I just took the hermeneutics quiz created by Scot McNight. It was an interesting assessment and I actually appreciated the way that it was set up. Like any 20 question quiz that is intended to define who you are, there were limitations. But I cringed far less during this quiz than I usually do when I mark answers.
The quiz is scaled from 1 - 100. Interestingly, I scored a 53 which is the very first number in the "moderate" category. I'm really quite surprised that I didn't fall into a conservative category, but I guess that it was a close call.
Mostly the quiz asks questions about the relationship between the old and new testaments (covenants) and whether we understand the Bible more systematically or communally. There were also some questions about how we interpret some "hard" biblical passages like women's roles and homosexuality. Take the quiz HERE
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Indecision
Most of my friends are reactionary people. When it comes to theology, they are reactionary theologians. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are reckless or whimsical. What I mean is that they inundate themselves with a steady flow of ideas and immediately or almost immediately react with either a positive or negative response. They almost always end up qualifying their first reaction or sometimes completely abandon it, but in the short term, they readjust the lens of their worldview to reflect their new ideas. In other words, they quickly resort to a decision about a given topic.
I am not this way. I seem to almost always fall back to indecision. I'm a perpetual fence rider. I have been identified as the "middle man" in countless of my friends' religious and political discussions. Lately, I have been thinking that I need to be more reactionary. I do think that indecision does have benefits. It helps you lead a more careful life, and keeps you from often making your brothers and sisters stumble. But leading a life that is characterized by indecision has at least a couple of negative side effects:
1. It makes the world impossibly complex. I sometimes feel like I am unqualified to talk about anything because I have not read every book on the subject. My typical way of approaching theological issues is that I must read at least one book on each side of an argument. Then I need to talk to pastors on the varying sides and see what they agree and disagree about. This is certainly a wise choice of action in some very important matters, but if your life is characterized by this method of research, you will drown in a sea of complexity-- never feeling any accomplishment.
2. It leads to a kind of pride. I don't like being wrong. I often feel uncertain about saying something because I might change my mind in the months that follow and feel foolish that I identified myself with the wrong group. Their is safety in indecision, no one thinks that you went out on a limb.
Once again, I am not saying that we should be carried away by every wind of doctrine. I just think that we can interface with this Christian life a lot better if we allow ourselves to take hold of a new ideas and quickly categorize them. Then we are free to move on with our lives while slowly digesting the decisions we have made.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Rahab and Faith/Works
I was reading the story of Rahab again on Sunday morning. As I looked up other references in the scriptures that talk about Rahab, I saw an interesting connection. In the same way as Abraham, Rahab is actually used as a model for faith and as a model for works of righteousness. I never noticed that before. Her act of hiding the Israelite spies is recorded in Hebrews 11 (traditional faith chapter) and James 2 (Faith without works is dead chapter).
Conclusion: God gave us two noteworthy models of working in faith, a man and a woman. The woman was a prostitute, the man a pagan. God revealed himself to both of them (Abraham by speaking to him in Ur and Rahab by guiding the spies to her door). Both examples were quite passive in this initial meeting. Then they both did something to show that they trusted in the promises that God made to them.
Conclusion: God gave us two noteworthy models of working in faith, a man and a woman. The woman was a prostitute, the man a pagan. God revealed himself to both of them (Abraham by speaking to him in Ur and Rahab by guiding the spies to her door). Both examples were quite passive in this initial meeting. Then they both did something to show that they trusted in the promises that God made to them.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Catch up post
I know that I haven't posted in a while and I am sure that you are all on the edge of your seats hoping for more thoughts on Baptism. For now I have none. I have done precious little reading on the topic in the last couple of weeks. School and personal demands have been primary. But I thought that I might give a summary of some of my thoughts as of late, ranging from serious to silly...
Why can't men wear purses? I mean, seriously. I am a pocket person, meaning I always have lots of stuff in my pockets or otherwise connected to my person. It would be a lot easier if I had a purse to carry that stuff in. Why is this not socially acceptable? Some people might suggest a "man-purse" but that is just not the same.
Living for Christ? What does it mean to "live for Christ." It is a phrase that gets thrown around in Christian circles a lot. I just don't really know what it means. I could look up any number of definitions for this phrase and could probably supply a fairly theologically correct one myself. But it doesn't mean anything if it is not experiential. I guess I just don't feel like I really "live for Christ" most of the time.
The importance of voice and melody. For the last few years my musical interests have been in the indie-rock/indie-folk vein. This music is still amazing and I continue to fall in love with bands like this. But these bands often downplay the importance of powerful vocals and melodies. I feel like I may be moving away from this and more toward vocally driven music.
How old is the earth? 6-day Creationism vs. Old earth is still a hot topic. Being in geology this semester has stimulated my interest in the topic. I have a fairly massive post about this that I am working on. It should be out soon, provided I have the guts to publish it.
Revelation. I have been reading through the book of John's revelation again. It is such a fascinating book. Reading it again has been very good for me. It is so symbolic, I don't know how anyone could have anything other than a preterist reading of it. Seriously.
