According to Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, it would seem so.

I’ve gotten spam emails from Nigeria before claiming I’ve won some lottery that I never entered, or that some government agency wants to give me millions of dollars. But this is the first time I’ve ever been told that it was the sovereign leading of God granting me instant wealth! Here’s the email:

Dear Beloved.

I am Mrs. Elizabeth Smith an aging widow suffering from long time illness. I have some funds I inherited from my late husband, the sum of US$14,400,000.00 and I needed a very honest and God fearing Christian that will use the fund for God’s work, I found your email address from the internet and decided to contact you. Please if you would be able to use the funds for the Lord’s work, kindly reply for further details.

Yours in the Lord,

Mrs. Elizabeth Smith

Wow! Out of all the people on the Internet it must have been God’s sovereignty that directed her to me, a truly honest and God-fearing Christian. With results like this, why would anyone NOT believe in God’s sovereignty?

Found this at the Stuff Fundies Like Facebook page. It was too funny not to share:

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian’s chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God’s entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I’m so happy, what’s the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys’ Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord’s Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What’s the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul’s health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord’s side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ’s command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

HT: Chuck Huckaby

10. A woman already crossed. We don’t follow women.

9. We don’t believe the road is safe. It wasn’t built between 1500-1700 A.D.

8. We believe that “road crossing” ceased with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of the New Testament.

7. The crossing guard was only helping people cross from one side to the other, so we are suspicious. Is this a denial of double pre-destination?

6. Neither Romans 9 or John 6 say anything about crossing roads. Therefore, it is unbiblical.

5. The “Walk” sign was gender neutral. It made us mad.

4. John Wesley said that God’s prevenient grace would pave the way, but we have to take the steps ourselves. What a load!

3. We were not elected to cross before the foundation of the road.

2. Piper said that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied on our side of the road.

1. The pub is on this side of the road.

This is the last in a series of seven posts in seven days. For the last time, here’s the list:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

“The Rhetoric of Christian Cultural Engagement” one is not so much a post I wish more people had read as much as watched. I did an interview with two brilliant rhetorical scholars at the end of 2009. We discussed how the Church’s rhetoric is helping and hindering its efforts at engaging culture.

Dr. Camille Lewis and Dr. Mark Steiner are both PCA folk and both incredibly great thinkers and communicators. If you didn’t watch the interview or listen to it, please do so now! I put it up in four parts, and you can download the audio as well if you like.

Also I’ve linked to many of the books and other resources they reference during the interview.

Here’s a recent post from Craig Blomberg at the Denver Seminary Blog. I’ve inserted some comments along the way.

“Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ…” (KJV)

“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ…” (NIV)

“Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ…” (RSV, ESV)

“Whatever happens, as citizens of heaven live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (TNIV)

Notice he does not yet include the HCSB in his list. Don’t worry…it’s coming.

What’s in a word? In Elizabethan English, the word “conversation” could mean “conduct.” The Greek verb, politeuomai, in Philippians 1:27, has nothing whatsoever to do with speaking, per se, so the translators of the King James Version in 1611 were clearly talking about behavior when they penned, “only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ.” Anybody who insists on reading an unrevised KJV today is highly unlikely to catch this nuance, unless someone has specifically taught them this, or they are avid readers of Shakespeare!

The majority of modern translations thus use words having to do with behavior, conduct, or manner of living. The old RSV spoke of one’s “manner of life,” and the ESV, which is an updating of the RSV, saw no need to change it here. The NIV speaks explicitly about conduct. The HCSB and NRSV likewise read “live your life in a manner…” while the NET and NASB mirror the NIV and use “conduct yourselves.”

ALERT! ALERT! Did you catch that? Don’t forget this: The ESV is an updating of the RSV, not a new translation! Just thought I’d point that out.

