Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I learned today that one of my former professors and colleagues, Zane Hodges, passed from this life to the next over the weekend. Zane was 75 years old when he died. He was at the center of some major debates within evangelical circles, namely, how salvation is to be defined and what constitutes the original text of the New Testament. He viewed salvation as that which was bestowed solely by faith in Christ, and that one does not necessarily have to persevere in faith to be saved. And by this perseverance, he meant that a saved individual did not have to have either good works or even continued faith to be saved. His view of the text of the New Testament was that the majority of manuscripts, regardless of age, were the surest pointer to the original text. He was responsible for resurrecting Dean Burgon’s views of the text within scholarly circles. Both of these views are quite controversial in evangelical circles.

Zane taught Greek and New Testament courses at Dallas Seminary from 1960 to 1987. I took him for more courses than from any other NT prof, and learned a great deal from him. His skills with the Greek text were breathtaking. I never knew a professor who could sight-read as well as Hodges (except for Johnson). And he thought through his positions well. I didn’t agree with him on everything; in fact, I would say that I disagreed with him on most of his positions. I was always a bit nervous coming into his class because I wasn’t sure what he would say that hour that might rock my world. But I enjoyed immensely how he structured the courses, how he argued his positions, and how charismatic he was in the classroom. He was a superb preacher and very persuasive. His electives always had the highest enrollment by far of any NT electives at DTS.

Zane never married. His lifelong celibacy influenced a number of others, including Art Farstad, with whom he co-edited The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text.

He never earned a doctorate, and intentionally so: he thought that such a degree might make him proud. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Everyone should learn a 2nd language. In fact, I came across this site on-line touting the benefits of learning another language, identifying the following perks:

· Fosters intellectual growth

· Creates more flexibility in thinking

· Improves listening abilities

So as I pondered these benefits, I could not help but think of how applicable this would be for the Christ followers, aka Christians, as they typically begin learning a 2nd language beginning at their induction into Christianity. It is a language unique to this species that associates with a new set of verbiage that is chiefly identified with language from the Bible. I will call this Christianese. As the Christ follower is introduced to the rudimentary foundations of the faith, they begin to learn key Christianese vocabulary words such as such as “saved” and “redeemed” and “born again”. The Christ follower readily adopts this second language and swiftly expands the Christianese vocabulary to include words like “kingdom” and even whole phrases such as “blood of the Lamb” and “the glory of God”.

To be sure, the learning process is facilitated through association with fluent speakers of Christianese. There is clearly a direct correlation with the degree of immersion with fluent Christianese speakers with the degree of advancement in the language. Readers who are Christ followers and experiencing deficiencies in the art of Christianese need not despair. Groups of proficient Christianese speakers can be found at just about any church that teaches the Bible as the authoritative vehicle of divine communication, especially considering that the Christianese tongue is adopted from this very source.

Once the Christ follower begins to advance in the language, the speaker begins to form whole sentences. These advanced forms are typically related to Bible passages but can also include extraneous verbiage to express Christianese in very creative formats. Some of the verbiage may not be consistent with a holistic understanding of the Biblical source, but nonetheless bolters the aesthetics of the language.

Subsequently, translation does present some challenges with the typical speaker of Christianese when the fluency of the language is not compatible with an understanding of the terms. For due to prolific usage of the language, it is quite common to gain fluency in speech without an adequate understanding of intended meaning. In these instances, the language begins to experience a breakdown because the chief purpose of the vocabulary does not communicate the intended meaning to the Christianese speaker and thus becomes relegated to an empty form of verbiage. Christianese also presents numerous challenges relative to translation when the language is utilized to communicate truths about Christianity with non-Christianese speakers. Typically, these conversations are not privy to on-site interpretation, which will most likely leave the non-Christianese speaker in a state of confusion and inadequate understanding of the truths of what the Christianese speaker is intending to communicate.

