Drinking Deeply

I had a good conversation on the phone with a friend the other day who was asking about Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology. I quickly gave him a brief summary of what I knew about the two. I don't really know all that much, so I'm not going to try to explain it here so an interested reader could probably get a better picture by looking through some articles that are linked.

But anyway, we went from there to the importance of a proper eschatology (aka the end times). But how relevant is one's view on the end of the world? Isn't our goal to love God and our neighbors, whatever we believe will happen in the future?

As we chatted together, I came up with one significant impact that a person's eschatology had on his lifestyle -

Take two people: Person A believes in what is called "postmillenialism," that Christ is currently reigning over heaven and earth. Additionally he believes that over the course of history the Gospel will continue to spread and grow and multiply until eventually one could say that the whole world was saved. Entire nations will voluntarily put themselves under the (gentle) yoke of Christ and there will be (in general) peace and unity under one banner.

Person B is "premillenial," believing that the Church will remain under great persecution (and thus very small) until the second coming of Jesus. Instead of the Gospel spreading publically and conquering nations, he sees the Gospel conquering privately in small packets of people, a remnant of nations. Until the Second Coming, the nations will always be opposed to Jesus and the spread of the Gospel.

Different people may want to phrase pre/post-millenialism differently or allude to different verses, but the general feel is one of optimism and one of pessimism when it comes to our life here and now. Both, of course, are highly optimistic for the life to come =D.

But say we had A and B, and say someone asked them if they were interested in cooperating with a group of people who were seeking legislation that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

I think that person A's tendency would be more towards being supportive of the group, even if he may not sign up with them. He may reason that since (according to his theology) eventually we'll get to a point were true marriage will be embraced by the whole world, this may be a good first step even though it's not his ideal picture.

Person B's tendency may be in opposing the group. He may reason that since Christ will be opposed anyway, there isn't really much of a point in passing legislation because the world may accept the laws, but they won't accept Christ. He might think that people forming such groups were wasting their time.

Of course, these two views are generalizations. I'm sure you can find post-millenialists who might discourage people from seeking that kind of legislation and pre-millenialists who might encourage, but I think the tendencies are there. Or at least I see that tendency in myself as I've embraced more of the post-millenial view of the end times.

Overall, while it may be hard to see exactly how one aspect of our view on life changes other parts, I think there definitely are connections if we look hard enough and the above example on eschatology is one case of that.

Labels: Christian Living

This looks like a good opportunity for aspiring seminary students and other people who are looking into further in depth study of God's Word.

Cal.vini.st is giving away 2 copies of Bibleworks free. Check out the details here.

Labels: Misc.

I had a great discussion with one of the elders of my church yesterday for a membership interview. He asked me about my beliefs regarding baptism and I told him that though I had been baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, I was convinced that children of believers ought to be baptized too.

This sparked an encouraging discussion on baptism and the possibility of unity between convinced credo- and paedo-baptists. Cool beans. I'm very thankful for people who are interested in pursuing church unity on this point. I know it's a topic of great dispute, but I think there's a lot of room for joining together.

But anyway, that reminded me of a whine (*groan) I kind of have against my baptist friends.

One thing that my baptist friends bring up (which really isn't too relevant to the real discussion of the New Covenant, but this comes up) is that the verb "baptizo" means "I dip" or "I immerse," so sprinkling and pouring are not valid forms of baptism.

Yet, at the same time, they maintain that sweetened grape juice is an acceptable substitute for wine in the Lord's Supper. I think this is inconsistent.

Though I'm not convinced that baptizo requires immersion, I think that if people are going to argue for it and say that we have to stick to the literal meanings, they should at least be taking steps for serving wine for Communion.

Labels: Misc.

Today I had the pleasure of sitting in on the first part of a two-day seminar put on by Bethlehem Church on "Prayer, Meditation, and Fasting:The Pursuit of Communion with God." Sounds intense, and it was.

One side note - I hope no one (of the 6 subscribers) reading this thinks, "wow, Mickey is so holy, he prays and he fasts and he meditates, look at the classes he goes to." That assumption is... well false. I go to these classes not because I get it, but because I don't but I want to!

But anyway, the first part was about the communion with God. What does that look like, why should we seek it, and what exactly does it mean anyway to have fellowship with God?

This post isn't about that seminar as much as it is about one tiny tiny part of one thing that he said. When John Piper was talking about how the Word sustains our joy through faith, he went to a text that I probably had read a hundred times before:

1 Peter 1:3-9

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

I had read it in commentaries, in my personal devotional time, in my (attempts at) Bible memorization. I've seen it referenced in books.