But NLT, like the TNIV printed above, speaks of living “as citizens of heaven.” Where does this come from? The noun that is cognate to (i.e., from the same root as) politeuomai is politeuma and means citizenship. In Philippians 3:20, Paul uses this noun to declare explicitly that “our citizenship is in heaven, from which we eagerly await a Savior, Jesus Christ.” All of the versions I’ve mentioned so far use “citizenship” here except the RSV, which used “commonwealth” and the KJV which again used “conversation” in the old Elizabethan sense.

Is Paul already anticipating his discussion of 3:20 in 1:27? Is he investing a little extra meaning into the verb politeuomai in this earlier passage in Philippians than is usually implied by the term? The only other place the verb occurs in the New Testament is in Acts 23:1, in which Luke cites Paul affirming his good conduct throughout his life as a Christian. All the other occurrences in the Greek Bible (i.e., the Septuagint) come in the Apocrypha, once in the Additions to Esther and seven times in 2nd through 4th Maccabees, and never is the idea of citizenship present. Completely extra-biblical sources offer some support for the concept of citizenship, but it’s seldom the main point of the word.

What about “of heaven” in 1:27 in the NLT and TNIV? This expression corresponds to nothing in the Greek, even on the assumption that politeuomaidoes carry the sense of “live as citizens” here. But of course, Paul isn’t talking about following the laws of the Roman colony of Philippi, but of obeying God’s standards as revealed in the gospel, in God’s kingdom. And the affirmation that “our citizenship is in heaven” will explicitly appear in 3:20. So to clarify the distinction, translators who introduce citizenship into 1:27 have to go on and add something like “of heaven” to distinguish the two kinds of citizenship.

But then the danger is to view Paul’s command as ascetic, separatist or otherworldly: “live as though you were already in heaven and not on earth” or something like that, which is not Paul’s point at all! Quite the opposite, Paul was very much talking about how to live on this earth, just not saying to follow merely human or secular standards of ethics. So the translations that speak only of good conduct in Philippians 1:27 are both the safest and the least confusing. Better to save citizenship in heaven for chapter 3.

It’s also another good reminder that, if you can’t read the Greek or Hebrew, always consult two or three translations, not just one. There is no translation anywhere that has always made the best choices in every passage!

I think this is an excellent article and provides some really good advice. I also like the fact that his conclusion indicates that the HCSB has once again gotten it right. However, I would not be honest if I didn’t also acknowledge that the ESV gets it right here. Nor would I be honest if I said I wasn’t slightly happy (and in a sinister kind of way) that he pointed out that the ESV is not a fresh translation but merely an updating of the RSV. Once again, way to go Crossway for an excellent marketing job! And way to go B&H for an excellent translation.

This is the sixth in a series of seven posts in seven days. Once again, here they are:

1. My first post
2. The post I enjoyed writing the most
3. A post which had a great discussion
4. A post on someone else’s blog that I wish I’d written
5. My most helpful post
6. A post with a title that I am proud of
7. A post that I wish more people had read

There are lots of ideas about writing titles for blog posts. You can write catchy titles that are almost guaranteed to get people to click on them, but then they’re often left feeling like they’ve been swindled when the content isn’t what they expected.

You can write boring titles that accurately communicate the content, but then nobody really wants to read those.

Or you can try to write engaging titles that also communicate well what the post is about. As much as I try to do this third option, I could give you far too many examples of the first two from my own blog!

Anyway, the challenge today was to find a post with a title that I’m proud of. In my mind that means the title:

• Entices people to click on it and actually read the content
• Accurately communicates the content
• Doesn’t feel like a bait and switch once people read the content

I think this one meets those criteria: “Why Bruce Waltke’s Resignation Signals the End of Creationism.”

I think this title is effective because:

• It invokes a famous name, Bruce Waltke. That name was all the more famous at the time because of the controversy surrounding his comments at the BioLogos website.
• It appeals to something highly controversial, the creation/evolution debate
• It sounds an appropriate note of alarmism
• It accurately reflects what I talk about in the post.

