Tag Archives: Biblical Theology

Does the “slippery-slope” undermine the Holy Spirit?

01 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by in pneumatology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

As believers study Scripture theological positions become nuanced, changed, or replaced with better or sometimes worse biblical conclusions. Every theological system has weaknesses. As students study the Bible, systems become nuanced as knowledge of His Word matures.

For example, Dispensationalism and Amillennialism changed over the last hundred years as proponents face challenges, issues, and study Scripture. In the course of refining and defining theology sometimes a student argues an unorthodox conclusion. The proponent of said position might have a valid critique of the orthodox position. It forces students to either defend or reexamine Scripture. Sometimes the new teaching seems to handle the text well but does not fit into a systematic theology. To complicate matters sometimes the new position blurs the line between conservative and liberal theology.

When an uncommon conclusion, yet one that seems faithful to the text, is reached, a common objection is heard, “He has opened the door to the slippery slope.” The fear is his followers will take the position further away from orthodoxy.

No pastor wants to lead people into false doctrine. But should pastors worry biblical teaching, especially one that blurs the line a little but is faithful to the text, will open the door to the slope? For example, if we grant God can change His mind, are we relinquishing the providence of God? If we say, “Christ died for all the world,” then are we opening the door to universalism? Do we need to worry, teaching through a specific text will drive people to bad theology?

Is it fair to worry about the slippery slope? Is worrying about the potential “danger” to a theological nuance something pastors should consider? Is this concern placing fear on the wrong object? Believers are told to fear the Lord. Does God say fear the results? The real question should be, “Will God preserve His children to the end and keep them orthodox?”

Will a Christian, who has the Holy Spirit, really depart from Scripture and go into error? “The Gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). Paul presents two important truths to salvation. First, “are you being saved” teaches a habitual, ongoing perseverance regarding a believer’s life. The believer is habitually being saved by God. I was saved, I am being saved, I will be saved — all three are true. Second, “if you hold fast to the word I preached.” A believer will continually cling to the truth of the gospel.

Therefore if a person hears a doctrinal nuance and then begins to blow it out of proportion and two years later is denying the Gospel, then we learn one truth: the person believed in vain and was never really saved. The believer will accept the nuance and accept it even if he or she does not understand how it fits into theology.

Should pastors trust the Holy Spirit? Does not the Holy Spirit teach people and affirm truth? God preserves His children. He teaches them. He opens a person’s mind to understand Him. God gives the Holy Spirit to believers. This is a New Covenant blessing (Ezekiel 36:27).

“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” (1 Cor. 2:12-13). The Holy Spirit teaches believers His truths. He interprets them and helps believers understand the truths. He allows believers to understand and know truth.

God teaches and preserves believers. He who begins a good work in a person, He will bring the believer to completion (Phil 1:6). Believers are completed. In order to grow and be conformed into His image believers have to agree with the truth. God will preserve believers.

God is in the business of bringing believers from dead in transgressions to glory. What is the pastor’s role? The pastor preaches God’s Word accurately. He preaches the meaning of the text (1 Cor. 2:13) and he speaks to please God (1 Thess 2:4). Pastors preach the Word in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). God preserves them. Therefore, let pastors preach the meaning of the text and trust the Lord will keep believers off the slippery slope!

Why Critical Inquiry Should Be Part of the Christian Life

21 Sunday Oct 2012

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Postmodernism, Shepherding, Teaching, Theodicy, Worldview

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Asking questions have plagued our youth to an extent that they are scolded for attempting to think “outside” the established norm. Some who offer critical thinking may be seem divisive. Regardless, questions that test the established norm are not necessarily favored by the hierarchy of leadership. I would offer the hypothesis that critical questions and the depth of those questions may indicate a spirit of teachability, spiritual maturity, and a great desire for knowledge. The converse of my hypothesis, I would also affirm: a lack of questions or attempting to squelch the inquisitor may be a sign of spiritual immaturity or a demonstration of lacking knowledge.

I wish I could take credit of this initial thought, but a mentor of mine developed the seedbed of this thinking. If you pursue the idea of “question” from a biblical theology perspective, the continuity of the testaments offer an interesting perspective. The original question in Scripture could undo my entire thesis. The serpent has the first question, attempting to break the established norm in Gen 3. This single question sought to discredit the authority of God’s instruction. But after living in a fallen-world, the idea of “question” breeds discernment.
Continue reading »

On Theologizing 2 (organic continuity)

24 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by in Biblical Theology, Gospel, Systematic Theology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The intro to this series may be found here.

In a recent journal article, Kaiser explores whether the object of faith in the OT is the same as in the NT.[1] This query is usually, as it is in Kaiser’s article, discussed along the lines of Dispensational Theology (DT) vs Covenant Theology (CT). There is not really any debate as to whether salvation is by grace through faith, but rather what the object of saving faith was in the OT. That Jesus is set forth as the object of saving faith in the NT is beyond dispute. However, Dispensationslists have often denied that Jesus is the object of saving faith in the OT. Instead, it is proffered that faith in God in general, and derivatively faith in whatever he promised at the time, is in fact the object of saving faith which OT saints possessed.

Kaiser cites Ryrie as representative of the common DT position, ”The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age [however,] is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”[2] Kaiser then cites the Westminster Confession (Chapter VII, section 3) as representative of the common CT position,[3]

Man by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

In his article, Kaiser goes on to discuss the implications of some who have gone beyond Ryrie and adopt an inclusivist approach: whereby it is argued that anyone who comes to believe in monotheism is basically exercising the faith of Abraham and the rest of the OT saints. Our interest here, however, is the continuity/discontinuity contrast between CT and DT. It should be pointed out that Kaiser’s antithesis appears to only take into account classical and revised DT. A progressive dispensationalist position would not necessarily understand the content of faith as changing over the various dispensations. As such, Kaiser’s antithesis is a false one in terms of CT vs DT.
Continue reading »

Did God change his mind about the nations?

