related to what sin is not than what it is. Consider these five. Continue reading
Suffering: Playing Your Part With Passion
Recently, archaeologists discovered what they think is a missing section of 1 Samuel. It is a section of the book which describes what Saul did after he chased David out of his courtroom. You might remember, David was ‘hired’ by Saul to play his harp in order to sooth Saul’s soul when evil spirits tormented him (1 Sam 16:14-23).
The recent discovery tells of how after David departed, Saul was left with no choice but to call on Israel’s philosophers to come and comfort him. And apparently, it did not go well. Instead, of refreshing his soul, these debaters of the age reasoned why bad things happened to good people and why men like Saul suffered as they did. The missing section claims that these foolish lovers of wisdom only exacerbated the problem and that Saul actually pinned a couple of them to the wall with his spear.
Apparently, they were not as agile as David. Nor were they as existential as David, either—meaning, they did not exist.
In truth, there is no such archaeological account and there were no such philosophers. But you already knew that because surely no king would hire philosophers for solace and comfort. Philosophers do well to afflict the comfortable, but they are less skilled at comforting the afflicted. Continue reading
‘Credit the Calvinists’: A First Things Article by a Non-Calvinist
It’s always interesting to hear Non-Calvinists interact with Calvin and his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Most recently, James R. Rogers, a political science professor at Texas A & M and a self-described non-Calvinist, made some astute observations about Calvin, Luther, and Augustine. Here is his lead paragraph.
I picked up John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion some years back. Dipping into it, I anticipated a dry, grim, and doctrinaire treatise. Perhaps because I came to it with such low expectations, the books surprised me. I found the Institutes surprisingly accessible, written by a lively, engaged mind. I anticipated the argument of the books to be tightly wound around the theme of God’s sovereignty—with the focus on God’s glory coming at the expense of humanity’s abasement. Instead, as in Martin Luther’s treatment of predestination, I found that God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of predestination played a manifestly pastoral role in Calvin’s theology. The focus was not on obliterating the human, but rather underscoring God’s great love for his people in rescuing humanity from death, darkness, and despair. The upshot of the doctrine as I read Calvin was “This is a God you can trust.”
I would whole-heartedly agree with Rogers. Anyone who critiques Calvinism carte blanche has never read Calvin. Calvin’s Institutes—aside from his polemical arguments against Roman Catholicism—is entirely devotional. It beckons the reader not to know theology, but to know God. Predestination for Calvin—and the Calvinists I know—is not a heady doctrine to figure out who’s in and who’s out. It’s the humbling truth that God from eternity past has been at work to secure my salvation.
Rogers whole article, “Credit the Calvinists,” is worth reading, as it recognizes a major reason why Calvinism is both loved and hated today. Against the current spirit of the age, Calvinism offers an anthropology (i.e., a view of humanity) that bespeaks man’s moral inability to seek after God. He summarizes why many oppose Calvinism,
Modern man does not want to be transparent before God, or before anyone else. We deem it an invasion of our privacy and of our autonomy. We want our hearts to be the one place in creation so sacred that even God dare not tread there.
Rogers is right. No one naturally desires to relinquish sovereignty over his life. As Paul put it, quoting the Psalms,
None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one. (Rom 3:10-12)
The glory of a Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is that the Triune God liberates the heart enslaved to sin, so that regenerate man might freely choose Christ. Calvinism does not decimate free will; it rehabilitates it by means of the resurrecting power of the effectual call. May we rejoice in that truth and preach the gospel to all men, so that the good shepherd would claim his sheep by name.
Soli Deo Gloria, dss
Finding An Anchor in the Storm
Last night, our church meditated on the subject of suffering and the problem of evil. It is a complex subject that requires a multi-layer response, which when it is all said and done, still requires agonizing faith to endure in times of horrendous suffering.
That said, good theology is essential to suffering well. On that note, Oliver O’Donovan has a helpful statement about the ‘inscrutability of providence’ and the need to interpret evil in light of Christ’s resurrection. Here’s what he said. Continue reading
Happily Ever After: A Meditation on God’s Word
What is the Bible?
In theological terms, the Bible is God’s inspired Word, his authoritative revelation of who he is, what he has done, and what he expects from his creatures. Yet, in terms of genre, what is the Bible?
Some speak of Scripture as God’s love letter to humanity; others describe it as God’s instruction manual—Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (B.I.B.L.E.). I am much more inclined to ground the Bible’s imperatives (read: laws) in the infinitives of what God has done (think: gospel). The Bible is not a human book for struggling humans. More fundamentally it is a book from God, about God, for God’s people to be reconciled to God. To say it differently: It is a word about the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whom all creation is unified (Eph 1:10).
For this reason, the most appropriate designation for the Bible is that it is an Epic Comedy that effects Salvation and Judgment. Let me explain. Continue reading
Philippians 2:5-8: A Literary Structure
In his commentary on Philippians, Moises Silva outlines the literary structure to Philippians 2:5-8 in two parallel stanzas. This passage, regularly assumed to be an early Christian hymn, has received much attention from scholars and for good reason. It beautifully describes the incarnation and crucifixion of our Lord, which entitled Jesus to receive the name of above all names (vv. 9-11).
Silva’s outline discerns the structure of the hymn and helps the reader see the main points of the passage.
| who in the FORM of God existing | in likeness of men BECOMING |
| not an advantage considered his being equal with God | and in appearance being found as man |
| but nothing he made himself | he humbled himself |
| the FORM of a servant adopting | BECOMING obedient to death |
Here is his line-by-line explanation: Continue reading
Via Emmaus 