Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 5

This is very long but might be worth your time... You can go back and read the first four parts by scrolling down.

Hi Zach,

I just read this. I've been away from my desk, it being summertime and all.
Thanks for the note.

In any case, I suppose I might respond to your question by saying that Carson's claims and my claim about his claims are of a different logical order. He is saying he has the right interpretation of a set of texts, and that it is X. All I'm saying is that I also have looked at the same texts and at many different commentators and what I see is that there are many different interpretations of the very same text: not only X, but Y and Z, and A, and B, and C, and so on. By looking at the original texts and at all the different interpretations of those texts, I have to conclude that none of the interpretations convincingly argues that they have the better interpretation, using publicly accessible criteria. They might want to say
that the holy spirit has spoken to them, as Barth does, but many different interpreters make the same claim, and the very fact that the interpretations are different -- each writer insisting that he has the truth -- leads me to think that none of the interpretations comes with its own verification of truth. Appeal to the holy spirit just doesn't work -- it's like saying, I got a special link to the big guy, and you don't. And so I'm making a claim about the difficulty of interpretation of the bible, not saying that I have the right interpretation but this: that the very fact that there are many different interpretations suggests, first, that the "truth" is a very difficult thing to discern, and second, that we ought therefore to be cautious about making absolute claims. I am not insisting I know for sure what the correct interpretation of this or that doctrine is in the bible; I'm simply saying that the multiple and conflicting claims in the bible itself and the multiple interpretations of those claims strongly suggest (I would even say convince) me that while one or another interpretation "might be right," there is no way of knowing that for sure. Am I sure about that? Sure that we can't be sure about doctrine? Well, I'd say it's a matter of probability -- there is, for me, a high percentage of surety that we can't
be sure about doctrine from the study of the bible, and that probability is based on the evidence I've pointed to in this paragraph. This is a reasonable conclusion, reasonable enough to be a working hypothesis for me in my work in theology. But note, once again, my claim, my "reasonable conclusion" is about "knowledge" or lack of it is of a different logical order -- I'm offering an epistemological claim, not an ontological claim, as is Carson's claim. And Zach, this is not different that the kind of claims we are about to make in any other area of knowledge -- history, or biology, or physics, and the like. No one who has thought deeply about epistemology concludes that they have knowledge of absolute truth -- at best, we can offer epistemological claims that have a probability of truth.

Take care,

Jerry

My response:

Dr. Soneson,

You said..."that the very fact that there are many different interpretations suggests, first, that the "truth" is a very difficult thing to discern, and second, that we ought therefore to be cautious about making absolute claims. I am not insisting I know for sure what the correct interpretation of this or that doctrine is in the bible; I'm simply saying that the multiple and conflicting claims in the bible itself and the multiple interpretations of those claims strongly suggest (I would even say convince) me that while one or another interpretation "might be right," there is no way of knowing that for sure."

I agree that we must hold our views with a certain degree of humility in light of the fact that we are finite. I hope you don't hear me saying ever that I have absolute (meaning God like) knowledge of anything, but this does not mean that we are forced into agnosticism. As one of seminary profs, Dr. Michael Williams says:

"But this is the difference between certitude (the epistemic status of the object of knowing in the mind of the knower) and certainty (the givenness of the object)".

Perhaps when you say probability what you mean is what Dr. Williams might call certainty as opposed to certitude. I would assume we are both in agreement on this. Where I would challenge your rationale might be summed up best by Dr. Carson again in a chapter from a book called "Reclaiming the Center" (it is attached for your consideration if you like). On page 46 and 47 he says this:

In particular, wittingly or otherwise Grenz has bought into one of the fundamental antitheses embraced by postmodernism: either we can know something absolutely and omnisciently, or our “knowledge” of that thing is nothing more than a social construction that has the most doubtful connection with reality, i.e., with the thing-in-itself. If you think that this antithesis is a convincing analysis of the alternatives, then you will be driven to a pretty radical postmodernism, because one can always show that human beings know nothing omnisciently— so if the antithesis is reasonable, there is only one alternative left. Postmodernism is entirely right to remind us that all human knowing is necessarily the knowledge of finite beings, and is therefore in some ways partial, non-final, conditional, dependent on a specific culture (after all, language itself is a cultural artifact). But nuanced alternatives abound to the absolute antithesis so beloved of postmoderns and everywhere assumed by Grenz. Various scholars have developed the hermeneutical spiral,the pairing of “distanciation” and “fusing of horizons,” asymptotic approaches to knowledge.7 All of these have argued, convincingly and in detail, that notwithstanding the genuine gains in humility brought about by postmodernism, finite human beings may be said to know some things truly
even if nothing absolutely/omnisciently.
. . . The element of truth in this postmodern assertion, of course, is that human beings are finite, and therefore their knowledge is never absolute/final/omniscient. Moreover, all human articulation is necessarily within the bounds of some culture or other, and can thus truly be said to be a social construct. But to run from this fair observation to the insistence that it is improper to talk about objective truth, or about human knowledge of truth, is merely a reflection of being hoodwinked by that one untenable antithesis. We may not know truth with the knowledge of omniscience, and insofar as postmodernism has reminded us of this, it has debunked some of the idolatry of modernism. But that is not the same thing as saying that we can know some things truly, even if nothing omnisciently. We can know that the water molecule is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, that God is love, and countless more things. We cannot know any of them omnisciently, but we can know them truly. Think of the many things the Bible says that believers do know, know to be the truth, and are obligated to pass on to others as the truth."