Robert Jimenez is starting a series to discuss whether “inerrancy” has outlived its usefulness. This will be a fabulous discussion and one that is long overdue.

As you can see inerrancy has many meanings. This is one of the major problems with this position, too many definitions. The term inerrancy has been hijacked to mean whatever a particular group wants it to mean. I believe these various meanings have resulted as an effort to preserve the term in order to remain “evangelical”. One can say “I affirm inerrancy”, but if you do not ask them to clarify what they mean, you may not be affirming the same thing.

Read the whole thing here.

There are two excellent posts seeking to deal with this question. The first is at Daniel Kirk’s blog here. The second is at Andrew Perriman’s blog here.

Kirk wrestles with the question of why the Church seems to be behind the rest of the world in actually making a difference in people’s lives. He examines some areas we have lagged behind and then shows three areas where we are leading the way. Kirk concludes:

Theologically, Protestants have been hindered from changing the world for the better because we have been so focused on an inward piety that we don’t see any connection between that world out there and the new life God is given us. We need to cultivate our theological imaginations with the realization that salvation is not merely about new creatures, but about new creation.

It’s only when we realize that God’s saving hand extends to the whole earth, and is not simply a set of metaphors for our “spiritual” state, that we will begin to realize the gospel-imperative to extend the saving, redeeming hand of God to every sphere of human life.

Perriman tweaks the question a bit, claiming that “there is a deeper theological anxiety that needs to be brought to the surface: How is the God we worship, whose ancient story we tell, to be justified?”

Given the intellectual and social collapse of Christianity in the West, given the modern church’s often small-minded and reactionary response to scientific and cultural change, give its self-serving institutionalism, its complacent dogmatism, its preoccupation? with private spirituality and ultimate destinies, given the catalogue of prominent moral failures, given the rampant factionalism and divisiveness, given the failure of the church to dissociate itself from the worship of the golden calves of consumerism, we surely have to ask what it will take for the Creator God, who called a people for himself in Abraham and redeemed them in Jesus, to be justified, to be shown to be true and righteous, a cogent and relevant object of belief.

Of course the church globally is doing some good in the world. But before we get too carried away with the self-justifying potential of our good works, perhaps we should first sit alongside the Jews whom Paul harangued inRomans 2:17-24.

We call ourselves Christians, we rely on the Word of God, we claim to know his will because we have listened to countless repetitive sermons over the years; we imagine ourselves to be a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, instructors of the foolish scientists and moralists and politicians, teachers of children, and so on…. But shouldn’t we who presume to teach others first teach ourselves? We preach against stealing, but we happily collude with the economic injustices of modern life. We preach against adultery and homosexuality and pornography while we desperately struggle to keep the darkness and distortions of our own hearts from public scrutiny. We claim to worship one God, but we are as much in the thrall of aspirational consumerism as anyone else. We boast in the salvation of God, but we dishonour God by the moral mediocrity of our lives. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, then, that ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of us’?

Read both articles and join the conversation!

Could you do your own laundry in college? I could. In fact, the easiest part about doing laundry was pouring in detergent. Apparently they don’t make college students like they used to. Saw this ad on TV today (watch till the end):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQb3D4-5q_U

From a prayer called, “Spiritual Helps” in The Valley of Vision:

It is amazing love, that thou has sent thy Son to suffer in my stead, that thou hast added the Spirit to teach, comfort, guide, that thou hast allowed the ministry of angels to wall me round; All heaven subserves the welfare of a poor worm.

That’s an amazing thought!

I use a very worn leather-bound version of the The Valley of Vision. Unfortunately, it’s no longer available. But here it is in a nice paperback: Valley of Vision: A collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions.

There is a very real sense in which I celebrate the end of “Christian America.” This video from ABC News helps explain:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VclArk0n57E

Read the entire article.