So as I ponder the benefits of Christianese, there does seem to be a possible contradiction between the proposed benefits of learning a second language and the intended purposes of the Christianese language. It does strike me that adopting Christianese may in fact stunt intellectual growth, inhibit flexible thinking and destroy listening skills as the language becomes a form of jargon that espouses rhetoric rather than adequately communicate divine truths. For this Christ follower has discovered that God has used the language of 40 authors to communicate the truth about Himself, His purposes, His will and His plan towards humanity. It deserves better than the casual adoption of terms. It deserves an intensive investigation into their meaning. Perhaps the benefits of Christianese is realizing there are no benefits to adopting the language and maybe the preferred solution is to translate the language of the Bible through the lens of contemporary culture in order to adequately translate meaning and transmit truths into a format that can be understood. For clearly, language is designed to communicate. But it cannot do so if it is not expressed in understandable terms. Nor will we who are Christ followers honor the intended usage of the terms written in ancient times unless we can first translate them for ourselves.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Having just come from the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference, I want to propose something for discussion concerning the doctrinal statement currently ascribed to by ETS. Whether you are familiar with ETS or not, this conversation will be beneficial to you, especially my students.

First, I want to make clear that I hold to inerrancy. I sign with good conscience the ETS doctrinal statement which is founded upon a confession of inerrancy. I have written on this issue here on this blog and defended what I call “reasoned inerrancy” as a hermeneutical motif for Christian hermeneutics. Therefore, this is not a post about any problem that I have with the doctrine itself.

Second, I want to make it clear that this is not a formal proposal of any sort. Although I am a voting member of ETS, I do not have any aspirations right now of taking this any further than this blog discussion.

Having been involved in ETS for the last eight years, I have come to appreciate what it is about. At least what I think its original and abiding intent is.

From the ETS website:

“Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research.”

“Oral exchange and written expression of theological though and research.” What this means is that ETS, while decidedly Evangelical, desires to provide a forum where Christian scholars can exchange research for peer review. ETS is not an official Evangelical magisterium in any sense, and it should never be seen as such. It is simply a place to “do” Evangelical scholarship. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

It looks like I am getting some flack from some passionate Preterists (full or hyper Preterist, not partial preterists) who say I don’t give them a fair shake in The Theology Program material. Saying that I don’t give people a fair shake disturbs me very much as our program prides itself all being “fair and balanced.”

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogant statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

One of the dozens of reasons I am a Calvinist has to do with the tension that is allowed within the Calvinistic system that is not allowed in other options. You see, the issues of Calvinism primarily center on one issue: predestination. While the sovereignty of God has its place, it does not ultimately determine where one lands. An Arminian can believe that God is sovereign to a similar degree as a Calvinist. But an Arminian cannot believe in predestination the same way as Calvinists.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.

The Calvinist says that God’s predestination has no founding in the predestined in any sense. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination because there are no conditions in man that need to be met. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others, but that the reason is not found in us. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Rewind 20 years: 1988

Walking past the sign at John Marshall High in Oklahoma City which encouraged students to come to Bible study at 6:30 in room 208. Not me. No, not because I did not like the Bible, but because it would be filled with nerds whom I did not want to be associated with. I smirked as I thought that the only reason they were taking this path was because they could not be like me—cool like me. Sure I went to FCA, but all the cool kids did. One kid even approached me, Davey Peirce, and asked me about Christ. I remember his exact words. “Michael, I want you to tell me more about this Jesus Christ.” “Sure,” I responded, “I will get back to you.” I never did. He asked me because I seemed to know a lot about the Bible during that session. Indeed, relatively speaking, I knew more than most. But Christ was a hamper to my style. My indulgence would have to be put on hold if I walked that path right now. I told Christ that I would be back after high school. I was just too busy.