Consider my 4 year old. He doesn't know nearly as much as I do about certain things, but he does know some things truly (I love him, He has a sister, he likes to play basketball, fire is hot). Surely the gap between finite knowledge and an infinite knower is much more vast than between a father and a son, but I think my point remains the same. Just because we don't have absolute knowledge (in the God sense) of something does not mean that we can't know something truly. Calvin alluded to this when we talked about Revelation as being God's "baby talk". He condescends to us in Revelation to speak to us so that He can be truly know. Not known absolutely (or we would be God) but known truly none the less. This points to a difference in our fundamental assumptions about reality. You place the human as the center of your worldview and work from there. I put an objective God (or Knower) outside of myself in the center and work out from there. This brings with it a whole set of assumptions with it. The issue of epistemology just being one of them that we are touching on here. The question might be, which is a better starting point? Which starting point makes more sense? But I guess from your worldview that is a silly question since we can't know anything for sure, we are just left with probabilities drawn from autonomous reason, wait... that was a statement about the nature of reality... uh...not sure where this leaves us...it this not absurd as it implodes on itself?

Where I differ from you is your assumption that since there are so many barriers to knowledge, nothing can actually be known.

You say that you don't know how to reconcile all the differing claims that are present in Christian circles alone, thus you conclude (according to you can I even use that word, conclude?) that we are forced to believe that none of them can be correct. But I can't get around the fact that you assume that you can place yourself as the all knowing knower and stand back and survey all the evidence and then make a claim about the nature of reality. You call this "probability". Call it probability if you like, but you are still taking a position on the nature of reality. It doesn't matter if this is 50% or 75% or 99%, it's still a position where you seem to be saying "this is THE case". You are in essence saying, "I am absolutely certain that I am basing my knowledge on what I call probability." It seems again here that you are making a definitive claim about the nature of reality, all the while claiming that this is not possible. It's nicely tucked away in your discussion of probability, but in the end it's the same thing.

You said:
"I am not insisting I know for sure what the correct interpretation of this or that doctrine is in the bible; I'm simply saying that the multiple and conflicting claims in the bible itself and the multiple interpretations of those claims strongly suggest (I would even say convince) me that while one or another interpretation "might be right," there is no way of knowing that for sure."

The bookends of this statement are very interesting to me. You begin by saying that you are "not insisting" to know for sure, but you end by saying there is "no way" of knowing for sure. Is your saying the words "no way" not a statement of surety? If you were to be consistent with your worldview I would think that you would have to rephrase that and say "according to my subjective opinion that may or may not correspond to how things actually are, there is no way of knowing that for sure"

You state:
"This is a reasonable conclusion, reasonable enough to be a working hypothesis for me in my work in theology".

But reasonable to who? Who defines what reason is anyway? Is reason the measuring stick now by which we define all acceptable knowledge? If the answer is yes, then there you have your God. But if we are all autonomous in the universe with no communication possible from outside us then reason is up for grabs. You end up with an endless cycle of "says who" statements without ever being able to land on anything ultimate. Seems like all you can really say is "this might be a reasonable conclusion".

One more question:
If we can't really make ontological claims about knowledge, but only epistemological ones, is this not an ontological claim about the nature of knowledge itself?

Sorry this is so long, but I think these matters are of utmost importance. I hope we can continue and I hope your summer is going very well! Next time I would like to discuss how the Bible talks about knowledge.

Sincerely,

zach

Real Headship

The stakes are very high. Wives and mothers do not clock out. Their duties can last all waking hours and are on-call through the night. In the past month I have seen the devastating effects of wives who believe that everything in the home rests on their shoulders and to rely on the husband domestically is a sign of failure. Rather, an overburdened wife is an under-led wife and reflects more poorly on the man than the woman. When we as husbands take our eyes off the Cross, we will fail as leaders and our wives will suffer the heavy consequences.

(HT: The Shepherd's Scrapbook)

What is Sanctification?

Recently I took a class at Covenant Theological Seminary called, Spiritual and Ministry Formation. Basically it was a week of what our teaching pastor calls "The Gospel for Christians". What is the gospel and how does it apply to spiritual growth? Who are we fundamentally at Christians? How do we grow in our faith? It was a great week of learning and interacting upon these questions.

One of the assignments that I have upon my return is to read Sinclair "Fergalicious" Ferguson's chapter in a book called Christian Spirituality - Five Views. The real topic of the book is the Christian doctrine of sanctification. It's your typical "five views" books where there are five authors writing from five different perspectives. Sinclair writes from the Reformed point of view. My seminary professor told us during the week there that this 23 page summary of sanctification is the best he has ever come across in short form. After reading it today I think I agree with him. If you want a greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian I would greatly commend this chapter to you to read and reread for the sake of your own personal growth as a Christian. I would quote from it here, but there are too many to pick from! Just buy it and read it. You won't be sorry.

Mark Lauterbach on Forms

I am drawn to think that I could just learn one more truth, or find one more formula, or have one more experience, or get into the right fellowship -- then my battle with sin would diminish. The right leader, the right theology, the right diet, the right worship style -- these are what I need.

This is the error of church growth. It leads us to think that the key to the church is finding the right external form. Power is hindered by the wrong form, power is unleashed by the updating of the church to new forms. No -- power comes from the Gospel and its being applied. Tradition or "hip-ness" are not the issue. There is not a whit of power in going ancient (candles and dim lights, formal attire) and there is not any more power in going cool (graphics and urban decor, jeans in worship). Neither matters.

Read the whole post here.

