I am a dispensationalist . . .Â I think. Below is my explanation of my view. While the term “Progressive Covenantalism” suggests a hybrid between Covenant Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism, it is not really meant to. My view is simply Progressive Dispensationalism with two changes: 1) The emphasis is on the continuity brought about by the single covenant of redemption, not made between the members of the Trinity (as in Covenant Theology), but between God and mankind, represented by Adam. 2) The change of name. I don’t like the word “dispensationalism.” Sadly,Â it has lost its effectivenessÂ due to the increadible amount ofÂ misrepresentation due to ignorance of its history and development. Therefore, I think it should be superseded (oh yeah, how was that for a play on words my young replacement theologians?). Anyway, here is a brief video clip describing what Progressive Covenantalism is. I have inserted the charts so that you can see them better. Continue Reading →
Can a man be a Christian and a politician?Â This question plagued a rising member of the English parliament in 1785, as the young politician contemplated how he should live out his newfound faith.
William Wilberforce was born in 1759 in Hull, England.Â He was raised in a wealthy home, educated at Cambridge and won his first seat in Parliament at 21 years of age.Â Although small in appearance and plagued with physical difficulties, he was a gifted and persuasive speaker and was soon known as â€˜the nightingale of the House of Commons.â€™Â By the age of 24, he was already a powerful force in the British government. Continue Reading →
My daughter Katelynn has always been as sharp as a whip. She loves to learn. At church, people used to get kicks out of her understanding of theological issues. When she was six she came to me and saw that I was reading the Greek New Testament and asked if she could learn. Within the month she started reading Greek. She has known the Gospel since she could listen. I watched a home video of her tonight. She was two-years-old. In the video I asked her where Jesus was and she pointed to the sky. Why? Because I told her that is where God is. She simply believed what I said.
In my last blog, I noted that the standard doctrine of preservation assumes that the text is accessible by Godâ€™s people down to the very words and down through the ages. But since the Old Testament text demonstrably has places in which scholars must resort to conjecture, this doctrine of preservation does not seem to match the historical data. This leaves defenders of the doctrine in the uncomfortable position of having to argue one of two things: (1) the doctrine is only true for the New Testament, which thus makes one methodologically a Marcionite; (2) the doctrine is true for both testaments, but we havenâ€™t found all the manuscripts yet; however, this also must mean that accessibility is not the reason for preservation since the preserved text is not even completely accessible yet. Either of these views really negates the value of the doctrine, for it was originally framed to cover both testaments and to speak of accessibility. Continue Reading →
What is the “True” church? #3
What is the definition of a true church? Here we will continue our discussion of what a legitimate church. Are we supposed to “start” a church in order for a church to “true” or does church simply happen? In other words we pose the question of whether a local church is purely an intentional endeavor. With the obscurities concerning the “how to” of a local church in the New Testament, many have dogmatized a certain way to do church failing to recognize that it is the principles that ultimately matter, not so much the particular way which we implement those principles.
Here is the situation: We are born with a propensity,Â bent, inclinationÂ to sin. Therefore, we cannot help but sin – it is our nature. Yet when we doÂ act according to our nature and sin, we are held guilty by God and ultimately condemned to eternal punishment. Not only this, but we are already condemned for the sin of another – namely Adam – before we commit any personal sins. We are held guilty for something someone else did. Umm . . . Check please. I did not vote for this. I did not ask to be this way. I did not even have a chance.Â This seems unjust.
As soon as I heard about the TIME (8-23-07) article, â€œMother Teresaâ€™s Crisis of Faith,â€ I commented to my husband that the publication of her personal letters telling of this decades-long â€œcrisisâ€ might very well become her greatest legacy. Then I read the article, which I discovered included a similar statement from Rev. James Martin, an editor of America, a Jesuit magazine. Speaking of her crisis, he comments: “It may be remembered as just as important as her ministry to the poor. It would be a ministry to people who had experienced some doubt, some absence of God in their lives.â€ Continue Reading →
1. I will finish my series on imputation onÂ Monday.Â
2. Ben Witherington writes on authorial intent hermeneutics. His three basic guidelines: 1) It means what is means, not what you want it to mean or your presuppositions determine it means. 2) Context is king. No proof texting. This is one of the biggest interpretive problems in the church today.Â 3) Genre Matter. You have interpret according to the rules of engagement determined by the type of literature. Oh that people would embrace these principles. Here is an excerpt. Continue Reading →