Faith Looks Forward to Unfulfilled Divine Promises

N. T. Wright speaking on genuine faith as resurrection faith:

The main point of 'faith' in [Hebrews 11], as has often been emphasized, is that it looks forward to what has been promised but not yet granted. Noah was warned about things yet to come. Abraham set out for a place he had been promised but had not yet seen. The main antithesis the writer is making is not between an 'upstairs' or 'spiritual' world in the hellenistic sense and a 'downstairs' or 'material' world, but between the present world and the future one, the promised new world which will be God's gift from heaven.

—The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 458.

How Prophecy Does and Does not Work

Christopher H. J. Wright on how OT prophecy works:

To expect that all the details of Old Testament prophecies have to be literally fulfilled is to classify them all in the category of flat predictions which have to ‘come true’, or be judged to have failed. . . . The Old Testament did make predictions and they were fulfilled with remarkable accuracy—as in the case of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. . . . [But] to insist on literal fulfillment of prophecies can be to overlook their actual nature within the category of promise, with the potential of different and progressively superior levels of fulfillment. To look for direct fulfillments of, say, Ezekiel in the 20^th-century Middle East is to bypass and short-circuit the reality and the finality of what we already have in Christ as the fulfillment of those great assurances. 

—Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 76-77.

Giving Application the Attention It Deserves in the Sermon

Haddon Robinson:

Homileticians have not given accurate application the attention it deserves. To my knowledge, no book has been published that is devoted exclusively, or even primarily, to the knotty problems raised by application. As a result many church members, having listened to orthodox sermons all their lives, may be practicing heretics. Our creeds affirm the central doctrines of the faith and remind us what Christians should believe, but they do not tell us how belief in these doctrines should make us behave. That is part of the expositor's responsibility, and you must give it diligent attention.

—Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 86.

A Two-Way Process at Work, Yielding a Double Benefit

Christopher J. H. Wright on whole-Bible methodology:

When we take the Old Testament history seriously in relation to its completion in Jesus Christ, a two-way process is at work, yielding a double benefit in our understanding of the whole Bible. On the one hand, we are able to see the full significance of the Old Testament story in the light of where it leads—the climactic achievement of Christ; and on the other hand, we are able to appreciate the full dimensions of what God did through Christ in the light of his historical declarations and demonstrations of intent in the Old Testament.

—Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 33.

God's Only Son a Missionary

"God had only one son and he made him a missionary."— David Livingstone

To Submit, or Not to Submit, That Is the Question

Which of the following may Evangelicals disobey? Or where do Evangelicals allow for disobedience? Or perhaps putting the questions that way is slanting things too much. After all, there are differences of opinion on some of these. Or maybe we can have differences of opinion on all of these. Things that make you go hmmm. . . .

1. "Let everyone submit to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1; cf. Tit. 3:1).

2. "You who are younger, submit to the elders" (1 Pet. 5:5; cf. Heb. 13:17).

3. "Wives, submit to your husbands . . ." (Col. 3:18; cf. Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1).

4. "Servants, submit to your masters with all respect. . ." (1 Pet. 2:18; cf. Eph. 6:5).

In case you were wondering, the same Greek word is behind the word "submit" in all the verses listed here in one through four. Following the verses listed, some of the additional verses cited in parentheses (Heb. 13:17; Eph. 6:5) use different words that are often translated "obey" or the like.

A Guide to the Classics

Leland Ryken on the classics: here. I rejoice as one who has found great spoil!

True Love for God

I'm enjoying thoroughly sitting at Professor Dan Block's feet in an exegesis class on Deuteronomy at Wheaton College. And one of the main reasons for this is Dr. Block's manifest devotion to YHWH— Father, Son, and Spirit.

Commenting on the significance of Deut. 6:4-9 for contemporary life, here are some applications Block gives that rejoice my heart:

True love for God is rooted in the heart, but it is demonstrated in life, specifically in a passion to speak of one's faith in the context of the family and to declare one's allegiance publicly to the world. This passage suggests that the very decoration of our homes should bear testimony to our faith, declaring to all guests and passers-by the fundamentally theological outlook of those who live within, and serving as reminders to residents to live in dependence on God and to realize that blessing is contingent on obedience.

—Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 189.

O Lord God, I Am Weak and Fearful

Luther:

O Lord God, I am weak and fearful. I flee evil and do all I can to guard myself against it. Nevertheless, I am in your hands as I face this evil and every other evil that may overtake me. To flee is not enough, for evil and misery are everywhere. The devil, who has been murdering since the beginning, tries to bring misery, and he never rests nor sleeps. Now you have confined me to this place. Your will be done, for I am your poor creature. You are able to deliver me in this extreme danger as easily as though it were but fire, water, thirst, or any other peril.

—Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 105.

Queen of the Sciences?

For the love of God, I have a question for Christians. A serious one. It's not meant to be rhetorical. 