Pro-Life Argument in 1 min

If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature. Racism and sexism are wrong because they pick out external differences and ignore the underlying similarity between men and women, blacks and whites. And my concern is for your rights as a woman,
that you can vindicate them against the will of the majority, but you can only vindicate your rights if you base them on your human nature. But the unborn also has that same human nature, so shouldn’t we protect him from discrimination just like we protect minorities and women? (1 minute)

To download this in PDF form click here. It comes with a good explanation on how he uses this.
© 2005 Steve Wagner Stand to Reason www.str.org

A Few Of Tim's Rules

Tim Hughes posts some good thoughts on some nuts and bolts aspects of leading worship. Check it out here.

iMonk on Brant on Worship Celebs

iMonk has some pretty cutting words here, but it probably needs to be said:

If you go to a Lifeway, you’ll notice that the new book section is regularly populated by books written- amazingly- by the guys and gals in Contemporary Christian Music. The chubby bald guy who sings “I Can Only Imagine” has a book. So do DC Talk, Michael W. Smith and David Crowder. One might suspect that someone is calculating how much we could make uh…..how much the body of Christ could be helped if singers wrote an accompanying book around the time their big musical projects came out. The Casting Crowns Study Bible is probably on the way.

If Pat Robertson were the pastor of a local church, he’d be preaching to crowds of several dozen, but because he’s a celebrity he gets to sit on television and say all kinds of stupid things about who God ought to kill off, how much weight he can lift and how he prays hurricanes out to sea. Just the other night, I heard him say J.K. Rowling was a witch deeply involved in the occult. That’s a lie, and he ought to be sued for saying it. He probably got the story off The Onion’s satirical send up of Christian reaction to the Potter novels, which means he’s also way too ignorant to be telling people what to think, but because he’s a celebrity, he gets a pass.

Some of my favorite celebrities are preachers and teachers adored by their various fan clubs. These are often people worth listening to and reading, but when they rise to celebrity status, their fans get very weird. Oddly, the reformed- who are supposed to believe in that total depravity stuff- are among the most drooling fanboys in all of evangelicalism.

Read the whole post here.

Whose Resources?

Many Christian estimate difficulties in light of their own resources, and thus attempt little and often fail in the little they attempt. All God’s giants have been weak men how did great things for God because they reckoned on his power and presence being with them.

- Hudson Taylor

Working in Difficult Places

Here are some great questions for Christian thinking as it pertains to the workplace:

A man who has worked in the marketing department for a beer company for fifteen years becomes a Christian. Does he have to quit and find a new job?

A software engineer is appointed to a work group assigned to write a program for the more efficient, hence more profitable, generation and distribution of lottery tickets. She will work solely on the technical issues and will never be directly involved in sales. Can she work on the project, or should she petition for reassignment?

A plant manager manufactures a good industrial product, but his chief competitor has found an effective way to distort key data to make his product look better, though it is actually inferior. Some of his customers believe the competitor’s claims, and he is starting to lose them. Should he counterattack and match distortion for distortion?

A pharmacist has begun to see prescriptions for RU 486, the so-called abortion pill. RU 486 also has a beneficial effect on high blood pressure, and that’s what the prescriptions say. But when the patient is a young woman, the pharmacist wonders what to do.

A morning radio talk show host becomes a Christian. His radio “personality” is a witty guy who uses a lot of sexual humor. His audience and his manager expect it. If he tries to change, he will probably lose his job. What should he do?

A managing partner in a financial company is well respected, well paid and influential. His boss is brilliant but tyrannical. He wonders, “Should I take a position in another company? Or should I stay on and endure some misery to shield others from the boss’s excesses?”

Dan Doriani, writing for Ransom Fellowship, has some great thoughts on these issues. You can read them here.

Harry Hype

My buddy Doug recently posted on some Harry Potter commentary articles in light of all the hype recently. How should we think about this phenomenon in our culture? I think two of the best resources I have read have come from Jerram Barrs of Covenant Theological Seminary and Denis Haack of Ransom Fellowship. You can find them below:

Harry Potter and His Critics by Jerram Barrs

and

The Scandal of Harry Potter by Denis Haack

Dealing with Sovereignty

All Christian believe in divine sovereignty, but some are not aware that they do, and mistakenly imagine and insist they reject it…

The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the church; the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic.

J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God

Certainly there are great mysteries connected with the being of God, but that should not be surprising to any except those who want to be God themselves=

D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God, 235

The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise.

Calvin, Institutes III, 21, 3

The Culturally Savvy Christian

I recently purchased the book, The Culturally Savvy Christian, by Dick Staub. I am through the first two chapters right now and I can say that I thoroughly enjoy it. I would greatly encourage you to check it out. In the next few days I’ll lay out some of my favorite quotes. Here is my favorite from the introduction.

We’ve arrived at a crossroads in faith and culture. The Christian community has degenerated into an intellectually and artistically anemic subculture, and the general population is consuming an unsatisfying blend of mindless, soulless, spiritually, delusional entertainment. We are caught between a popular culture attempting to build art without God and a religious culture that believes in a God disinterested in art.

The YouTube Democratic Presidential Debate

I am sitting in a hotel room in St. Louis right now watching the democratic presidential debate on CNN and it is so stupid I can't not blog about it, and I don't even care about politics!

I have four questions:

1. Does anyone really believe a word that these guys utter? How can you when all it consists of is false dichotomies and gross oversimplifications of all the issues? For example, talk about "The American People" - can you really lump us all into one category worth speaking about?

2. Does YouTube rule the world now?

3. Can someone explain to me how this serves any purpose other than a glorified popularity contest?

4. Is John Edwards the presidential version of Joel Osteen? Give this a try: When John E. talks, close your eyes and picture J.O. The similarities are scary.

This Quote is Fergalicious!

The great gospel imperatives to holiness are ever rooted in indicatives of grace that are able to sustain the weight of those imperatives. The Apostles do not make the mistake that’s often made in Christian ministry. [For the Apostles] the indicatives are more powerful than the imperatives in gospel preaching. So often in our preaching our indicatives are not strong enough, great enough, holy enough, or gracious enough to sustain the power of the imperatives. And so our teaching on holiness becomes a whip or a rod to beat our people’s backs because we’ve looked at the New Testament and that’s all we ourselves have seen. We’ve seen our own failure and we’ve seen the imperatives to holiness and we’ve lost sight of the great indicatives of the gospel that sustain those imperatives. … Woven into the warp and woof of the New Testament’s exposition of what it means for us to be holy is the great groundwork that the self-existent, thrice holy, triune God has — in Himself, by Himself and for Himself — committed Himself and all three Persons of His being to bringing about the holiness of His own people. This is the Father’s purpose, the Son’s purchase and the Spirit’s ministry.

