Theology Central
Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.More Than the Economy
ISI exerpts “The Economy Isn’t Everything” from Wilhelm Roepke’s book, The Humane Economy.
Economists have their typical deformation professionelle, their own occupational disease of the mind. Each of us speaks from personal experience when he admits that he does not find it easy to look beyond the circumscribed field of his own discipline and to acknowledge humbly that the sphere of the market, which it is his profession to explore, neither exhausts nor determines society as a whole. The market is only one section of society. It is a very important section, it is true, but still one whose existence is justifiable and possible only because it is part of a larger whole which concerns not economics but philosophy, history, and theology. We may be forgiven for misquoting Lichtenberg and saying: To know economics only is to know not even that. Man, in the words of the Gospel, does not live by bread alone.
God’s Delight in Worship
God truly does delight in worship. If God is more pleased by practices other than worship, then it is very odd that worship saturates biblical descriptions of heaven. These angelic declarations of glory to God remind us that through our own worship, we join with the angelic choirs and participate even now in the heavenly ascription of glory to our Lord. This is part of the wonder of the pillar of cloud settling upon Israel’s tabernacle and temple: the cloud, a replica of the heavenly court where God sits enthroned among the heavenly host, filled the place of worship on earth. The worship of the heavenly temple and the worship of the earthly temple in some marvelous way were united as one.
VanDrunen, David. God’s Glory Alone—The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (pp. 99-100). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
On Getting an Education After College
Eva Marie Hayne writes about the Great Books experience at Saint John’s College. It’s all the difference between liberal education and Liberal indoctrination. Perhaps our institutions could learn something from this model?
Unlike other graduate programs in the liberal arts, the St. John’s Graduate Institute has a set curriculum rather than a changing menu of elective courses, requiring that all students work through—and tutors teach—almost all of the same texts in philosophy, theology, literature, politics, mathematics, science, and history. After four semesters, these busy working students have read the likes of Homer, Aristotle, Euclid, Aquinas, Bacon, Rousseau, and Eliot.
This curriculum is the main reason why the graduate students are at St. John’s. Why? Because these students desire a truly literate intellectual life, characterized by an ongoing engagement with challenging books that grant them access to our great tradition of thought and imagination. The fixed curriculum ensures that they will have to read books (and poems) that have been tested by time and carefully chosen as representatives of that tradition. They don’t want an education that caters to their interests; they desire an education that shapes them.
The Distinct Activity of Worship
To clarify one matter initially, when I refer to “worship,” I am referring to a distinct activity. Sometimes people speak of all of life as worship, such that going to work is worship, playing basketball is worship, or practicing the piano is worship. It is indeed proper to honor God in all of our endeavors, as we’ll consider below, but worship is a distinct activity in which we set aside other tasks and set our minds and hearts fully upon the Lord, in order to receive his word and to respond to him with prayer and song—in private, in families, and especially in the corporate worship of the church on the Lord’s Day. In the many biblical texts about worship mentioned in the following paragraphs, and in several more discussed in the next chapter, the repeated exhortations to call upon the Lord, sing to the Lord, praise the Lord, and other similar practices provide abundant evidence that God takes special delight in the distinct activity of worship.
VanDrunen, David. God’s Glory Alone—The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (p. 99). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Reviewing and Being Reviewed
As an author who has been much reviewed, Joseph Epstein shares his frustrations over reviewers. This is an older essay, but well worth reading–particularly for students who have to write reviews.
What is a good book review? A first blush answer is, I suppose, the product of an interesting mind thinking about a book. But there is more to it than that. A reviewer has certain obligations to the book he’s reviewing and to his own readers: he must report what the book is saying; he must make a judgment about how well the author gets it said; and he must determine if what has been said was worth saying in the first place. Not to be dull, not to be fearful, not to scamp the duties of clear summary—these are the minimum requirements that a good book reviewer must meet.
What to Make of the SPLC?
What should we make of the Southern Poverty Law Center, now that it has started labeling traditionalist and Christian groups as “hate groups?” Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars offers an opinion.
The culture wars impinge ever closer on efforts to describe accurately and critique fairly American education. There is no avoiding this and no reason to run from it, but it is important to understand that SPLC is an active partisan in these matters. SPLC continues to benefit from a reputation as an honest arbiter of the character and motives of extremist groups in American life, but over the decades since its founding in 1971, it has devolved into a body that affixes that label to many mainstream groups simply because they espouse policy views at odds with progressive orthodoxy. Some thought SPLC hit bottom when it put the Family Research Council on its hate group list along with the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
Divine and Human Speech
Now, presumably speech is not predicated of God and humans in a univocal manner: God’s speech did not involve the use of vocal chords, for example, and until matter was created there could have been none of the vibrations we associate with physical sound. Yet by implication the Bible makes it clear that the closest analogy to God’s creative act is the human act of speech.