But here, Piper explained it and I got it. He asked, "what does the this in the beginning of v. 6 refer to? What do we rejoice in here? And he went through the first 5 verses and completely blew me away:

1) He has caused us to be born again
2) We have a living hope
3) Our inheritance is imperishable
4) Our inheritance is undefiled
5) Our inheritance is unfading
6) Our inheritance is kept in heaven
7) We are being guarded through faith
8) All this is for salvation in the last day

And I was absolutely floored. All these connections, of course we're going to be rejoicing! I usually approach seminars/sermons with an eye towards information and understanding but I just couldn't take coherant notes anymore. The rest of my pages are a mess of exclamation marks, underlinings, boldings, and big boxes around "for me!!" and "free!!" "faith!!!" "deliverance!"

Wow.

Labels: Exposition, Reflections

Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!

For me, the phrase "taste and see" was kind of an ambiguous thing. Whatever it was, I guess my general connotation would be with "enjoy" and "delight" in what I know about God, to meditate upon God's attributes and His great work. Certainly a good practice apart from this verse.

But on Sunday, I had the blessing to be able to sit in on a Bible study where they went through Psalm 34. One of the questions posed was, "What exactly does it mean to 'taste and see'?" Unless you're Catholic (or Lutheran), it really isn't possible for us now to "taste and see" God in a physical manner. Through that Bible study, the phrase took on an entirely new light.

If we actually look at the context, we see that "taste and see" is probably best interpreted by, "Trust in the Lord and see that He is faithful!"

Why is that? As one of the members of the Bible study encouraged us, "when in doubt, read the passage!"

Psalm 34's context (v.0) is that David has changed his behavior before Abimelech (Maybe Abimelech is the same person as Achish in 1 Samuel 21? Not sure what is going on with the names).

David sings this psalm and begins with "I will bless the LORD at all times" (v.1) and proceeds to encourage all of Israel to join him (v.3). He testifies that the Lord has "answered [him] and delivered [him] from all [his] fears." (v. 4) He then testifies that, "This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him and saved him out of all his troubles."(v.6) The promise is given that, "the angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them." (v.7)

With all of that setting the background, what does the encouragement to, "taste and see that the Lord is good!" mean?

I think it's a clear encouragement to trust the Lord. To follow in the footsteps of David, who cried out and the Lord delivered him. Much like the Lord challenged Israel in Malachi to, "put me to the test...if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need," David encourages Israel to put the Lord to the test, trusting in Him for provision and refuge.

Don't be like the "young lions" in v.8 who (presumably) trust in their own power and might and suffer "want and hunger," but instead seek the Lord, relying on Him for deliverance and hope.

So to paraphrase, "trust and see that the Lord is good!"

Labels: Exposition

So I'm still at that spot where I know just enough Greek to get me in trouble, but not enough to really understand deeper implications and such. Alas, hopefully another year of Greek will do me good.

Anyway, John Piper preached on John 3:16 this week and I had the chance to follow along in my Greek Bible. I noticed something very interesting about the Greek text of John 3:16 -

οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον,

All the translations I checked (NIV, NASB, TNIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV [with a footnote], NLT, Message) render it, "For God so loved the world." That translation probably was correct back in a time when readers understood the word "so" to mean "in this manner," which is the correct interpretation of the first word (οὕτως). But now, my first instinct (and I suspect many others) would read that as "God loved the world so much that." Unfortunately, though the Lord does love His creation a great deal, that's not what the verse is saying, but rather it's explaining how the Lord loved the world.

"For in this way God loved the world..."

The New Living Translation and Message actually puts the idea "so much" in their rendering. Arrgh on paraphrases!

Interesting! Just goes to show...All Things are Better in Koine

Labels: Greek

Over at 22 Words, Abraham Piper put up a fairly provocative post on calling vs. career. Since his posts are short, I'm going to quote the whole thing -Lots of good comments there, posting against the physical/spiritual dualistic mindset. But I went a little against the grain and threw out this thought -

I agree with everyone above, but I wanted to throw something alongside what everyone’s said before. Yes, God calls us to obedience in whatever field we do. Yes there is not a difference (brownie pointswise) between “ministry” as a pastor and “ministry” as an engineer.

But alongside that, I think there actually is something good in using the term “calling” rather than “career” for pastoral positions. This isn’t fully fleshed out, but some basic thoughts -

I think the term “calling” actually is a biblical reflection. The OT prophets were “called.” Paul was “called” to be an apostle. In order to raise up elders, they prayed and laid hands on them, so there certainly is something special there.

I think we do want to maintain an emphasis upon the seriousness and soberness with which our preachers labor - that they are shepherds and going to be held accountable as teachers. I think using the term “calling” is helpful for that.

Any thoughts?

Labels: Christian Living