- Sinclair Ferguson, message from the 2007 Banner of Truth Conference, Our Holiness: The Father’s Purpose and the Son’s Purchase.

(HT: The Shepherd's Scrapbook)

Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 4

Hi Zach,

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I have only one comment in response: there is a difference between utter epistemological relativism and epistemological historicism. I don't deny that I can understand, fairly well, what Paul is saying and what John is saying and what Jeremiah is saying, but in order to understand them, I have to treat them like any other human trying to communicate something to me. If by "truth" you mean an interpretation of Paul that he would recognize as a fair statement of what he is saying, I'd say that that is precisely what I think is possible. Yes, I certainly can get close to Paul's intended meanings. What I thought you meant by "Truth," however, was something much more spectacular -- something like God's intended meaning in what Paul and all the rest of the biblical authors are saying. That is am indeed skeptical about, and I'm skeptical precisely because I recognize that Paul and John have quite different views of the atonement and sin and Christ and God and the like. That, in my estimation, is a very serious problem. How can anyone presume that they can go past a set of quite different, and sometimes logically contradictory, claims and identify what they think is nevertheless their unity and then pronounce that God's own truth? That is an act of idolatry, I would say.

So, yes, Zach, I think I can get what you say to me or what Carson or Paul or John writes, but I do have quite a difficult time believing that Carson has in fact captured God's truth by reading scripture. Instead of grasping God's truth by going to scripture, I suspect he "picks out" a view of the matter that he has already in mind when he approaches scripture. So, if anything is relative here, it is our claims about God's truth, not so much our claims about Paul or John or Zach!

Take care,

Jerry

My response:

Dr. Soneson,

Going to back to your initial email...

When you say that "the images do not carry all the freight" how do you know this? I guess what I am getting at is that it doesn't seem right for you to say that Dr. Carson does not have the right interpretation of "the images" all the while assuming that you do (your interpretation that the images are incoherent). If we criticize one for claiming to have a definitive opinion about the atonement, does that not imply that you shouldn't be able to make a definitive statement about his definitive statement? In essence you are saying, "Dr. Carson shouldn't be so sure about his understand and I am SURE about this!"

I would humbly submit that you should place the same critique of Carson on yourself if you are going to be consistent. Thus you would have to use different language to communicate your ideas, beginning all statements of belief with "I'm not really sure, but this could be the case..." This problem with this is that I have never heard you talk this way in all my years of sitting under your teaching and beyond.

It seems as though in your attempt to show the fallacies of my worldview you are forced to borrow from it in order to do so!

Please help me understand where you think I'm off here. I hope you are well!

zach

I sent this one awhile back and have not heard back from him in a week or so, thus I think he may have decided this conversation is over. But if he replies, I'll be sure to post it.

iBible

Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 3

Zach,

How very interesting. I didn't know that penal substitution is a different theory than Anselm's theory. Yes, the author is right, for Anselm it is God's honor that is at stake in disobedience. But Anselm also talks about justice. In any case, doesn't the very fact that the author denies that this theory is Anselm's theory suggest that the penal theory is an interpretation, one theory among others? And, of course, Anselm was as convinced that he found his theory in scripture as does Carson. When I see this, I recognize the extraordinarily slippery character of theorizing -- each theorist claiming to have the truth, but each proclaiming a different theory (not at all to be confused with "my" truth -- I have the truth, and you have but a theory). I scratch my head at such proclamations.

Again, take care.

Jerry

My response:

Dr. Soneson,

It's clear that you begin with the assumption of epistemological skepticism. So if there is no concrete meaning that can be found in any text and we are all just sitting around waiting to deconstruct whatever textual material our eyes fall upon, why should I even pay attention to your email if I have really no hope in understanding the real truth of your communicated intention? You wrote me an email! You intended and assumed that I would know what you meant. I understand there are historical and literary challenges between Paul and I, that you and I don't have to deal with, but it seems to me that your philosophy and your practice don't intersect.

Don't we have to affirm that there is real meaning in a text beyond just opinions? I may not know perfectly what the meaning is, but we have to affirm that it is at least there right? Like I said above, our raw experience displays this very well as I write my email to you.

Let's say I read your last email and responded with a whole long response dealing with piano playing and shooting hoops in my backyard. You would be confused and frustrated would you not? Your intended meaning had nothing to do with my interpretation and response. But if I take what you are saying to it's logical conclusion you would have no right to feel this way since I can impose whatever meaning I want to on your words that you wrote to me. Or at least you would have to concede that my interpretation was not "wrong" You can't say for sure I'm wrong with my interpretation, right?

Obviously you get my point (you do? How is that possible? (sarcasm)). Texts do have meaning or our conversation here would be meaningless (!!!) and a total waste of time and we wouldn't even consider doing it.

Again, you assume that you understood what Dr. Carson was saying enough to
give a response. If we can't know for sure the meaning of a text, the only thing you should have written in response to my initial email should have been "I don't know".

We are getting back to the core issue of relativism that we spoke of often in undergrad! Things don't change much eh? Feels like old times!

Talk to you soon,

zach

John Mayer on MuteMath

Two of my favorite artists of all time collide right here!!

John Mayer writes today on his blog about MuteMath. You can read what he says:

I just listened to the album that will take me through the rest of the year... New songs to remind me of the things that are taking place right now...
My mouth is agape while I listen. I saw them make the Letterman appearance of the year a few nights ago and had to download. So do you.