Trueman, Carl R. Grace Alone—Salvation as a Gift of God: What the Reformers Taughts…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (pp. 175-176). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Jonathan Edwards and the American Republic
Writing for The Imaginative Conservative, Gordon Arnold argues that Jonathan Edwards was a founding father of American political thought.
Edwards offered a political philosophy which was simultaneously Augustinian and compatible with facets of the Enlightenment. He articulated a vision for an America grounded in political freedom, but cognizant of the religion’s indispensability. His eschatology avoided jingoism and instead informed America of its profound duty to live up to the standards that God had designed.
Warning Signs for Fake On-Line Programs
From US News and World Report: “10 Red Flags an Online Degree Program Is Fake.”
Seriously.
Only in Minnesota
Minnesota is the only state that lets you drive up the north shore of Lake Superior. Here’s a mile-by-mile guide of things to see as you drive.
Jesus’ Temptation and Impeccability
The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could sin, but to show that He could not sin. The temptation came at a critical time: the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. The temptation was designed to show the nation what a unique Savior she had: the impeccable Son of God. It is also noteworthy that it was not Satan who initiated the temptation but the Holy Spirit (Matt. 4:1). If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit solicited Christ to sin, but that is something God does not do (James 1:13).
Christ’s peccability could relate only to His human nature; His divine nature was impeccable. Although Christ had two natures, He was nonetheless one Person and could not divorce Himself of His deity. Wherever He went, the divine nature was present. If the two natures could be separated then it could be said that He could sin in His humanity, but because the human and divine natures cannot be separated from the Person of Christ, and since the divine nature cannot sin, it must be affirmed that Christ could not have sinned.
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989; p 237.
Machismo or Manhood?
Good words from Joseph Pearce at The Imaginative Conservative. Here’s a snippet, but take the time to read the whole essay.
The problem is that machismo is a mark of immaturity. It is the failure to grow into the fullness of what it means to be a man. The mark of machismo is the boast and braggadocio of the braggart. It is the mask of pride, worn by those who lack humility; it is the rant of one demanding his rights because he does not have the courage to face his responsibilities. It is the “manliness” of one who is not really a man.
In my own case, I would have to confess that I have spent most of my life as the macho man who was not really a man at all. It took marriage to make a man of me, which is to say that it took a woman to make a man of me. And not just a woman; it took a wife to make a man of me. And not just a wife, it took children to really make a man of me. I can say, therefore, echoing the words of Wordsworth, that the child is father of the man. My own children have been the fathers of my manhood. Without them, I would still be a pathetic macho man, making all sorts of masculine noise without having any of the real masculine substance.
VanDrunen on the Gospel
When we speak of “the gospel,” we often think of the basic good news of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. This is not inaccurate, but it is helpful to remember that the gospel message is ultimately about God’s own glory and includes all the benefits of salvation, including the goal of God’s grace: our glorification with Christ in the new creation. Paul speaks of “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Tim 1:11), and this gospel of God’s glory entails our glorification: “He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 2:14). This expectation of glory was apparently at the center of Paul’s preaching: “God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. He is the one we proclaim” (Col 1:27–28). Or as he puts it elsewhere: “What we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord. . . . For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:5–6). The glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glorification of believers—all, it seems, are part of one grand gospel message.
VanDrunen, David. God’s Glory Alone—The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (p. 89). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
The New Covenant Not for the Church
This is not the majority view, even within traditional dispensationalism. It is, however, an interesting view.
Although the New Covenant is quoted in Hebrews 8, it cannot be taken to mean the New Covenant is fulfilled in the church for in Jeremiah 31:31, as well as in Hebrews 8:8, it is stated that the covenant is made with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” The covenant will be fulfilled with the nation with which the covenant is made. The time of the fulfillment of the New Covenant is eschatological as seen from the context of Jeremiah 31. In the section of Jeremiah 30–33 the setting is established in Jeremiah 30:3 where it states, “Behold, days are coming,” suggesting an eschatological setting (cf. Jer. 31:27). Jeremiah 30:7 describes the future tribulation period, whereas the remainder of Jeremiah 30 is millennial. Other prophets also regard the New Covenant as eschatological and therefore future (Isa. 55:3; Ezek. 16:60, 62; 20:37; 34:25–26; Hos. 2:18–20). Isaiah related the fulfillment of the New Covenant to the return of Messiah and the forgiveness of Israel (Isa. 59:20–21). Jeremiah related it to Israel’s restoration to the land (Jer. 32:37, 40–41). “The sequence of events set up by the prophets is that Israel will first be regathered and restored to the land and then will experience the blessings of the new covenant in the land.… Fulfillment of the prophecies requires the regathering of all Israel, their spiritual rebirth, and the return of Christ.” The New Covenant is not fulfilled in the church but in the future kingdom.