In Ezekiel 16 God is strongly rebuking Israel for their forsaking of the covenant. It is a very graphic chapter–not the kind of reading that makes you go, “Well bless my soul!”

Quite the opposite.

When God tells his chosen people that they have committed spiritual prostitution, he pulls no punches in describing their sin. In fact, if this were in a high school Bible class text book, it would probably be banned from most of our schools.

When Prostitution Is Not Prostitution

Yet, there is something more going on here than actual sexual misconduct on Israel’s part. This is a story that God is telling, and it’s very likely that he is describing Israel’s abandonment of the covenant in terms of marital unfaithfulness. Indeed, they may have been involved in these great atrocities, such as:

• sacrificing children as burnt offerings to idols
• creating statues of men and engaging in sexual acts with them
• lavishing sexual favors on strangers

Those are the kinds of things God describes through Ezekiel. But I’m not sure that this is meant to be literally understood. The whole beginning of this chapter is a kind of parable or moral story if you will. God pictures his relationship with Israel as one of rescuing a damsel in distress and claiming her as his bride. Then the new bride proves unfaithful to her husband.

But this prostitution may be symbolic for other great atrocities of covenant unfaithfulness.

What’s Worse Than Homosexuality

When we get to verses 44 and beyond, God describes several other cities as being a “mother” or “sister” to Israel. By which he doesn’t mean, of course, that they literally gave birth to Israel or are somehow genetically related to her. Rather, he means that Israel is acting just like them, “Like mother like daughter,” he says in verse 44.

So in verse 49 God says, “Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: ________________.”

What do you think goes in that blank? Homosexuality, right? I mean, that’s what we all know the story of Sodom is about. It was such a terrible place because of what men were doing with men and women with women.

Wrong.

Here’s how that verse goes: “Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy.”

When God wants to describe the defining sin of Sodom, he describes it as a neglect for the disadvantaged, the helpless.

How the American Church Is Too Much Like Sodom

So the next time the political right tries to co-opt the church into its issue-driven agenda, ask yourself this question:

Are we consistently and effectively demonstrating Christ-like love to the poor and needy or are we using an anti-homosexuality agenda to cover up our sin of neglect?

Let’s face it: people tend to forget about the things you’re not doing when you talk loudly about the things you are doing. The Church in America has for so long focussed on trying to stop one particular sinful act they she has failed to engage in positive acts of love.

Since when is the Church supposed to be known primarily for what she is against? If you were to ask Americans to describe the Church, you would probably get answers like this:

• They’re against abortion
• They’re against same-sex marriage
• They’re against immigration

I doubt you would get an answer like this: They love the poor and generously help the needy. We have bumper stickers proclaiming our anti-gay-marriage stance. Where are the bumper stickers that read, “Sell a car. Give the money to the poor.”?

Our reputation is that we are too much like Sodom in our neglect of the poor and needy. The American Church is the wealthiest collection of believers in the world. Yet we spend our money on big buildings, big programs, big houses and nice cars. And we claim that we must have the nice buildings and big programs if we’re going to attract people. But the reality is that the only people we will attract with that philosophy are the relatively rich.

What if we were to build a church building as simply as possible, with no air conditioning, only lots of windows to let the wind blow through?

What if we were to cancel all our programs and sell all our fancy desks and equipment?

What kind of people would we attract to our meetings? Do you think the poor would come? More importantly, do you think it would free us financially and socially to be more engaged with the poor and to help them more generously?

I don’t know what the Church ought to do or how it ought to look, but I do know that it’s time for some radical thinking and acting in the Church in America. Business as usual will only lead us further down the road of Sodom’s sin.

According to the CDC, nearly 12% of women in America are unable to bear children. That’s 7.3 million. Over 7 million women in the United States alone can’t be mothers.

Every year many of those women avoid coming to church at all on Mother’s Day, because the experience is far too painful. Here’s how one woman put it:

I remember the agony of not being able to face church on those days when all my children were only in Heaven. It was impossible. And my darling hubby whisked me away to the mountains — far, far away from church.