This guy is a melody champ. Don't let the images and soundscapes fool you. This guy is all John Waite and I love it.

If you're unsure, check out Typical, Chaos and You Are Mine...

Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 2

Zach,

Your question is an interesting one. It assumes that there is (or might be) a true Biblical understanding of the atonement, and that we can (or in theory are able to) get access to that understanding by reading scripture. As my bible teacher in seminary pointed out repeatedly, as far as we know from studying scripture, there are many different ideas of the atonement or church or Christ or the end times or God. And I would add that many of those ideas certainly seems to stand in tension, and in some cases, logical contradiction to, other ideas. This can be denied only by coming to scripture with the already-formed idea that everything somehow hangs together (it all is unified) and so what seems to look like tension or a contradiction is only seeming. But that idea (the unity of scripture) comes before the actual study of scripture and is brought from outside to the study itself. So, I suppose I'd answer your question in this way -- that there might in theory be a true Biblical understanding of the atonement, but no study of the Bible by humans is able to discern that one idea or another is in fact the truth. No matter what one says as a theologian or a pastor or a lay person, any claim to have the "true" idea of the atonement (on the basis of the examination of scripture) is at best a claim which can be supported only by blocking out all the tensive and contradictory material (or in more common parlance, "picking and choosing"). So, you see, I'm not denying that there might be a true "Biblical" understanding of the atonement (whatever that might mean), but I am denying the epistemological claim that we, as humans, can discern it.

Take care,

Jerry

My response:

Dr. Soneson,

Lots to say! Thanks for your reply.

I'll start with this: In terms of your discussion of Anselm...

From this article:

http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/category/5/15/52/

Penal substitution has a long and distinguished pedigree, and was expressly articulated by many in the early Church. Sadly, the myth of the doctrine's supposed late development continues to be perpetuated in books and theological seminaries all over the world. To set the record straight, we have included a few extracts from ancient Christian writings here, all of
which we discuss in more detail in our book. Theological students are encouraged to copy and paste them into their essays as required.

In many cases, the entire works from which the extracts are taken are available from those wonderful people at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library HERE.

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 100-165), Dialogue with Trypho
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (c.275-339), Proof of the Gospel
HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 300-368), Homily on Psalm 53 (54)
ATHANASIUS (c. 300-373), On the Incarnation
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS (c. 330-390), The Fourth Theological Oration
AMBROSE OF MILAN (339-397), Flight from the World
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 350-407), Homilies on Second Corinthians
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430), Against Faustus
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (375-444), De adoratione
GELASIUS OF CYZICUS (fifth century), Church History
GREGORY THE GREAT (c. 530-604), Morals on the Book of Job

In another place they say this:

As a postscript, we should say something in reply to N.T. Wright's surprise that we omit all mention or discussion of Anselm. The reason is simply that, contrary to (popular?) belief, Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Yes, he brought to prominence the vocabulary of
satisfaction, which became important in later formulations. But in Anselm's feudal thought-world, it was God's honour that needed to be satisfied by substitutionary obedience, not his justice by substitutionary penalty. Thus his omission from our list of those who have endorsed penal substitution was not accidental.

Found here:

http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/107/51/

Whitlock on Vick

Jason Whitlock, writing for the Kansas City Star, has a great column about all the Michael Vick drama in the media concerning his indictment for dog-fighting. He writes,

My desire is to see Vick evolve as a human being and for his troubles to serve as yet another wake-up call for black athletes to reject the hip-hop/prison culture that glorifies much of the negative behavior and attitude that has eroded the once-dignified and positive reputation of African-American athletes.

Yesterday, I got caught up with the details by listening to Jim Rome on the radio. Every caller seemed to be so amazed that Michael Vick could do something like this. How could he ever do that? What kind of a person does this sort of thing? Whitlock actually purports this sentiment as well in his column when he says,

Listen, I don’t want PETA supporters upset with me. Animal cruelty is intolerable. But I’m wondering what could turn a human mind and heart so cold that a person would find pleasure in breeding dogs for cruel destruction in 2007.

Unfortunately, just like you and me, Michael Vick is sinner. The Bible tells us that the human heart is sick beyond natural repair. Why are we so surprised? All the shock and surprise seems to reek of self-righteousness. What is even more surprising to me is that people are so upset and surprised that he would do cruel things to dogs, when all over the world, right now, people are doing unbelievably cruel things to their own children!

I think as Christians we can use this whole story to remind us that the human heart is in continual need of redemption and this story could be used as a great springboard for evangelism.

He's Kind Of A Big Deal

Here at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque our resident youth minister, Greg Schneeberger, has been moonlighting a bit as a super model. You can see him in all of his glory below.



This picture actually is going to be on a billboard (if it's not already) facing one of the busiest interstates in ABQ as a promotion for this guy.

Dr. Soneson and Me - Part 1

This series of posts may interest those of you out there who like to do some thinking along the lines of theology and apologetics.

When I was in undergrad I majored in religion. As a result I had the privilege of taking a number of classes from Dr. Jerome Soneson (Jerry, as we called him). He was (and is) a brilliant thinker and educator. In fact, he was probably the best teacher I have ever had. He would consistently bend over backwards to help his students succeed, but also held us to a very high standard. I probably took 5 or 6 classes from him over the course of my 4 years in college. What was interesting about my relationship with him was that he is an agnostic and would often challenge my presuppositions as a Christian.

A few weeks ago I came across this article on Justin's blog. It's a great piece by D.A. Carson dealing with the topic of substitutionary atonement. Particularly noteworthy to me was his second point where he discusses The Trinity as being essential to making sense of the cross. This brought to mind a conversation or two I had with Dr. Soneson where he would appeal to me that my idea of God's wrath being removed from me and placed on his Son was just bad ethics. Classic misplaced aggression in his view. What sense would it make for me to be "pissed off" (as he would say) at my wife and then go kick the dog? This is how he conceived of my view, or the view of substitutionary atonement. In light of this I forwarded him D.A. Carson's piece to get his reaction.