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989. p. 68.
Roger, Roger | Part Four: Today’s Situation
A few weeks ago, Roger Olson of Baylor University devoted a blog post to asking “What Is ‘Fundamentalism?’” By way of contrast he was also trying to say how fundamentalism differs from evangelicalism. He used Edward John Carnell’s critique of fundamentalism as the fulcrum of his argument. Olson did not mention that Carnell’s “Exhibit A” for fundamentalism was J. Gresham Machen. When Carnell talked about fundamentalism as “cultic orthodoxy,” Machen was who he had in mind.
As we have seen, the key difference between Machen and Carnell was ecclesiological. Machen insisted that the gospel, and therefore Christianity and Christian fellowship, had to include a significant doctrinal component. Carnell was willing to overlook at least part of this doctrinal component at least part of the time in favor of apparent piety and a form of demonstrated love that amounted to niceness. To be clear, Machen would not have denied that Christianity is more than doctrinal. He would have insisted that it also included significant ethical and affective components. His argument was simply that an irreducible doctrinal minimum was essential to the definition of the true Christian gospel, of the Christian faith, of the visible Christian church, and of Christian fellowship. This component was what Carnell was willing to compromise.
Machen never knew Carnell, but he knew people like him. He called them indifferentists and thought that they were a serious threat to the integrity of the gospel, faith, and fellowship. Later fundamentalists followed Machen in denying any Christian fellowship to gospel deniers (such as theological liberals) and in limiting their cooperation with indifferentists. By Carnell’s day the indifferentists were calling themselves new evangelicals.
Most American evangelicals, however, fit neither party exactly. The often-silent majority of American evangelicalism agreed with the fundamentalists about separating from gospel deniers, but did not wish to limit their cooperation with neoevangelicals. When this middle group had to choose between limiting fellowship with neoevangelicals and limiting fellowship with fundamentalists, it rejected the fundamentalists.
Any schema that reduces American evangelicalism to two parties (fundamentalist and evangelical) will necessarily result in skewed judgments about particular cases. In the first place, fundamentalists are evangelicals; fundamentalism is one subset of evangelicalism. In the second place, fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism are not the only, or even the majority, positions on the spectrum. Instead, fundamentalists and neoevangelicals competed for the minds and loyalties of the mainstream or moderate evangelicals. This is the dynamic that Roger overlooks.
He also overlooks a series of historical developments that occurred from the 1960s to the 1980s. On one side, the new evangelicalism tried to build bridges to non-conservative theologians and churchmen. Not surprisingly, people began to cross these bridges—almost always from evangelicalism into the broader ecumenical world. The problem is that they kept calling themselves evangelicals. The result was the so-called Evangelical Left, which began by denying inerrancy. It ended up denying a whole series of other doctrines that fundamentalists and moderate evangelicals would have considered essential to the gospel, to Christianity, and to Christian fellowship.
On the other side, some fundamentalists allowed themselves to become dominated by incidental concerns or idiosyncratic positions. Some gave themselves to uncontrolled suspicion or adopted a “warfare” ethic that allowed them to defend behavior that would normally have been censured as reprehensible. This variety of fundamentalism was often dominated by personality cults and strong-arm tactics.
These two trends produced a double reaction. Some of the original neoevangelicals (Ockenga and Lindsell, e.g.) reacted strongly against the Evangelical Left. At the same time, a few fundamentalists (Falwell and Van Impe among others) reacted against the Hard Right by rejecting any level of separation from disobedient brethren. In short, both groups found themselves moving into the position of the old “moderate evangelicalism,” which was historically the mainstream evangelical position. This revitalized version of evangelicalism gained special momentum within the Southern Baptist Convention where, over a process of several years, its leaders succeeded in pushing the liberals and their indifferentist defenders to the margins.
Roger wants us to believe that today’s conservative evangelicals are nothing but fundamentalists who lack the nerve to wear the correct label. He is wrong. People like Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Danny Akin, Mark Dever, Jerry Falwell, D. A. Carson, Kevin DeYoung, Carl Trueman, and Daniel Doriani (to select names almost at random) do not occupy the position of historic, separatist fundamentalism. Rather, they take exactly the stance of the older evangelical mainstream. In terms of position (and probably numbers), they are the true center of the evangelical spectrum. I write this as a separatist fundamentalist who disagrees with them at certain important points (and who is willing to engage them about those disagreements), and yet who wishes to see them represented fairly.
