Call To Die
Then [Jesus] said to them all, "If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me will save it. (Luke 9:23-24, HCSB)
- Name: Andrew Lindsey
Follower of Christ, husband of Abby, member of Kosmosdale Baptist Church, and tutor/staff member at Sayers Classical Academy.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Friday, July 08, 2016
Trinity Blogposts by Dr. Sam Waldron
the Nicene doctrine of eternal generation is the historical and biblical basis for holding what is (perhaps a little clumsily) called by recent theologians the eternal, functional subordination of the Son [EFS], the eternal functional subordination of the Son is consistent with His full and undiluted deity, and finally this Nicene doctrine of Trinity undercuts the fundamental premise of Egalitarianism that equality of nature and subordination of role are inconsistent.This line of thinking places him in a kind of middle ground regarding the current debate on the Trinity. Dr. Waldron, unlike many on the EFS side of the debate, is fully convinced that the "eternally begotten" language of the creeds is well-grounded in Scripture. However, unlike many on the other side of the debate, Dr. Waldron believes that EFS is properly grounded in the doctrine of eternal generation.
Links to Dr. Waldron's posts:
Labels: Reformation Theology
Thursday, June 23, 2016
God the Son: Eternally Begotten AND Eternally Submissive?
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), 2.3:
In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
(Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; Exo 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Cor 8:6; John 1:14, 18; John 15:26; Gal 4:6)
In an article focused on BCF 1689 2.3 [found HERE], Stefan Lindblad makes several helpful observations. For example, Lindblad notes that unlike in human begetting, in which the generic human essence is divided- and, by virtue of being begotten, a human being moves from a state of potentiality (non-existence) to actuality (existence)- God the Son is begotten of God the Father eternally (both Father and Son always exist), with no division of the divine essence. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is both "expressly set down" and "necessarily contained" in Scripture (BCF 1689 1.10).
In his article, Lindblad defends the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son against current evangelical skeptics. In the final section of his article, Lindblad specifically focuses on Bruce Ware's teaching the Son's eternal distinction from and relation to the Father is best understood in terms of eternal functional submission RATHER THAN the Son being eternally begotten. Ware writes:
The conceptions of both the "eternal begetting of the Son" and "eternal procession of the Spirit" seem to me highly speculative and not grounded in biblical teaching. Both the Son as only-begotten and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father (and the Son) refer, in my judgment, to the historical realities of the incarnation and Pentecost, respectively. [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationship, Roles, and Relevance 162, n 3]By contrast, Lindblad objects to Ware's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3 in which Ware asserts that Paul teaches that male headship is "a reflection of the authority and submission that exists in the eternal Godhead."
Notice, however, that the positions are not mutually exclusive, as both Lindblad and Ware seem to believe. There is no reason why, accepting Lindblad's defense of eternal generation, the reader must then necessarily reject Ware's exegesis of 1 Cor 11:3 (or vice versa). Eternal generation and eternal functional submission may be complementary rather than contradictory.
It is interesting that Lindblad makes the exact same objections to eternal functional submission that Ware and other evangelical critics make to eternal generation. Ware believes that the biblical language regarding the Son's being begotten or the Spirit's proceeding only refers to these Persons activity in time whereas language regarding the Son's submission to the Father reflects an eternal reality. Lindblad believes that the biblical language concerning the Son's submission to the Father only refers to the Son's work in redemption whereas language regarding the Son being begotten reflects an eternal reality. Both Ware and Lindblad believe that the other man's position logically necessitates Arianism or subordinationism whereas their own position in no way lends support to the Arian or subordinationist position.
What if both are right (AND both are wrong)? That is: what if the biblical language regarding the Son's being begotten AND the biblical language regarding the Son's submission to the Father all reflect eternal realities concerning the Persons within the Godhead? What if NEITHER position lends support to Arianism, as both positions involve eternal realities (none in this conversation teach that "there was a time when He was not:" the definitional statement of Arianism) and both positions teach eternal co-equality of Being shared by the Persons of the Trinity?