The question comes out of a context. It comes on account of an observation: in our modern-day way of doing things—that is, in a pluralistic, democratic, and egalitarian fashion—it appears to be very difficult, even for those who claim to think world-viewishly, for Christians to think from a center, from an integration point. 

It appears to me that often we only give lip-service to such an endeavor, while deep down, if we’re honest with the way we really carry out business, we don’t think there is an integrating center. The world is a fragmented place, and nothing really holds it all together. The theologians do their thing. And political scientists do theirs. And when we're in one field, we appeal to the specialists there; when in another, we appeal to the specialists there. But there's no fundamental reality that speaks to all of reality and holds together the parts of the whole. 

So here is the question: Is theology still the queen of the sciences? Or should we just give her a place at the table? And whether the first question gets answered yes or no, what is the upshot? Not least in institutions like churches, universities and colleges, the family, and in the public square?

I wonder if the question just seems passé as we press on with progress, leaving bygone days in the dust, along with the primitive folks who came before these days of enlightenment where we throw off—with shouts of liberation!—the shackles of the past. And  by "we," I mean us, professing Christians. 

The Art of Persuasion: Emotion

People "decide far more problems by hate or love, or lust or rage, or sorrow or joy, or hope or fear than by rational argument" (Cicero, De oratore 2.42). 

The Greatest Christian Paradox of All

Ross Douthat:

Indeed, this is perhaps the greatest Christian paradox of all—that the world's most paradoxical religion has cultivated rationalism and scientific rigor more diligently than any of its rivals, making the Christian world safe for philosophy as well as fervor, for the study of nature as well as the contemplation of divinity.

—Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (New York: Free Press, 2012), 11.

Christianity vis–à–vis Secularism

"Though Christians often bemoan the separation of church and state and claim angrily that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, they are actually expressing their frustration with secularism as the preferred ideology of many elites in politics, media, and education.

Christians should absolutely bring their faith to bear in the public square. They should reject the influence of secularism urging them to keep their faith private and not to argue for a Christian perspective in areas like politics and education. What they must not do is to repeat the mistake of mingling the church's future with that of the state. Temporal kingoms have no eternal destiny. The church does."

—Hunter Baker, The End of Secularism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 148.

Edwards on "Affectionate" Preaching

In Part 3 of Jonathan Edwards’ work Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival of Religion in New England,[1] he answers criticisms of the revival. This part is entitled “Shewing in Many Instances Wherein the Subjects or Zealous Promoters of This Work Have Been Injuriously Blamed.”[2]

The first criticism Edwards answers involves the accusation that ministers were addressing themselves to the affections of their hearers instead of their understandings.[3] I shall quote the criticism restated by Edwards and then at length much of Edwards’ response to this first of ten criticisms.

The criticism:

One thing that has been complained of, is ministers addressing themselves rather to the affections of their hearers than to their understandings, and striving to raise their passions to the utmost height, rather by a very affectionate manner of speaking and a great appearance of earnestness in voice and gesture, than by clear reasoning and informing their judgment. . . .

Edwards' answer:

To which I would say, I am far from thinking that it is not very profitable, for ministers in their preaching, to endeavor clearly and distinctly to explain the doctrines of religion, and unravel the difficulties that attend them, and to confirm them with strength of reason and argumentation, and also to observe some easy and clear method and order in their discourses, for the help of the understanding and memory; and ’tis very probably  that these things have been of late, too much neglected by many ministers; yet, I believe that the objection that is made, of affections raised without enlightening the understanding, is in a great measure built on a mistake, and confused notions that some have about the nature and cause of the affections, and the manner in which they depend on the understanding. All affections are raised either by light in the understanding, or by some error and delusion in the understanding; for all affections do certainly arise from some apprehension in the understanding. . . .

Therefore the thing to be inquired into is, whether the apprehensions or notions of divine and eternal things, that are raised in people’s minds by these affectionate preachers, whence their affections are excited, be apprehensions that are agreeable to truth, or whether they are mistakes. If the former, then the affections are raised the way they should be, viz. by informing the mind, or conveying light to the understanding. They go away with a wrong notion, that think that those preachers can’t affect their hearers by enlightening their understandings, that don’t do it by such a distinct, and learned handling of the doctrinal points of religion, as depends on human discipline, or the strength of natural reason, and tends to enlarge their hearers’ learning, and speculative knowledge of divinity. The manner of preaching without this, may be such as shall tend very much to set divine and eternal things in a right view, and to give the hearers such ideas and apprehensions of them as are agreeable to truth, and such impressions on their hearts, as are answerable to the real nature of things: and not only the words that are spoken, but the manner of speaking,[4] is one thing that has a great tendency to this.

The "Bottom" of All True Spiritual Mortification

"Hatred of sin as sin, not only as galling or disquieting, a sense of the love of Christ in the cross, lie at the bottom of all true spiritual mortification."

— John Owen, On the Mortification of Sin (vol. 6 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2000), 41.