Why does Roger want to claim that these people are fundamentalists? I cannot judge his motives, but his intent seems clear enough. Roger has proclaimed himself in favor of “big tent” evangelicalism. His vision of evangelicalism includes people who call themselves evangelical, but who have wandered across those old bridges toward non-conservative theologies. Conservative evangelicals, however, will not let him define evangelical fellowship that broadly. They believe in certain clear doctrinal boundaries, and they are indelicate enough to insist upon maintaining those boundaries. They are getting in Roger’s way and keeping his friends out of their circles. It would be very convenient for Roger if he could simply label and dismiss them.
It won’t work. It won’t work historically. It won’t work theologically. Most of all, it won’t work practically, because the conservative evangelicals are here to stay.
If Roger had his way, evangelicals would not be able to agree how much of the Bible was really true. They would not be able to say exactly what justification was or how the atonement works. They would not agree about which human decisions are included in whatever future God can know. They would not be sure whether God ever really created an historical Adam. They might not even be sure whether Jesus always told the truth while He was on earth.
The new evangelicalism represented a bundle of ideas that could not be held together. Some of those ideas gave rise to the Evangelical Left. Others led to today’s conservative evangelicalism. Neither branch perpetuates all the concerns of the now-defunct neoevangelical movement. Both can rightly claim to have descended from it. Fundamentalists, however, (and I mean real ones) repudiated the ecclesiological trunk from which both branches sprang. They still do.
This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
In Vain We Seek for Peace with God
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
In vain we seek for peace with God,
By methods of our own;
Jesus, there’s nothing but Thy blood
Can bring us near the throne.
The threatenings of Thy broken law
Impress the soul with dread;
If God the sword of justice draw,
It strikes the spirit dead.
But Thine illustrious sacrifice
Hath answered these demands;
And peace and pardon from the skies
Came down from Jesus’ hands.
Here all the ancient types agree,
The altar and the lamb;
And prophets in their vision see
Salvation through His name.
‘Tis by Thy death we live, O Lord,
‘Tis on Thy cross we rest;
Forever be Thy love adored
Thy name forever blest.
Why Are There So Many Interpretations of the Bible?
Robert Plummer of Southern Baptist Seminary answers.
How God Glorifies Himself through Humans
God chooses to glorify himself in and through human beings, first and foremost through his own Son become man, but also through his chosen people called to share his glory in union with Christ.
VanDrunen, David. God’s Glory Alone—The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (p. 73). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
The Center of the Old Testament
It is best to see the unity and the center or thematic principle of the Old Testament in the concept of the kingdom of God. This theme can be seen from the very beginning of Genesis to the concluding words of the prophets. Scripture indicates that God mediates His will on earth through mediators.
At any point in history, beginning in Genesis, God rules His mediatorial kingdom on earth through appointed agents. Adam was the first mediator of God’s kingdom on earth; Messiah will be the final mediator.
God’s purpose for man from the very beginning was that man was destined to rule over creation. Man was to be king of the earth. With the fall of man God has been working to restore man as king of the earth. The ultimate form of man’s rule over the earth will be Messiah’s kingdom.
Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989. Pp. 33-34.
Report on Faculty In-Service
Central Seminary begins every academic year with an in-service meeting of all professors. You may be interested to know that this year’s in-service has been devoted significantly to training in two technologies.
Logos
Central Seminary gives an enhanced version of Logos Platinum to all incoming MDiv students. Logos then becomes a significant teaching and research tool through the entire curriculum. To do that, professors need to be fairly expert in using the program themselves.
Distance Ed
Beginning this fall, Central Seminary is offering all courses in synchronous Distance Education. Electronic classes are coordinated on a program called Zoom, which allows each student to see the professor and all other students. This setup creates an electronic “virtual classroom.” We’ve been experimenting with the technology for months. Now is the time to be sure that all professors know how to use it.
It isn’t too late to enroll for fall classes or to receive Logos Platinum. Contact Daniel Johnson at Central Seminary (djohnson@centralseminary.edu).
Earnest Preaching
Preachers need to understand that they perform a theological action that demands care and earnestness. They handle the word of God and bring the most important message of all to people’s ears. Their carefulness also rests on confidence because the power of the message does not reside ultimately in them as messengers but in the God who speaks through the message. Nothing kills churches faster than preachers who do not understand both elements of the task. Preachers need to understand God’s grace, not simply so that they can preach its content but also so that they can preach, period.
Trueman, Carl R. Grace Alone—Salvation as a Gift of God: What the Reformers Taught…and Why It Still Matters (The Five Solas Series) (p. 175). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
APPLICATION & AID