Those thoughts have been pretty much in constant rotation in my mind lately.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Thoughts on Baptism, Part one
I am going to attempt several posts this semester concerning my thoughts on paedo/believer's baptism. This has been a mystery for me for a long time as I will explain below. However, I am starting to feel the need to come down on this issue for several reasons. Because I hope to be joining Zion Church soon, I would like to be cultivating a theology of baptism that will show me how I will appreciate the sacrament. When a baby is baptized at Zion, I need to have a category for how I deal with it. Is it good? Is it acceptable? Is it praiseworthy? Is it done out of tradition or real biblical thought? Another reason for studying this issue is that I hope to attend seminary after school. This decision may or may not have an effect on my choice of seminary, but it definitely will affect how I relate with ideas and people within seminary.
I grew up in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) in Mississippi. I witnessed many infant baptisms as I was growing up and did not question its validity until around middle school. I found out that my parents were of a believer's baptist position and that they only went to a PCA church because of the strong teaching. Then I realized that I hadn't been baptized as a child. I was baptized when I was 12 years old--I was sprinkled in that Presbyterian church as a believer. I befriended my pastors and struggled with the concept of baptism throughout high school. I was pretty much sold on the idea of believer's baptism when I finished high school and started college so I looked for Baptist churches in the area. Eventually, I had to come back to the PCA for the same reason my parents had joined years ago. I begin to question baptism again after my freshman year in college because of the influence of teaching and friends. And here I am uncertain again.
So I have picked up some reading that will guide me through this topic. I had some material for this previously, and I have a couple of books on order from Amazon. This may be slow processing because I don't have very much time to read. But I hope to get through these books by the end of the semester:
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (Gregg Strawbridge). This came recommended to me by one of the elders in my Church.
Christian Baptism (John Murray). This is a short work but I hope to use Murray to really get an intellectual mindset for infant baptism. He is a very pithy and heady writer.
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Thomas Schreiner & Shawn Wright). I chose this because it seems to be a definitive work on the covenantal aspect of believer's baptism. It is endorsed by the likes of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware.
I am also finishing a little essay by Bryan Chapell called A Pastoral Overview of Infant Baptism. As the name would imply, his concerns are largely pastoral and not exegetical, but I am using this as a guide to the key passages on baptism, especially in the Old Testament. Befor e I begin my analysis, here is a presupposition and a disclaimer:
Assumption: Covenant theology is largely true. I concede that there is more continuity between the old and new covenants than discontinuity. There is a flow of redemption that needs to be understood. So, any study of theological issues in the NT need to be understood in the context of the OT. I may find that there is some discontinuity in the area of baptism...especially that it is not the sign of the new covenant. But I must first admit that there is a connection between old and new.
Disclaimer: My study will not focus as much on historical example. I find history to be inconclusive when it comes to this issue. As far back as I can see, there has been disagreement about baptism. Even if one side could lay claim to precedence, it could not precede by much, and there are other historical factors that could be at work.
As I begin this study, I need to be very careful about man's opinion. I don't want to be swayed into either camp because I don't want to offend or hurt people. I have great respect for my parents and the people in my church in Sioux City. I also have respect for my friends and teachers in Lincoln. This is hard, but I want my arguments to be biblically grounded in truth, not what is most convenient for me. Any reading recommendations and solid advice are welcome.
I grew up in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) in Mississippi. I witnessed many infant baptisms as I was growing up and did not question its validity until around middle school. I found out that my parents were of a believer's baptist position and that they only went to a PCA church because of the strong teaching. Then I realized that I hadn't been baptized as a child. I was baptized when I was 12 years old--I was sprinkled in that Presbyterian church as a believer. I befriended my pastors and struggled with the concept of baptism throughout high school. I was pretty much sold on the idea of believer's baptism when I finished high school and started college so I looked for Baptist churches in the area. Eventually, I had to come back to the PCA for the same reason my parents had joined years ago. I begin to question baptism again after my freshman year in college because of the influence of teaching and friends. And here I am uncertain again.
So I have picked up some reading that will guide me through this topic. I had some material for this previously, and I have a couple of books on order from Amazon. This may be slow processing because I don't have very much time to read. But I hope to get through these books by the end of the semester:
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (Gregg Strawbridge). This came recommended to me by one of the elders in my Church.
Christian Baptism (John Murray). This is a short work but I hope to use Murray to really get an intellectual mindset for infant baptism. He is a very pithy and heady writer.
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Thomas Schreiner & Shawn Wright). I chose this because it seems to be a definitive work on the covenantal aspect of believer's baptism. It is endorsed by the likes of Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware.
I am also finishing a little essay by Bryan Chapell called A Pastoral Overview of Infant Baptism. As the name would imply, his concerns are largely pastoral and not exegetical, but I am using this as a guide to the key passages on baptism, especially in the Old Testament. Befor e I begin my analysis, here is a presupposition and a disclaimer:
Assumption: Covenant theology is largely true. I concede that there is more continuity between the old and new covenants than discontinuity. There is a flow of redemption that needs to be understood. So, any study of theological issues in the NT need to be understood in the context of the OT. I may find that there is some discontinuity in the area of baptism...especially that it is not the sign of the new covenant. But I must first admit that there is a connection between old and new.