Here is what he wrote:

Thanks for the note and reference. I read the short and interesting piece by Carson. My one question, and it is a very serious question, is why Carson thinks that somehow he has ferreted out the "correct" or "true" model for atonement in Scripture. The substitutionary doctrine of atonement, incidentally, as currently pronounced by the church (or various stands within the Church), goes back only to Anselm. Anselm, no doubt, believed the found that doctrine in scripture itself, but actually, it is only a development out of some images within scripture. There have been other developments using those and other images in scripture, as Carson himself points out. But the point is quite simple, the images themselves do not carry all the freight that he and others want to attribute to them -- that freight is found first of all in the work of Anselm and then secondly in Calvin.

On a related matter, why does Carson think that the images of the atonement can be reconciled. No doubt he claims the unity of scripture, but golly, there are profound tensions among various images and claims in scripture that would suggest logical inconsistencies in incoherencies that can be denied only by assuming, in advance, that they are not there. In short, he comes to scripture with assumptions that are not in scripture itself. So maybe, theology, even Carson's theology, is not grounded in scripture! Whoa!

Take care. I'm glad to see you thinking.

Jerry

I responded with this:

Dr. Soneson,

Thanks for your response. A number of questions come to mind based on what
you wrote, but I'll start with this one:

Do you think it is even possible to come to a true Biblical understanding of the atonement?

Thanks.

zach

More of our conversation tomorrow...

MuteMath's Performance Last Night on the Late Show

Tony Jones on Al Mohler Show

Click here to listen to Tony Jones (a foremost leader in the Emergent Village) on the Al Mohler show, with guest host, Russell Moore. Interesting stuff.

In response to the episode, Dr. Moore has posted this short essay on his blog. You can read it here.

Nebo-Sarsekim

The Stand to Reason Blog reports on a very exciting new development in Biblical Archeology. You can read about it here.

The Office back soon

Good news for fans of The Office. The new season starts on Sept 27th and the first four episodes will an hour long each. You can read about it here.

(HT: Relevant Mag)

I Guess The SBC Won't be Hiring Me Anytime Soon

“I can assure you of this: if you are associated with the use of beverage alcohol, I think I dare exaggerate not to say that 99% of all doors of ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention will be closed to you.”

- Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dan Kimball asks some honest questions concerning this post. He asks,

But what is intriguing me about this statement is that with this view, I am wondering - would Jesus then have 99% of the ministry doors shut on Him?

Dan has garnered some interesting comments so you might want to read those as well. Personally I think Al Mohler is a genius and I love almost everything he writes, but this one really leaves me scratching my head. If anyone out there has a link or doc to where he expounds on this more I would love to be made aware of it. In the end thought, I think it is important though not to make a big deal out of "disputable matters". I think Paul said something about that somewhere...

Driscoll's Starbucks Cup

If you are familiar with Mark Driscoll's ministry you'll think this is pretty funny (or not funny at all).



(HT: Relevintage)

Girls Gone Mild

A new trend might be emerging, or at least Newsweek seems to think so:

Consider the following style tips for girls: skirts and dresses should fall no more than four fingers above the knee. No tank tops without a sweater or jacket over them. Choose a bra that has a little padding to help disguise when you are cold. These fashion hints may sound like the prim mandates of a 1950s "health" film. But they are from the Web site of Pure Fashion, a modeling and etiquette program for teen girls whose goal is "to show the public it is possible to be cute, stylish and modest." Pure Fashion has put on 13 shows in 2007 featuring 600 models. National director Brenda Sharman estimates there will be 25 shows in 2008. It is not the only newfangled outlet for old-school ideas about how girls should dress: ModestApparelUSA.com, ModestByDesign.com and DressModestly.com all advocate a return to styles that leave almost everything to the imagination.

It sounds good, but apart from the inner working of the Holy Spirit, Christians should know that this could just be another (maybe far worse) form of pride in being modest. I think we should applaud their efforts while remembering that "obedience" apart from faith in God's promises has limited worth.

(HT: Relevant Mag)

Romans Concentrated

This looks to be a great new resource available through the Desiring God blog.

MuthMath - Letterman

MuteMath will be featured on David Letterman tomorrow night July 17th. Check them out, they rock.

Politics

The main qualification for political office is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year - and to have the ability afterward to explain why it didn't happen

- Winston Churchill

Andrew Osenga - Letters to the Editor - Vol. 1

When I was a starving musician in Nashville I had the chance to write a couple times with Andrew Osenga. Andrew used to be a member of the band The Normals (remember them you Christian music junkies?). Now he is a solo artist and also is a guitar play in the band Caedmon's Call. You can click here and get Andrew's newest EP for free. It's six songs that are honest, simple, and inspiring.

Here is how he describes the project:

This is an acoustic EP I recorded in the early Summer of 2007. All the songs are written from ideas submitted by fans and supporters of my music. The download contains the six MP3’s and a PDF “virtual booklet” with the lyrics, credits and all sorts of other information.

To keep the community aspect of this recording going instead of a strictly buying and selling relationship I wanted to try something different. I’m going to allow the EP to be downloaded free and leave paying for it up to you.

On iTunes six songs sells for 6 bucks, so that will be the suggested price (or donation). If you feel you want to pay that, go for it. If you want to hear the tunes but you’re just plain broke, go ahead and download it and enjoy. If you feel like chipping in a little extra to cover folks who pay less, or just out of the goodness of your heart, that would be very appreciated as well.

This is the heart of independent music. You guys support me to keep making art that means something to us all as a community. Thanks for letting me do this.