It shouldn’t be that way. At all.

In my family, I will be calling my Mom and telling her how much I love her and how wonderful she is, because both of those are true! And my children have something special for their mom, too.

But at our church tomorrow, we will recognize all the women and have a special time of prayer honoring them.

It’s true that mothers play a unique role in life and in society, and it’s right that we should honor our mothers. I don’t even mind a Mother’s Day once a year to focus on our mothers. But our churches should not be a place where single women and women who can’t bear children are afraid to come one Sunday because they can’t bear the reminder that this deep longing of theirs may never be fulfilled.

Joyce Borger, editor of Reformed Worship, says this at christianitytoday.com:

Focusing an entire service on Mother’s Day on mothers becomes problematic, because you are taking the focus away from God and could be doing pastoral damage—to those who don’t have good relationships with their mothers; those whose mothers have passed away; those who want to be moms but can’t be moms. When we do mention it, we need to be very careful. Comments and pastoral prayers can recognize mothers and at the same time recognize those who live with hurt related to their own mothers or motherhood.

It’s true. My wife’s mom died several years ago, and she’s not too keen on celebrating Mother’s Day these days. It’s not a very thrilling time for her. I imagine there are moms whose children do not love them. Mother’s Day must be a painful reminder for them of those broken relationships.

So while there are many reasons to celebrate our own mothers, we will not be corporately focusing on mothers this Mother’s Day at Westminster Church. Rather, we will be looking at Scripture to see how all women bear God’s image in particularly feminine ways, because when the author of Genesis writes that God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness,” he follows that up with this declaration (Genesis 1:27):

So God created man in His own image;

He created him in the image of God;

He created them male and female.

The fulfillment of God’s plan to make mankind in his own image is the creation of both man and woman. We will affirm all women this Mother’s Day in their image-bearing vocation.

Daniel Kirk asks, “Ever get the sense that Christians are apologetic about the fact that Jesus was a human?” Good question. We put a lot of emphasis on the fact that Jesus is God, and rightly so. But sometimes it seems his humanity gets lost. Or at least the significance of his humanity gets lost.

In an excellent article, Kirk explains why “Jesus is Lord” is just as important as “Jesus is God.”

What if God’s commitment to the cosmos he created is more foundational than God’s desire to see the Law maintained? What if there is a more basic fabric of creation being unraveled and God doesn’t simply want to punish the person who pulled the thread that caused it to come apart but wants to see that fabric remade? And what if the remaking itself is as much the mission of Jesus as the punishment of the offender?

This is the ancient idea of “recapitulation”, though it needs to be reworked through a better understanding of “image of God” than Irenaeus had at his disposal. The point is that God creates humanity for one magnificent purpose: that people should rule the world on God’s behalf (Gen 1)–and Jesus comes to reestablish that rule, God’s primal purpose for people.

Why “human”? Because humanity was created to rule the world on God’s behalf; because humanity ceded that calling and lives in rebellion against God; because the dominion of humanity has gone the way of its ruler–and because God has determined that he is not going to give up on this creation but, instead, restore it. God will be victorious over this rebellion.

Read the rest here.

In case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s the video from ABC News on the Waltke situation:

I’ve recently discovered this blog post from an ancient Church blog. I present it to you with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!

————-

A wolf in sheep’s clothing, that “noted scientist,” Copernicus, has recently defended the belief that the sun is the center of the universe. Worse yet, he claims that so-called “scientific” discoveries have led him to believe that the Earth actually moves around the sun.

Yet he has made a very fatal mistake. He has begun with the follies of science and not with the inerrant Word of God. He is insisting that we submit Scripture to science when it should be the other way around.