Disclaimer: My study will not focus as much on historical example. I find history to be inconclusive when it comes to this issue. As far back as I can see, there has been disagreement about baptism. Even if one side could lay claim to precedence, it could not precede by much, and there are other historical factors that could be at work.
As I begin this study, I need to be very careful about man's opinion. I don't want to be swayed into either camp because I don't want to offend or hurt people. I have great respect for my parents and the people in my church in Sioux City. I also have respect for my friends and teachers in Lincoln. This is hard, but I want my arguments to be biblically grounded in truth, not what is most convenient for me. Any reading recommendations and solid advice are welcome.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Interesting Federal Vision Quote
I was reading an article on the Federal Vision this morning and I came across an interesting quote in opposition to the movement:
"Extensive study of their [the Federalists'] oral and written teachings on the special concerns of the Federal Vision convinces me that they have taught, alongside some wonderful truths, some serious errors about covenant theology and its implications for salvation, personal and corporate spirituality and piety, the use and understanding of the sacraments and the conduct of theology and biblical studies in general. Sadly, their mistakes undermine their very laudable goals. Their attempt to assure tender souls who doubt their salvation while they trust in Christ collapses and the poor souls are left more confused than before, because the objectivity of the covenant is inadequate to the task-while the presumptuous, who hear that aspect of their message may be led, inadvertently, to the false assurance of formalism. At the same time, their attempt to destroy the complacency of the presumptuous is in profound danger of promoting a false legalistic notion of works righteousness" (p.306)."
- Cal Beisner
I thought that this quote captured some of my feelings and concerns with the Federalists. I tend to view this movement as mostly wrong but containing some good truths and correctives. The problems are compounded by a lack of direction and unity within the movement. Earlier in the article, the author Anthony R. Dallison states:
"Sadly, the so-called 'Federal Vision' is no vision at all in the end, but a 'Federal Fog', and that of a most serious nature indeed"
I agree that the movement is "foggy" but I am also not ready to come down on it with severe judgement. I disagree with many of its premises, but, in some ways, I also disagree with the way that the PCA is trying to control it. Is this really an issue challenging Justification by Faith Alone? Certainly the doctrine could lead to a misunderstanding of Justification which could be heretical. But how is this different than any other way of organizing theology. Every way to present theology could be taken to an extreme that warrants condemnation. Mostly, I think it is an issue of how we read the Westminster Standards. I favor a fairly loose reading of the confession, so as to allow room for generations to make it applicable to the cultural needs. This is not to say, of course, that the issue of Justification by Faith Alone is a cultural understanding of scripture. But I don't really think that FV proponents want to discard this doctrine.
"In essentials unity,
in doubtful matters liberty,
in all things charity."
-Rupertus Meldenius (via Millard J. Erickson)
"Extensive study of their [the Federalists'] oral and written teachings on the special concerns of the Federal Vision convinces me that they have taught, alongside some wonderful truths, some serious errors about covenant theology and its implications for salvation, personal and corporate spirituality and piety, the use and understanding of the sacraments and the conduct of theology and biblical studies in general. Sadly, their mistakes undermine their very laudable goals. Their attempt to assure tender souls who doubt their salvation while they trust in Christ collapses and the poor souls are left more confused than before, because the objectivity of the covenant is inadequate to the task-while the presumptuous, who hear that aspect of their message may be led, inadvertently, to the false assurance of formalism. At the same time, their attempt to destroy the complacency of the presumptuous is in profound danger of promoting a false legalistic notion of works righteousness" (p.306)."
- Cal Beisner
I thought that this quote captured some of my feelings and concerns with the Federalists. I tend to view this movement as mostly wrong but containing some good truths and correctives. The problems are compounded by a lack of direction and unity within the movement. Earlier in the article, the author Anthony R. Dallison states:
"Sadly, the so-called 'Federal Vision' is no vision at all in the end, but a 'Federal Fog', and that of a most serious nature indeed"
I agree that the movement is "foggy" but I am also not ready to come down on it with severe judgement. I disagree with many of its premises, but, in some ways, I also disagree with the way that the PCA is trying to control it. Is this really an issue challenging Justification by Faith Alone? Certainly the doctrine could lead to a misunderstanding of Justification which could be heretical. But how is this different than any other way of organizing theology. Every way to present theology could be taken to an extreme that warrants condemnation. Mostly, I think it is an issue of how we read the Westminster Standards. I favor a fairly loose reading of the confession, so as to allow room for generations to make it applicable to the cultural needs. This is not to say, of course, that the issue of Justification by Faith Alone is a cultural understanding of scripture. But I don't really think that FV proponents want to discard this doctrine.
"In essentials unity,
in doubtful matters liberty,
in all things charity."
-Rupertus Meldenius (via Millard J. Erickson)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