Piper on Sovereignty

Listen to John Piper respond to this question: If God is sovereign over what we do, how can he get angry at us?

The Pornography Culture

Writing for The New Atlantis, David B. Hart writes a very compelling piece dealing with the Child Online Protection Act that was shot down by the supreme court, our culture of "rights", and the effect of porn on our culture. Read the whole piece. It's brilliant. These paragraphs below are my favorite highlights:

Anyone who would claim that constant or even regular exposure to pornography does not affect a person at the profoundest level of consciousness is either singularly stupid or singularly degenerate. Nor has the availability and profusion of pornography in modern Western culture any historical precedent. And the Internet has provided a means of distribution whose potentials we have scarcely begun to grasp. It is a medium of communication at once transnational and private, worldwide and discreet, universal and immediate. It is, as nothing else before it, the technology of what Gianni Vattimo calls the “transparent society,” the technology of global instantaneity, which allows images to be acquired in a moment from almost anywhere, conversations of extraordinary intimacy to be conducted with faceless strangers across continents, relations to be forged and compacts struck in almost total secrecy, silently, in a virtual realm into which no one—certainly no parent—can intrude. I doubt that even the most technologically avant-garde among us can quite conceive how rapidly and how insidiously such a medium can alter the culture around us.

We are already, as it happens, a casually and chronically pornographic society. We dress young girls in clothes so scant and meretricious that honest harlots are all but bereft of any distinctive method for catching a lonely man’s eye. The popular songs and musical spectacles we allow our children to listen to and watch have transformed many of the classic divertissements of the bordello—sexualized gamines, frolicsome tribades, erotic spanking, Oedipal fantasy, very bad “exotic” dance—into the staples of light entertainment. The spectrum of wit explored by television comedy runs largely between the pre- and the post-coital.

What is worth noting, however, is that the modern understanding of freedom is essentially incompatible with the Jewish, classical, or Christian understanding of man, the world, and society. Freedom, as we now conceive of it, presumes—and must ever more consciously pursue—an irreducible nihilism: for there must literally be nothing transcendent of the will that might command it towards ends it would not choose for itself, no value higher than those the will imposes upon its world, no nature but what the will elects for itself.

We call upon the state to shield us from vice or to set our vices free, because we do not have a culture devoted to the good, or dedicated to virtue, or capable of creating a civil society that is hospitable to any freedom more substantial than that of subjective will. This is simply what it is to be modern.

But perhaps the COPA decision can provide some of us, at least, with a certain salutary sense of alienation: it is good to be reminded from time to time—good for persons like me, with certain pre-modern prejudices—that our relations with the liberal democratic order can be cordial to a degree, but are at best provisional and fleeting, and can never constitute a firm alliance; that here we have no continuing city; that we belong to a kingdom not of this world; and that, while we are bound to love our country, we are forbidden to regard it as our true home.

(HT: Daniel)

Best Line Ever in a Hip-Hop Song

I'm just tryin' to say...
The way schools need teachas
The way Kathy Lee needed Regis
That's the way I need Jesus

-Kanye West

Oh yeah, and George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Video in Church?

Here is an interesting post from the Out of Ur blog entitled, Is Video Technology in Church Manipulative? We have been discussing this a bit in our own church lately. It's an interesting read.

Transformers - A Review

So last night my wife and I had a hot date and went to Crapplebees (gift card, it was actually really good) for dinner and then caught the 7pm showing of Transformers. All the reviews that I had read of this movie were very strong, thus we both had high hopes for our 2.5 hours of staring at a huge screen in the dark.

Here is my review: Transformers if probably the dumbest and the funnest (is that even a word?) movie I've ever seen.

Dumbest:
It's the typical Michael Bay summer blockbuster. No character development, zero connection with the characters, super cheesy and superficial dialogue (on par with Pearl Slobber, I mean Pearl Harbor), etc. The only real goal of this movie is raw titillation of our senses with 1)the hot leading lady (who was probably the worst actress on the planet), 2)the quick one liners to get an easy laugh and 3)the amazing special effects to wow us. As we were leaving the theater my wife reminded me that this movie was The Transformers. Robot aliens from another world that take the form of human machines! The whole premise is pretty out there in the first place, thus my critique here should actually be assumed going into the viewing. Point well taken. That is why I can say it was also one of the funnest movies ever.

Funnest:
The leading actor in the movie actually was pretty funny and did a great job with his role. The action scenes are pretty intense and visually stimulating like I have probably never seen. Watching the Transformers morph between vehicle and huge robot was eye candy in the first degree. Very very cool. Throughout the movie there are many comedic moments that keep things light the whole way through. I found myself laughing out loud many times (but also turning to my wife and rolling my eyes due to the cheese factor being off the charts).

So yeah, I was glad that I went, and I think you should check it out, but make sure you have your artistic glasses taken off and just sit back and enjoy a movie that is not supposed to be deep but sure it a lot of fun.

Paleo-Pope-ology

From the Wittenburg blog:

Russian scientists announced the discovery of a superbly preserved baby mammoth carcass more than 10,000 years old. It had been frozen in the Siberia permafrost and was discovered by a reindeer herder.

In other paleontological news, Pope Benedict XVI (seen in his Indiana Jones fossil-hunting attire at right) announced the discovery of two aging Roman Catholic doctrines. One, the Latin Mass, was pulled from the musty file drawers of the Vatican and reissued last week for those that want it. The other, reasserting the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, was unearthed July 10 from the rubble of the Second Vatican Council. It says Orthodox churches are defective and that other Christian denominations are not true churches.

The scientific and religious communities were overjoyed by all these discoveries.

"We're sure that with only small amounts of viable DNA from the primacy document, we can resurrect a theological climate similar to, oh, somewhere close to the late Middle Ages, if not better." a prominent geneticist told BBC news.