Fast-forward 5 years

With Smashing Pupkins and Blind Melon playing in the background, I lay on the carpet face down in Arizona on my best friends floor in his room. It had now been three years since I told Christ I would be back and here I was. Dropped out of school (although I took my fathers tuition money), drinking every night, playing Madden 93′, living part time with my girl friend, stoned and making jokes about how I would not live past 21. As I lay on the floor, I told the Lord I was sorry. I just did not know what to do. “Lord, forgive me. I don’t even want to be different and for this I am ashamed.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

A friend wrote to me recently, asking why I haven’t written anything about wife abuse on Parchment & Pen. She urged me to do it because, according to her, complementarianism is rich soil in which to grow this kind of wickedness (she’s an egalitarian). Now, I could dispute the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll pass. Instead, I want to take a pro-active position on what the Bible says about how a husband should treat his wife. I’ll talk about the do’s and don’t’s.

But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!

Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.

The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE ADDITION AT THE BOTTOM

Considering the activity on my recent blog posts and Theology Unplugged podcasts on the will of God and Barack Obama, I though I would squeeze this lemon one last time (and pour some salt). No, that does not mean take a shot of tequila before reading this!

My basic argument was that whatever faults one may be inclined to find in Barack Obama, he was elected president. In this, it was, in some very real sense, the will of God.

While I was a singles’ pastor for six years, I often dealt with issues from those whom I had married. I had these issue in both premarital counseling and post-marital counseling. In post-marital counseling things got interesting. I would often sit in the presence of a discouraged wife or husband whose marriage was less than happy. For some, things just weren’t clicking. For others, the problems were more serious. Much of the time people would suggest that they had made a mistake. In their mind, they simply married the wrong person and their “soul-mate” was still out there waiting.

These type of things quickly become a matter of theology—very practical theology. The question is this: Is it possible to have married the “wrong” person? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has an cause. But that  cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is God.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I wanted to take this opportunity to announce the release of a new monograph that deals especially with the deity of Christ, and especially from a grammatical perspective. Based on my doctoral dissertation but with significantly more material and thoroughly updated, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance was published last week by Peter Lang. If you’re familiar with Sharp’s Rule, which was articulated especially in relation to Christ’s deity, you will understand the need for Sharp’s name in the title. (This announcement is timely, too, since it’s Sharp’s birthday! He’s 273 years old.) The monograph represents about 25 years of research, off and on, and touches on some key passages such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. It’s available at Amazon. But since it is an academic book, it’s a bit pricey: $69.95.

Besides affirming the deity of Christ in both of these passages, the book deals with constructions that do not fit Sharp’s rule and thus have a different force. “Pastors and teachers” in Eph 4:11 and “apostles and prophets” in Eph 2:20 are discussed at length, for example. In neither of these passages is it likely that the groups are identical. The fact that the book came out after Gordon Fee’s magisterial Pauline Christology has afforded me the opportunity to interact with Fee’s arguments that “our great God and Savior” refer to the Father rather than the Son. I disagree with him on this, and argue that the epithet speaks of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the book had several typos in the Greek due to some font issues at the printer’s. But a corrigenda sheet will accompany each hard copy so that you can spot the errors and make the corrections. If you write to me (dbw@csntm.org), I can send you the corrigenda sheet (in case you buy a copy that was already dispatched to the reseller before the typos were detected).
The monograph will be on sale at the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual meeting coming up in Boston later this month.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

A 16th century German sect of Anabaptists led by Nicholas Storch who believed that all knowledge, even knowledge of the alphabet, prevents people from a true knowledge of God. Abecedarians believed that God would provide all necessary understanding through divine means such as visions and ecstatic experiences. According to them, all theology and “academic” learning amounted to an idolatrous abandonment of the Christian faith. Their name, Abecedarians, comes from their denial of the ABCs.

Working in my field, I often wonder if we don’t have more modern day Abecedarians in the Evangelical church than we know.

What do you think?

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Was it God’s will for Barack Obama to become the president?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

Send post as PDF to

 

 TUP - God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 2 [24:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Was it God’s will for Obama to win the election?

Enjoy . . .

