Category: Uncategorized

I will start taking Hebrew with Professor Mark Futato on Monday. In order to engage our small Hebrew class, there is a discussion board where we can have some “coffee house” conversations. I am raising the first question in regards to the authorship of Genesis. Here is a brief background before I launch into my question. I have been an advocate of an Old-Earth model for many years now (about 6 to be precise). This position comes from reading Hugh Ross and friend of mine Dr. David Snoke (PCA member). Both have written defending an old earth position. However, after many years I have become a bit more skeptical about this position. Why? Well, many of my heroes in the faith deny an old earth theory and I have always wondered why. As John Frame once noted: “If this issue is to be settled, it will be through exegesis.” Since then I have stopped focusing my attention to the scientific data and spent a little more time on the language of Genesis. (Hebrew here I come!) Perhaps one of the most creative minds in American Protestantism today is James Jordan. (I have a feeling Futato would agree-though they disagree on this matter) I have heard of Jim Jordan for several years, but only now have I started reading his books. (The first book I read from him was one he edited entitled: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture–controversial indeed – click here for a free on-line copy)

Jordan argues among many things in his book entitled: Creation in Six Day, that we have assumed for to long that Moses wrote Genesis, when the reality is that there is no such internal evidence. So, who is the author? According to James Jordan, Joseph is the author of Genesis. He reasons (pg.37):

I submit the most likely composer of Genesis was Joseph or one of his contemporaries. Joseph could have compounded the book of Genesis out of the earlier inspired books, all but the last verse (just as Moses did not write the last chapter of Deuteronomy). I suggest that this book of Genesis was the Bible of the Hebrews in captivity. It was the light to their feet and provided them the hope of a deliverance to come.

The issue here is that Waltke and others believe that Genesis did not exist before Moses. However, if the thought-world of Genesis 1 belonged to the patriarchs, we may find that Genesis had a different intent than being “an apologetic contra ancient-near eastern gods.” Any thoughts?

Wilson categorizes the Republicans into two categories: “Okay, tell me more” & “Rather Be Dead in a Ditch.” Here are his comments on Giuliani that are worth reading and proclaiming over and over:

1. Rudy Giuliani — the support of social conservatives for Rudy represents everything that can go wrong when Christians compromise themselves in politics. Every two days more Americans die in abortion mills than died in the 911 attacks. For Christians to support Rudy because he is the man to head off future terror attacks, when he is a politician who wants public funding for our continued assaults on the unborn is just breathtaking. The bumpersticker ought to be “Rudy! Three and a Half 911s per Week!”

Of course, Giuliani falls under the “Rather be dead in a ditch” category. Read the article…

Biblical Horizons is one of my favorite Reformed on-line magazine. . In this series of articles Jordan writes about the dangers of what he calls “Amillenial individualism.” I have always sought for an expression that summarizes well the Reformed antipathy towards the fleshiness of this world-the bread and the wine, political engagement, transformation of bricks into buildings and so on. I think Jim summarizes it well with this expression. In my estimation traditional Amillenarianism ^a has been detrimental to the furtherance of the Reformed worldview. Let us take heed to Mr. Jordan’s words.

Read the series of engaging responses to opponents of the Federal Vision.

1. This is primarily found in the works of Michael Horton and others at Westminster Seminary in California  (back)

My Ron Paul blog has been updated.

Dempster offers a superb analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Dominion and Dynasty supersedes other works in its field in the area of clarity. Unlike the chaotic English translation of Vos, who offered us over a century ago the first explicit introduction to Biblical theology, Dempster’s exploration into the theology of the Hebrew Bible is fresh, stimulating and in most cases an easier journey for those interested in exploring the central themes of the Old Testament.

The author does not negate the consequences of this monograph; rather he states that there are “significant theological implications for all the book.” ^a Dempster sees a literary/theological hermeneutic when reading through the Tanakh. This means that the interpreter will seek to understand the text how the first readers understood the text. Further, many scholars have given up on the idea of finding a unity among the books, nevertheless it is Dempster’s theses that “literary unity is rarely considered perhaps due to the loss of the concept of an Author.” ^b He argues that if there is both an implicit an explicit cohesion among the books, there is a case for fresh insights into Old Testament Biblical theology. Hence, discovering a fundamental theme that undergirds the interpretation is imperative.