I need to repent of my prayerlessness

For most of us the voice of self-reliance is ten times louder than the bell that tolls for the hours of prayer.

-John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals, p. 55

Free Worship Song

From blog.worship.com:

Worship leader/songwriter Laura (Story) Elvington, author of the song Indescribable (recorded by Chris Tomlin and Passion) has a new CD coming out later this year. Laura, the Worship and Arts Ministry at home church Perimeter Church and her label INO Records are making available a congregational-friendly worship song off of the forthcoming new CD called Immortal Invisible. Download the MP3 today at no cost...but note, it will only be available for a few days per the agreement with the label. You are asked to only download for personal use to your computer, for a CD or, for your ipod.

Here are the words:

Immortal, Invisible
Immortal, you are not like a man
That you change your mind
Or change your plan.
Invisible, our human eyes can't see
The vastness of your majesty.

Chorus:
You're the God of forever and ever amen.
The alpha, Omega, Beginning and End.
We sing Hallelujah, we worship in awe.
Immortal, Invisible God

Immortal, you are not bound by death.
You're the living God, my very breath.
Invisible, you are not bound by space.
But your glory is filling this place.
Your glory is filling this place.

Immortal, yet you once died for me.
To pay my debt, to set me free
Invisible, you will not always be
Cause You're coming to reign as our King.
And the saints will fall down at Your feet.

Watchdogs

I resonate with this quote from Dan Kimball:

I have found it at times fascinating, strange, helpful and hurtful when certain watchdog types of Christians write on blogs pretty mean things about other Christians and 98% of the time they are grossly inaccurate. I am aware that it is a pretty small slice of Christians who think like that and do those things, but as my theory goes - the small % are the most vocal ones. At first I was caught off guard by the tone and spirit of the "watchdogs" as I had never experienced that level of tone and words from Christians before. But then I realized, most of them are just trying their best in their own way to protect what they feel should be protected. But after reading enough of how many of them think, they really aren't watchdogs as in trained watch dogs like Doberman pinschers, but are more like little barking poodles. I like poodles actually. But the tiny ones sure can be mean and bark loudly and bare their fangs at anyone who doesn't live in their home. We owned a poodle growing up, so I have seen how you could have your best friend over and even relatives over, but the poodle didn't like anyone they were unfamiliar with. Poodle_2_2 Poodles would then bark and growl in the way little poodles do even at friends and family members. It seems that many of the "watchdogs" out there, are like the poodle where they growl and bark at anything that is unfamiliar to them - even if it is the best friends or other family members of the family they live with. The poodle has good intentions, but anyone different and unfamiliar that isn't in their particular world or way of thinking gets barked and growled at.

I do always want to listen and be open to seeing if there is any truth to critics. I need people to be holding me accountable to any teaching or writing I do. I think that comes best in the context of relationships and people you trust and respect and actually know what you are doing and aren't speculating from the outside. So I have people who do say things or ask questions that I trust and listen to them. I don't personally agree with everything under the "emerging" or "emergent" label - as there is diversity and I try to be clear about my personal beliefs which may differ from others. So we need "watchdogs" (so to speak) but ones who are trained and understand what they really should be watching out for.

Read the whole post here.

The Phantom's Name is Jerry

This is worth 2 min of your time.

Evangelism Encouragement from Piper

I found this 3min audio clip from John Piper very encouraging.

Surprise, Surprise

You scored as Reformed Evangelical, You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 86% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79% Neo orthodox 68% Fundamentalist 57% Emergent/Postmodern 46% Charismatic/Pentecostal 39% Roman Catholic 32% Classical Liberal 29% Modern Liberal 11% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

American Gangstar

This movie looks like it going to be real cool. I love great acting and this one has two of the best ever.

Daniel Pearl and Moral Relativism

Stand to Reason blog has a good post today about Daniel Pearl and moral relativism. Check it out here.

Trash = Toddler Toys

If you are a parent of young kids like I am, you might find this article helpful: 17 Ways To Turn Your Trash into Toddler Toys

Rich

I know we can't really wrap our minds around these stats and no, this isn't meant to make you feel guilty, but rather to inform, to humble and to be thankful today.



(HT: SHLOG)

Jason Borne Will Kick Your Butt

Check out the trailer for the third installment, The Bourne Ultimatum.

A Reader?

If you are reading a lot of blogs and you don't use a reader for keeping up to date on them you might want to consider watching this video to show you how you use Google Reader. Since I starting using Google Reader I have found that is greatly decreases my time blogging (and this is a good thing, or so my wife thinks...).

(HT: Challies)

The Jesus Storybook Bible

Yesterday we got in the mail our copy of The Jesus Storybook Bible. I can already tell that this book will be a great compliment to our nightly Bible reading with the kids. We have been using The Big Picture Story Bible every night but I can tell the kids have grown weary of it after we have probably gone through it around 50 times now. Now we have two great Bible story books that we can alternate and are packed with kid level theology.

The Jesus Storybook Bible has some amazing illustrations and shows how Jesus is the centerpiece of all of the Bible. I would highly recommend it for your young kids!

"I would urge not just families with young children to get this book, but every Christian"
-Dr Tim Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC, Feb 2007

True Art and True Relationships

Two great quotes from Os Guinness' The Call:

On true art:

Works of art, like many of the best things in life, can be products of both calling and commerce, but only the former is essential. A work of art can be sold on the market or it can survive without the market. But it must not be reduced solely to a commodity. Without the giftedness and inspiration that come from calling, it is not true art (p. 136).

How money effects our relationships:

For if "time is money" and people take time, then the "opportunity costs" of relationship (that gain that we would earn by doing something else) will be prohibitive and intimate friendships will be few. "Spending" time with friends is costly: we could "invest" it better elsewhere (p. 135).

Awesome

(HT: JT)