Scripture clearly states:

• “The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken.” (1 Chron. 16:30)
• “[The LORD] established the earth on its foundations; it will never be shaken. (Ps. 104:5)
• “The sun rises and the sun sets; panting, it returns to its place where it rises.” (Eccl. 1:5)

Thankfully, that great theologian, Martin Luther, has rebuked this ridiculous sun-centered idea soundly:

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

Even John Calvin has refuted this dangerous heresy:

Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.

Copernicus and his ilk, while claiming to be Christian, have failed to present their findings as a result of biblical reflection. They see a need to “reconcile” science and the Bible, but so far, it seems that only the Bible is getting changed in this reconciliation.

It should be clear that no consensus of human scientists can be presumed to have a greater knowledge than the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator. Yet, these men who wish to be both Christian and Scientist have placed themselves above the great Creator of the great Earth.

Finally, what do these men think they are doing? If we allow science to twist Scripture in this area, what will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?

When will Copernican “scientists” take their rightful place under the authority and inerrancy of Scripture?

Bruce Waltke conducted a survey in 2009 about hindrances people have to accepting evolution as a God-ordained and God-guided process of creation. Again, just to be clear, I’m not advocating a particular view of creation or evolution here; I’m just providing this information to further the discussion on the heels of Waltke’s recent resignation from RTS over this issue.

You can download the full PDF of Waltke’s paper here.

Whenever the creation/evolution issue comes up, one of the guaranteed arguments most literalists (i.e., “6, 24-hour day” creationists) give is this: If we can’t trust Genesis 1-3, then how can we trust anything else the Bible says? This is how Ken Ham’s organization, Answers In Genesis, puts it:

If we trust the Bible for our salvation, we must trust everything it says. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing only what we want to believe.

Well, Ken, you’re partly right. The problem is that we take a very superficial view of what it means to “trust the Bible.” In this strictly literalistic–and even modernistic–view of the Bible, we think of it as a science or history answer book. That is, when David takes a census of the people in 2 Samuel 24, and we read that “there were 800,000 fighting men from Israel and 500,000 men from Judah,” then there definitely could not have been 800,137 men from Israel and 496,218 men from Judah. Goodness…that would mean we can’t trust the Bible!

Similarly, we think that Genesis 1-3 was given to us to be a scientific, historical description of actual events, thereby missing the entire purpose of the story. Now don’t get me wrong; it may well be that a 6, 24-hour day view of creation is true. But even if it’s not, the point of the story remains. Read Waltke’s Old Testament Theology for more info on this.

“But,” some will object, “if there is no literal creation or literal Adam, then how can we believe in a literal Jesus or a literal resurrection?” Well, that’s not a bad question actually. Here’s my answer:

1. The genre of Genesis 1-3 and the genre of the gospels are not the same. Genesis 1-3 is a story; years of oral tradition written down to show Israel that their God is the true God, the creator God. The gospels are eye-witness accounts of the person and life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. We must take into account genres, audiences, times of writing, etc. God did not give us a history/science textbook. That’s not what the Bible is meant to be. In the words of Richard Pratt (who used to teach OT at RTS in Orlando and now teaches at Knox Seminary…where Waltke’s going), He Gave Us Stories.
2. Paul presents the person and work of Jesus, particularly his resurrection, as an absolutely necessary historical fact (1 Cor. 15:17). Without that reality, our faith is indeed worthless. He never does that with details of creation.
3. The way the Bible presents the events of Jesus and the resurrection is very different from the way it presents the events of creation. In 1 Cor. 15:1-8, Paul goes to great lengths to prove by way of witnesses that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He’s not merely telling a story to make a point. According to Paul, Jesus as a metaphor or resurrection as a metaphor simply won’t do.

So in a nutshell, I think it’s very easy to understand what’s important in the mind of the biblical authors. For the author of Genesis 1-3, the important thing is that God is the creator. For the author of 1 Corinthians 15, the important thing is that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.