18 Wednesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Missions

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

I remember early in my walk struggling with the concept of Israel being the “chosen” nation. I remember thinking, “Wow, God chose Israel but left all of the other nations out in the cold? Why?” . . . Probably to judge us. Or maybe the church is the new name for Israel? Both of those seemed like potential answers.

As I studied more, I began to realize Scripture has too many references to the restoration of Israel to deem one answer true. Yet God changed His mind and opened the Gospel up to ALL the nations! Diving into the depth of the Prophets brought out the reality of Israel’s sin and the fact that not all Israel is Israel — meaning not all Israel is saved and the Israelites were in the same predicament as the nations! So I just dealt with it. Israel is God’s chosen nation who needs a Savior. Chosen for what? Why them? The second question is easier to answer: because God chose them! So I left my inquiry open thinking God held off from the nations during the OT, but now in the NT the mandate is clear.
Continue reading »

Why inflation may be worse than abortion

10 Tuesday Jul 2012

Posted by in Theology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

As election season approaches one common (and maybe the most common) political issue for Christians is abortion. It is as if this one issue is the deciding factor for every elected official. I get the sense with some people if abortion were outlawed involvement in politics would cease. Abortion is sin. Killing people and placing it under the banner of “human rights” is calling “dark” “light”.

Yet the levels of injustice seen in other areas of government are cause for GREAT concern. Currently the US continues to print money on demand. The effect of our continuous printing drives the value of the dollar down. Why are gas prices higher today than five years ago? Many of you will blame Obama and his lack of ordering drilling in some secret field, only Fox News knows about, that would produce enough oil for us to give to our grand-kids’ kids. But the main reason is the value of the dollar. Gas is traded internationally with the dollar. As inflation rises and the dollar devalues gas prices go up. For the rich man this hits the pocket book, but does not hurt the pocket book. For the poor family, on a tight budget, this devastates the penny purse.

Continue reading »

Limited vs Unlimited

21 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,

There are a handful of debates between polar opposite views in theology. None probably more popular than limited vs unlimited atonement. This issue has probably been discussed among every one of us who love Jesus and read His Word. In no way will I win the argument and neither will you. There is too much baggage among the debate to “win the day”! When we get to heaven, and sit in “theology 101″ we will all learn the truth :)

But until then, debates will rage, ink will spill, keyboards hammered, and late night blogger wars will ensue while our spouses sit in the other room asking if we really have to stay up late because someone is wrong on the Internet.
Continue reading »

On Theologizing

09 Saturday Jun 2012

Posted by in Theology

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

It has occurred to me that when it comes to spectrally viewing Dispensational Theology vis-á-vis Covenant Theology, as their various formulations happen to appear along the axis of continuity/discontinuity, something is left to be desired. I think this is because such a paradigm not only tends to intensify discussion along the line of continuity vs. discontinuity (which can certainly be helpful), but also tends to minimize discussion along the lines of continuity per se and discontinuity per se. Continuity vs. discontinuity does not tell the whole story.

It would also be profitable to theologize along the lines of organic continuity vs. synthetic continuity, and organic discontinuity vs. synthetic discontinuity. I use “organic” in the following sense: that which is integral, or basic, to the constitution of a thing. I use “synthetic” in the following sense: that which is contrived, or manufactured, and foreign to a thing. The “thing” I am speaking of is Scripture. So “organic continuity” is continuity which is basic to Scripture; the continuity that Scripture itself inculcates. Conversely, “synthetic continuity” is continuity that is foreign to what Scripture inculcates; rather, it is manufactured by the theologian: often as a means to give coherence to the overall structure of divine revelation. The respective categories are what are intended concerning discontinuity as well.

I am, of course, assuming there is a basic, unified structure to divine revelation. I doubt that many would object to the thought that within this basic structure of divine revelation there are mysteries, the whitespaces in Scripture. Synthetic theology is basically the attempt to fill in those whitespaces with necessary logical inferences derived from the premises of what Scripture actually communicates. These necessary logical inferences become, in the mind of the theologian, part of the unified structure of divine revelation upon which they theologize.

I am not saying, nor do I think, that what I have described is necessarily a conscious process. I doubt that any Christian theologian would intentionally put their logical inferences on par with Scripture itself; no matter how necessary those logical inferences seem to be. That said, I do think that I have accurately described what can happen in doing theology: especially when one is attempting to describe the unified structure of divine revelation.

The difficulty in doing big picture theology is that once the theologian’s inferences are unconsciously stuffed into the whitespaces of Scripture they function as a foundation upon which further theological formulations are constructed. It should not be too difficult to admit that there is a difference between using Scripture as a foundation and using such inferences a foundation for theological formulations. I think the difference is akin to the Empire State Building resting on its present foundation vs. resting on a Jell-O mold.

I suppose these pesky, little inferences affect many parts of theology. I do not believe myself immune to confusing my own inferences with Scripture, but I certainly try and keep on the lookout for them. If I find them, and I do, I do what any respectable theologian would do: I do whatever I can to hold on to them. Then, once exhausted, I toss them out. Anyway, my hope is that over the next decade (I have to leave myself some wiggle room) I will sporadically post random thoughts on organic continuity and discontinuity integral to the structure of divine revelation and synthetic continuity and discontinuity manufactured and placed in that structure by theologians.