Send post as PDF to

 

 God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 1 [23:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Over at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website (www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Never-Apologize-for-Gods-Truth) a blog post was put up on October 28. The title of the post: “Never Apologize for God’s Truth.” The blog post is a discussion about my essay, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues,” posted at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6133. I thought it misrepresented my views in some serious ways, so I wrote a response. I had thought that that response would either get posted on the site (it wasn’t), would have caused the author to alter what he said (he didn’t), or at least have stimulated the writing of a letter to me from the CBMW folks (they weren’t). Regrettably, I have to post my response here, because of the one-sided story that was given at CBMW. Here’s what I wrote:

A friend sent me the blog that was posted at CBMW about my recent essay on the role of women, posted at bible.org. I’m honored that my views would be considered worthy of discussing at CBMW. But I have to say, I think I was misrepresented.

Here’s what the blog post said, “Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…”

That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church. Probably the strongest statement I made in terms of certainty was “I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage are willing to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.)” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

The above title is taken from a chapter in the eminent sociologist Rodney Stark’s recent book What Americans Really Believe (Baylor University Press, 2008). Anti-Christian prophets such Thomas Woolston (1670-1731) and Voltaire (1694-1778) foretold the disappearance of religion. In the 1960s, anthropologist Anthony Wallace claimed, “The evolutionary future of religion is extinction.” Belief in supernatural forces affecting nature without obeying its “laws” will “erode and become only an interesting memory.” Around that time sociologist Peter Berger was quoted in the New York Times as saying that religious believers “are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture.” However, in 1997 Berger took it all back, as the world had gotten more religious since that assertion. Atheists are ever the minority in our global village.

The rise of the New Atheism, led by what Stark calls “angry and remarkably nasty atheists,” is attested to by several bestsellers, which have presumably signaled a breakthrough for atheism—“that large numbers of Americans were now ready to stand up and admit they didn’t believe in God.” Despite recent claims that the number of atheists has risen sharply in recent years, the evidence reveals something else: “what most people who say they have no religion mean is not that they are irreligious, but that they have no church.”

The percentage of atheists in America revealed by, say, Gallup polls and the Baylor Survey, shows a tenacious consistency over the years: 1944: 4%; 1947: 6%; 1964: 3%; 1994: 3%; 2005: 4%; 2007: 4%. I found it interesting that “the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group—most often a conservative denomination.” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I have learned something over the last few months. You have all heard the saying that the two things you don’t talk about in mixed company are religion and politics. I have found that religion is much easier to talk about than politics. People are much more tolerant about religion because my decisions and beliefs don’t necessarily affect you. At least they don’t affect you to the degree that my political decisions and beliefs effect you. Why? Because politics, here in America, is a democracy, religion is not. When you and I vote we affect each other, creating a necessary submission to our elected leadership.

Whether you voted for him or not, my fellow American citizens, Obama is our new president. The balance of powers has now completely shifted. Agree or not, the people have spoken.

I praise God for this. In fact, I will rejoice at the revealing of his will.

Why?

Because, ultimately, God is in control of who sits in the White House. The plans of the heart belong to man, but the Lord makes things happen (Prov. 16:1). God placed Obama in the presidency according to his sovereign will. That is right. Obama is the man God decided would be our next president. This is exactly what he wanted to happen.

Argue with him if you will. Argue about the history of this country, the supreme court judges, the issues of morality, and the moral superiority of our view on taxes but, in the end, “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).

Don’t bother inviting him to your morning party either. He will not come. No RSVP either. In fact, he won’t even send an angelic representative. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

From The Theological Word of the Day

(Gk. theos, God + tokos, “parturition, childbirth”)

Theotokos is a historic designation given to Mary in relation to her role as the mother of Christ. Theotokos means “God bearer.” This designation was approved by the third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Nestorius apposed the use of the term theotokos, preferring christotokos (”Christ-bearer), believing that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature. Most, however, felt that this would divide Christ into two persons. Led by Cyril of Alexandria, the council chose theotokos to acknowledge a belief in the dual-nature of Christ. It is important to note that this designation was not meant to venerate Mary, but to make a theological statement about Christ. He must be fully God and fully man if man is to have redemption.

Read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius defending theotokos.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!