I don’t have to treat everything in the Bible the same way. The parts that demand a literal understanding for the sake of the gospel, I have no problem with because the text makes it clear. The parts of the story that have a bigger point to make than timing or historical/scientific accuracy, I have no problem with either because they are tangential to the gospel.

We need to take the Bible seriously. Treating the whole thing, cover to cover, as if it is some science or history textbook is to show disrespect to the record that God gave us.

This letter is from Dr. Waltke’s Facebook page:

Holy week and the Monday through Wednesday of this week have been a uniquely hectic experience in my 79 years, to say the least. So hectic, I did not even follow the New York Yankees in the New York Times, my team for more than 70 years! I knew the issue of Genesis 1-3 and evolution was emotionally charged, but not this charged. Worse yet, I unwittingly involved the RTS community, especially Ric, in the brouhaha. I sincerely apologize to you and especially to Ric for not handling the matter more discretely.

Ric’s acceptance of my resignation has only added to the emotional turmoil; I have received letters from many quarters condemning RTS for his action. In fact, I was asked to be interviewed about my resignation on ABC News with Diane Sawyer! Of course, I refused because I am certain it would have been spun to reflect negatively on RTS and the church.

I am writing to assure you that I find no fault with the RTS administration; in fact, I think they did the right thing. Let me explain.

As noted, I did not have a chance to vet the video. How would I have edited it?

1. I would have entitled it “why the church should accept creation by the process of evolution,” not “why the church must accept evolution.” Also I would have emphasized in writing that the introductory “If” is a big “if,” because I am not a scientist. Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.
2. I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy. As it stands, I dragged the whole community in the misunderstandings.
3. I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. And I would have defined theistic evolution as I do in my Old Testament Theology
4. I would have called attention to literature such as Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, and Francis S. Collins, The Language of God that present the case for evolution. (I read Blocher, a brilliant French Reformed Baptist theologian 25 years ago.)
5. I would have also called attention to my An Old Testament Theology and W.R.L. Moberly, The Theology of Genesis, explaining why I think Genesis can accommodate creation by the process of evolution.
6. I would have called attention to older classic dogmatic theologies such as Shedd and Strong who also held to theistic evolution. I am told that B.B. Warfield held this view but I have been unable thus far to document that.
7. I would have suggested to Ric that he call attention to others in the PCA who also held this view.

All “would haves” due to the poor way in which the video was handled by BioLogos and me.

Regarding the future I hope and pray:

1. this fiasco will not hinder RTS from being open to theistic evolution as I have defined it.
2. I will not be identified by the idiosyncrasy of being “a theistic evolutionist,” like a “cripple,” “a mute,” etc. This topic is neither my field of expertise nor my hobby-horse, I want to get off it as quickly as I can.
3. RTS’ reputation will not be tarnished. I will do all I can to that end, such as writing this letter.
4. our love for one another will increase more and more

Our community is based on the rock-solid foundation that our Triune God’s sovereignty over all things is informed by sublimities that surpass our imagination and our ability to praise them.

Tuesday evening I received the call from the dean of another seminary to teach there. He, the executives of the seminary and I are praying about this with thanksgiving.

Your brother in Christ.

I’m including a link to the PCA’s position paper on the creation debate. The discussion is interesting, but I’ll warn you: the paper is long!

In this paper, a study committee deals with the following four views of the days of creation:

• The Calendar Day Interpretation
• The Day-Age Interpretation
• The Framework Interpretation
• The Analogical Days Interpretation

They explain each and present the strengths and weaknesses of each, making this a helpful paper for getting a brief overview of those positions.

Perhaps the best part of the paper is the concluding paragraph (I’ve added emphasis to the last sentence, because I think it’s extremely important):

The goal of general revelation along with special revelation is to know God, and thus “enjoy Him forever.” He has given us rational minds that are capable of thinking His thoughts after Him, particularly as concerns His creation. Just as the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds as we read His special revelation, so His providence directs the church of Jesus Christ to know the truth of His general revelation. In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ’s Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know.