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology
The Covenant of Works
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Mosaic Covenant
The New Covenant
The Nature of the Church*
Responding to Dispensationalism
Responding to New Covenant Theology
*Special session on subjects of baptism
talk was cut off at 1:18:40 -- actual talk was much longer
Labels: Reformation Theology
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Stages for Understanding God's Will
In writing about discerning God's will, Tim Challies recommends viewing discernment of God's will according to the following "stages". It is important to note, when considering these "stages":
1. This process presupposes that the person who seeks to know God's will is a believer, who has been given a new heart (Eze 36:26); it is only through being born again that a faithful person can honestly pray to God, "Your will be done" (Matt 6:10);
2. This process presupposes that the person who seeks to know God's will is regularly studying Scripture, therefore becoming well-acquainted with God's revealed will;
3. This process is not a a strict step-by-step sequence, as these "stages" often take place simultaneously.
Stages for understanding and obeying God's will:
1. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind (Rom 12:2);
2. Apply truths from Scripture to situations and decisions you encounter in life, by:
a. Obeying God's commands;
b. Seeking to act according to biblical principles;
3. Renew your emotions so that you love what God loves and hate what God hates.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Knowing God's Will for Our Lives: Two Aspects of God's Will
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
What is God's Will for My Life?
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
God's Will for Your Life
Labels: Bible study
Monday, May 16, 2016
Progressive Covenantalism: A Reformed Baptist Reflection
1. Abraham as the father of Jews and Gentiles. I appreciated Jason DeRouchie's discussion of Abraham's "seed" in Chapter 1. I believe that much of what he wrote is exactly what Reformed Baptists have been saying on this subject. I think it would be profitable to compare his discussion on this Abraham's "seed" with Reformed Baptist works on the same topic (for example, in Jeff Johnson's The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism). I believe that, starting from a point of basic agreement, discussions about Abraham's "seed" between Reformed Baptists and Progressive Covenantalists could lead both groups toward an even more precise articulation of the biblical teaching on this topic.
2. Typology. The most helpful feature of this book was its discussion and application of biblical typology. Brent Parker's chapter on the Israel-Christ-Church relationship was especially insightful. I do think that Reformed Baptists could benefit from Parker's work in this regard. Some language I've heard from fellow Reformed Baptists tends to follow our paedobaptist brethren in too readily equating Israel with the Church; we have not always consistently considered the typological development of Israel as fulfilled in Christ. The Church partakes in the promises made to Israel only as we are united to Christ, who is the true Israelite. (I doubt that any of my fellow Reformed Baptists would disagree with this statement, but Parker points out the typological relationships in a particularly clear manner.)
3. Warning Passages. I believe that Ardel Caneday's chapter on the "warning passages" in Hebrews is well-thought-out and biblical. Caneday's position is that the warning passages are effective means by which God prompts His people to perseverance. This is the only chapter that gives any positive attention to Historical Theology. Caneday mentions several Reformed pastors/teachers (I believe John Owen and Charles Spurgeon are mentioned) who have held his view.
4. Land Promises. The final chapter of the book, focused on the Old Testament land promises, is another specific example of applied biblical typology. Consideration of how God fulfills the land promises is crucial to a right understanding of a major scriptural theme. This chapter, written by Oren Martin, is useful in answering a key claim of Dispensationalists. Understanding how Scripture presents the fulfillment of land promises helps us in our worship, as we see how God is faithful to His Word and how He will magnify His glory throughout creation.
1. False Advertising. In both on the cover of the book and several times within the book, the authors/editors claim that they are "charting a course between dispensational and covenant theologies". There is even a diagram in the book depicting Progressive Covenantalism in the center of a line, with Dispensationalism on one side and Covenant Theology on the other. It is obvious that the authors/editors want an audience both from those who identify as Dispensationalists and those who identify as Covenantal.
