God is Enough: A Word of Warning against the Prosperity Gospel

/ davidsschrock / 2 Comments

God is enough!

While America watches prosperity preachers on the new TV series “Preachers of L. A.,” John Piper drives the point home that such ‘Christianity’ is not Christianity at all. It is idolatry.

In opposition to the false claims of riches offered by the prosperity gospel, true Christianity teaches you how to suffer and to say “God is enough.” Any message that offers Jesus as a means to another end—health and healing, wealth and wisdom, or prosperity and pleasure—is a false gospel.

Jesus is the end of the gospel.

He is the pearl of great price. He is worth selling everything to gain, he’s worth losing everything to keep him. He is the center-piece of the gospel, and there is nothing better behind him. He calls himself the door in John 10, but it is not because behind him is a better prize. In him is the fullness of God, and when we enter through him, we come to the Father, who like the Son is the goal of the gospel.

(HT: Joe Carter)

‘I Will Give You as a Covenant’ (Isaiah 42:6; 49:8): The Suffering Servant as Covenant Mediator

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

As I worked on my dissertation, one of the things that struck me was the importance of the covenant mediator for any covenant. Structurally, every covenant needs a mediator; and with regard to effectiveness, every covenant depends on the personal integrity of the covenant mediator (alternately called a federal head). Continue reading →

Re-Imaging Our Personal Identity

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

A friend of mine once quipped that when we tell people we are ‘fine,’ we are really saying in code that we are Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional (F. I. N. E.). I think he has a point, as ‘fine’ is so often used to cover up deep-seated insecurities and hurt.

Sad as it may be, this is the human condition. We are masters of making fig-leaf coverings. We have lost our original covering of righteousness, and deep down we all know that something is not quite right.

On biblical terms: We are made to bear the image of God’s glory, but in our sin we have fallen short. Therefore, we need restoration to be who God made us to be. In other words, we need to be remade in the image of God. Praise be to God that this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ accomplishes. Consider just a few verses. Continue reading →

An Introduction to Bioethics

/ davidsschrock

Paul Simon once sang that their are 50 ways to leave your lover—a practice I’m not endorsing—and today there are just as many ways to make a baby, almost. According to Joe Carter, in his weekly post on bioethics, there are at least thirty-ways to make a baby.  He writes,

Until the 1970s, all but one child ever born was the result of sexual intercourse; today, there are at least thirty-eight ways to make a baby. In an attempt to conquer infertility we’ve developed dozens of methods, a veritable alphabet soup of acronyms, to create a child: IVF, IUI, ICSI, DI, AI, ET, etc. 

I had no idea that there were and are so many ways to bring children into this world. Of course, these reproductive technologies may help many infertile couples to be parents, but they also create innumerable ethical difficulties. Continue reading →

The Image of God: A Covenantal Proposal

/ davidsschrock / 3 Comments

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 →

The Imago Dei: Surveying the Options

/ davidsschrock / 1 Comment

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

/ davidsschrock

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 →