The contention is this tome is that the literary approach to Scripture is a necessary element that has been largely forsaken. If the reading the Bible is similar to reading other great works of Literature, then the reader is urged to look at it the same way. As in any great literary work, the Bible also has a beginning, middle and an end. Since this is the case, the Scriptures “require a literary perspective.” ^c

This does not mean that the Bible is to be seen as another great literary work such as Shakespeare, (since we know that unlike other literary works, the Bible is divinely inspired) rather, the author’s contention is that the failure to see the literary features will be a hindrance to understanding some of its most central themes. Though Christians bring assumptions to the analysis of the Bible that is quite different from the unbeliever or liberal scholar, nevertheless, if we overlook the humanness of the Scriptures, we overlook the fact that the writers themselves were humans. The Bible by nature is an anthropomorphic book. It was not made for the overly intellectual, nor was it made solely for the Biblical scholar trained in linguistic studies. In short, the Bible “is not an esoteric ‘heavenly language’, but simply a message expressed in ordinary, human speech.” ^d

Many scholars have erred in seeing the Tanakh ^e as providing a lens of law. Generally, by doing so such scholars end up with a very negative view of the law, since their hermeneutics is based on a negative view of the law or some sort of necessary or dark groundwork/background for the glorious New Covenant era. The basis of this study is not like the one mentioned, rather Dempster views the Tanakh as one text and not as three separate texts, nor does he see the Tanakh as merely a dark background to the new, but rather as a beautiful picture of the overall structure of the Scriptures. The point is not to minimize the influence of one book to its particular time, rather to see one book in light of the magnificent expression of God throughout the Scriptures, particularly in the manifestation of the second person of the trinity. Continue reading “A Review of Stephen Dempster’s Dominion and Dynasty”

1. Dempster G. Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty. Intervarsity Press, 42.  (back)
2. Dempster, 37.  (back)
3. Dempster, 24.  (back)
4. Ibid., 25.  (back)
5. The Tanakh is an acronym, which points to the alleged unity of this material as well of its three subdivisions: the Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuviml; see page 36  (back)

I have followed in great detail the Hitchens/Wilson debate on Christianity Today. Thus far, they have posted the first five installments.

Pastor Douglas Wilson continues the tradition of presuppositional apologetics defended by the great minds of the Reformed faith. In my opinion, Hitchens is as unprepared to deal with Wilson’s arguments as Gordon Stein was when he debated the late Greg Bahnsen. What Hitchens cannot see is the place of presuppositions in developing a world view. What Wilson does see is that atheism cannot account for anything, not even the notion of exchanging words in a debate format.

Hitchens appears to expect some form of evidential data that will give him the perfect opportunity to teach Wilson of the great historical tragedies of Christian history. Even if Wilson fell for such traps, the Christian errors throughout history can be defended only in a Christian worldview where the fall affects significantly human activity via Adam’s sin. Atheism is not able to explain the atrocities of a Hitler or Stalin. On what basis? On what basis can atheism even call evil “evil”?

I have just recently heard portions of the Dawkins/McGrath debate on atheism. It appeared to be a rather informal discussion concerning Dawkin’s book: The God Delusion. My level of frustration grew more and more as Alister McGrath (a respected scholar) proceeded to defend the Christian faith on the basis of “intellectual stimulation.” The argument according to McGrath was that Christianity is a valid religion because it is intellectually simulating. ^a Dawkins, of course, ceased the moment by denying that Christianity has anything stimulating to offer. This continued back and forth without any real exchange concerning the epistemology of our faith, that is, why do we believe what we believe. Dawkins would be surprised to know that I would affirm that atheism is as stimulating intellectually as Christianity. The atheist strives intellectually to deny God just as hard as the Christian finds intellectual stimulation in learning about God. The point however, is that atheism stimulates intellectualism that poisons and hardens the unbelieving heart; it is what some have called: “deadly intellectualism.” Christianity, on the other hand, stimulates a intellectualism that leads to life eternal. What the atheist does not understand is that the world, which stimulates intellectual discourse is the God-cosmos. The world belongs to God and as such functions to reveal Himself in all of creation. ^b The atheist finds intellectual stimulation on what Van Til called “borrowed capital.” The atheist is dependent on a Christian view of the world in order to make sense of his stimulation for intellect or any such thing.