HOWEVER, I'm certain that, both through a careful examination of what the authors write (in this book and its precursor Kingdom Through Covenant) as well as personal conversations I've had with a couple of the authors, the contributors to the book owe much more to Covenant Theology than to Dispensationalism. Along with Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism believes that there is one way of salvation in Scripture and that Scripture is structured by covenants. Dr. Wellum believes that it is proper to speak of the Covenant of Redemption and a covenant with Adam.
When it comes to Dispensationalism, Progressive Covenantalism is at odds with the foundational Dispensational claim that Israel and the Church are everlastingly distinct groups. In its typological reflections, Progressive Covenantalism runs counter to the Dispensationalists' overly literalistic hermeneutic. The single point of overlap between Progressive Covenantalism and Dispensationalism is that both hold to more discontinuity between the old and new covenants than what is recognized in [paedobaptist] Covenant Theology. It is deceptive, therefore, to suggest that Progressive Covenantalism is equally close to Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. In my view, Progressive Covenantalism is both an attempt to modify [paedobaptist] Covenant Theology and an outright rejection of Dispensationalism.
2. Lack of Historical Theology. Progressive Covenantalists view themselves as articulating a framework of how the covenants fit together that is more consistent with Baptist faith and practice than either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology. (This is one reason that Progressive Covenantalism was published by Broadman and Holman Academic, an imprint of LifeWay, which is directly affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.) In this regard, it would seem that those holding to Progressive Covenantalism would want to make a diligent study into how previous generations of Particular/Reformed Baptists have understood the relationship of God's covenants. Sadly, this book lacks any interaction with Historical Theology within Baptist life AT ALL. With the exception of the chapter on the warning passages of Hebrews, the authors of Progressive Covenantalism seem startlingly unaware that previous generations of Baptists have wrestled through the same questions and have come to some of the same conclusions. Progressive Covenantalists could benefit from the insights of their Baptist forbears and possibly avoid some errors. At worst, this neglect of Historical Theology among Progressive Covenantalists may be seen as violating the spirit of the fifth commandment.
3. The Law. Speaking of the ten commandments, the great systematic theological weakness of Progressive Covenantalism is in its view of the Law. There is an almost flippant rejection of the three-fold distinction of the Law. Important works on this subject (for example: From the Finger of God by Philip Ross and In Defense of the Decalogue by Richard Barcellos) are entirely unmentioned. Also unmentioned: the foundational distinction between moral law (law that is everlasting, flowing from the character of God) and positive law (law that God institutes at specific times for specific purposes). The authors of Progressive Covenantalism would have us believe that the original audience to the Books of Moses couldn't have possibly recognized the prohibition against murder, the institution of the Levitical priesthood, and the injunction to build a parapet around the roof of one's house as three distinct categories of laws. Furthermore, the authors of Progressive Covenantalism give inadequate systematic reflection to why the New Testament authors apply different laws in radically different ways (compare: Gal 5:3, 1 Cor 9:9-10, and Eph 6:1-3).
I think that Progressive Covenantalism is a valuable book and that Progressive Covenantalists are valuable conversation partners with whom Reformed Baptists should engage. I hope that those holding to Progressive Covenantalism will begin to learn from their Particular/Reformed Baptist forbears, that they will not continue to ignore the writings of contemporary Reformed Baptists, and that they will reconsider their view of the Law. I pray that Reformed Baptists and Progressive Covenantalists can attain greater unity in the truth.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Three Resources Reflecting on Close Communion
I was raised in the close communion tradition, and I believe that this tradition is best reflective of biblical teaching. As an adult, my convictions in this regard have been reinforced by the training that I received at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here are two resources in this regard:
The Baptism Panel Discussion from April 18, 2007.
"Should the Water Divide Us? Baptism, Church Membership, and the Glory of Christ" from April 25, 2007.
As a third resource, with sustained scriptural argument, I would also commend J.L. Dagg's Manual of Church Order on this subject. (View HERE: Section IV, "Open Communion".)
Labels: Bible study