If you would like another example of “Christians” embarrassing their worldview against the vile of atheism, you may wish to hear this absurd exchange between Christopher Hitchens and the ridiculous Al Sharpton.

1. You may wish to hear Pastor Gene Cook answer this defense of Christianity from a presuppositional perspective  (back)
2. Romans 1  (back)

After seeing many of my beloved friends graduate from RTS on Friday, spending the weekend with family, worshiping on the Lord’s Day, and feasting on some true American delights for a Memorial Day meal, I am finally back to Orlando-ready to face reality. Hebrew I starts this coming Monday followed almost immediately by Hebrew II.

This coming Sunday I will be teaching a Sunday School class on the “Immutability of God” and the following two Sundays I will be preaching in the morning service as my pastor will be heading towards the PCA General Assembly. I look forward ministering once again in preaching.

O God, who are great and to be praised, who have brought us from corruption to incorruption by the life-giving death of your Christ, free all our senses from the death of the passions, setting over them as a good leader the thought that comes from within. Let the eye abstain from every evil sight, the hearing give no entrance to idle words, the tongue be cleansed of unfitting speech. Purify our lips, Lord, that praise you. Make our hands keep from base actions, to perform only such things as are well-pleasing to you, making all our limbs and our mind secure by your grace. –From the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts

The PCA Report states:

The committee also understands that a major concern of the General Assembly at the present time pertains to the views of what has been called Federal Vision (FV) or Auburn Avenue Theology (AAT).

I am not entirely sure if I want to pursue this report any longer. Others have already done a much more articulate job than I can do. However, phrases like “major concern” give me a major concern for this report. I understand this was assigned by the General Assembly and that they chose six men to pursue a noble task of exhorting the PCA’s 330 thousand members on why the Federal Vision is problematic and a major concern; there’s that phrase again. I wonder, however, if this is as great a concern as theonomy was in 1979 in the PCA. Back then, they were a bit more catholic. They were a bit more open to nuances in our tradition–that is, it wasn’t a major concern nor a threat to the well-being of a denomination. Here’s my recommendation for those who read this report: Listen to what the PCA declared about theonomy. Since Federal Visionists are mainly theonomic, and that is exactly what gives precedence for pursuing such noble “reconstruction” of the sacramental theology of the Reformed Church, then listen to how the PCA dealt with this “ignominious group” in 1979:

That no further study on the subject of theonomy be undertaken at the General Assembly level at this time, but that individual Christians, sessions, and presbyteries having particular interest be encouraged to study the subject in a spirit of love, kindness, and patience.

Now, compare this with the preface of the PCA Report on the FV and NPP where the vitals of religion are at stake. As a theonomist, I consider theonomy to be as much a threat to the base of the PCA as Federal Visionism is today, who are by the way, generally theonomic in their orientation. Sometimes I wonder if this is a second attempt to get rid of theonomic types in the Federal Vision, except that Joe Morecraft is a theonomist and he accused FV’ers of being heretical, but again Morecraft is in the RPCUS and they are irrelevant to this PCA discussion. However, Morecraft left the PCA because they told him that theonomy was incompatible with the Confession. But doesn’t the 1979 report “encourage to study the subject (of theonomy) in a spirit of love, kindness, and patience?” My prediction is that even if the report is turned down at the Assembly, the attack will not stop.

The same position paper on theonomy declares following:

That the General Assembly affirm that no particular view of the application of the judicial law for today should be made a basis for orthodoxy or excluded as heresy…

Of course, the only difference between theonomy and Federal Vision is that theonomy has roots in Puritanism. But wait, FV advocates are also saying this is nothing new. Calvin in the 16th century was already using the word “Christian” as synonymous with “baptism in the Triune Name.” ^a So, this being the case, will Federal Vision Theology be vindicated? Will it be purged from the fires of heresy and excluded from any charges? Will the Assembly return as they did in 1979 with the verdict not guilty and encourage each congregation to study the subject in a spirit of love? On the other hand, if the General Assembly affirms this report, Federal Visionists will be looked upon as illegal immigrants: you may still be here, in fact, you may even think you’re needed, but you don’t belong here and we are doing every thing within our powers to make sure you leave.

1. See Rich Lusk’s article: Calvin on Baptism, Penance, and Absolution  (back)

In light of exam week, I will not be posting until late this week. Shalom.