Researching this idea of what are the different figures of speech, compared to the practice of the Church Fathers to use Allegorical Methods for interpretation, which seem to stem from Greek Philosophical practices in the early Church
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html#20
http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/bh/BH_index.htm
E.W. Bullinger's work is the Magnum Opus on this topic
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/groupings/by%20author/bullinger.htm
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Theological positions : in a boat.....
Here is a quick illustration that I hope you find helpful to distinguish between the various traditions with regard to divine sovereignty, free-will, and salvation. It is certainly not perfect, but I think it works sufficiently.
Pelagianism
All the people are on the boat with the God. At this point, in their natural condition, they don’t need to be saved as they are not in danger. However, most (if not all) people will eventually jump in the water (sin) and find themselves in need of God’s grace. The reason why they jump in the water is because they are following numerous example of those who jumped before them. This example goes all the way back to the first two who jumped into the water, setting the first bad example. God them offers them a life preserver when they call on him for help. If they respond they will be saved (synergism).
Semi-Pelagianism
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. However, they may desire salvation on their own. Though they cannot attain it, they can call, with a wave of their arm, to God who is eagerly waiting on the edge of the boat. At the first sign oftheir initiative, God will then throw out the life preserver (grace). If they respond, they will be saved (synergism).
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water. Their legs are cramping and they cannot swim to safety on their own. God, standing on the edge of the boat, makes the first initiative by throwing a life preserver to them (prevenient grace). Upon seeing this act, they make a decision to grab a hold (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, God will slowly pull the rope connected to the life preserver. But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism). If at any time they let go or quit swimming, they will not be saved.
Arminianism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be intervention if they are to be saved. God uses his power to bringevery one of them back to life (prevenient grace), but they are still in the water and in danger of drowning. With the regenerated ability to respond to God, now God throws the life preserver to them and calls on them all to grab hold of it. They then make the free-will decision on their own to grab a hold of the life preserver (faith) or to swim away. If they grab a hold, they must continue to hold as God pulls them in (synergism). They don’t need to do anything but hold on. Any effort to swim and aid God is superfluous (sola fide). They can let go of the preserver at any time and, as a consequence, lose their salvation.
Calvinism
All people are floating in the water dead in their natural condition (total depravity). They are born dead because that has been the condition of humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water and died (original sin). Death begets death. There must be radical intervention if they are to be saved. While God calls out to all of them, due to his mysterious choice, he brings back to life (regeneration) only certain people (election) while passing by the rest (reprobation). He does not use a life preserver, but grabs a hold of the elect individually and immediately pulls them onto the boat (monergism). They naturally grab a hold of God as a consequence of their resurrection (irresistible grace; sola fide). They forever stay on the boat due to their perpetual ability to recognize God’s beauty (perseverance of the saints).
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
2 Thess 2;1
¶ Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, Darby translation
Touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (uper ths
parousiav tou kuriou (hmwn) ihsou cristou). For erwtwmen,
to beseech, see on 1Th 4:1; 4:12|. uper originally meant
over, in behalf of, instead of, but here it is used like peri,
around, concerning as in #1:4; 1Th 3:2; 5:10|, common in the
papyri (Robertson, Grammar, p. 632). For the distinction
between parousia, epifaneia (Epiphany), and apokaluqiv
(Revelation) as applied to the Second Coming of Christ see
Milligan on Thessalonian Epistles, pp. 145-151, in the light
of the papyri. parousia lays emphasis on the presence of the
Lord with his people, epifaneia on his manifestation of the
power and love of God, apokaluqiv on the revelation of
God's purpose and plan in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus.
And our gathering together unto him (kai hmwn episunagwghs
ep' auton). A late word found only in II Macc. 2:7; #2Th 2:1;
Heb 10:25| till Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p.
103) found it on a stele in the island of Syme, off Caria,
meaning "collection." Paul is referring to the rapture,
mentioned in #1Th 4:15-17|, and the being forever with the Lord
thereafter. Cf. also #Mt 24:31; Mr 13:27|.
Robertsons Wordpictures on the Greek NT
Touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (uper ths
parousiav tou kuriou (hmwn) ihsou cristou). For erwtwmen,
to beseech, see on 1Th 4:1; 4:12|. uper originally meant
over, in behalf of, instead of, but here it is used like peri,
around, concerning as in #1:4; 1Th 3:2; 5:10|, common in the
papyri (Robertson, Grammar, p. 632). For the distinction
between parousia, epifaneia (Epiphany), and apokaluqiv
(Revelation) as applied to the Second Coming of Christ see
Milligan on Thessalonian Epistles, pp. 145-151, in the light
of the papyri. parousia lays emphasis on the presence of the
Lord with his people, epifaneia on his manifestation of the
power and love of God, apokaluqiv on the revelation of
God's purpose and plan in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus.
And our gathering together unto him (kai hmwn episunagwghs
ep' auton). A late word found only in II Macc. 2:7; #2Th 2:1;
Heb 10:25| till Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p.
103) found it on a stele in the island of Syme, off Caria,
meaning "collection." Paul is referring to the rapture,
mentioned in #1Th 4:15-17|, and the being forever with the Lord
thereafter. Cf. also #Mt 24:31; Mr 13:27|.
Robertsons Wordpictures on the Greek NT
Monday, March 22, 2010
Peter not ministering in Rome
JND on Peter being in Rome.
The following identifies, correctly I believe the fact that Peter ,save for Martyrdom , was not at Rome, nor at the very least was not involved with the founding or establishment of the Roman Church.
I may add, though our business is with Irenaeus, Eusebius (2: 25) quotes from Dionysius of Corinth the statement that Peter and Paul planted together the church of Corinth, and then went on to Rome, taught in like manner, and were martyred. Now that Peter and Paul may have been taken to Rome and martyred together, passing at Corinth together too, is very possible, though we have no account of it; but what is said as to the foundation of the church at Corinth or Rome is unquestionably false. Paul, we know from the Acts and his Epistles, founded that at Corinth, Peter having nothing to say to it. And even Paul did not found that at Rome more than Peter, as his Epistle to the Romans shews: Christianity preceded them both there. The Roman church, so far from having a potiorem beginning, was not founded by an apostle at all.
The following identifies, correctly I believe the fact that Peter ,save for Martyrdom , was not at Rome, nor at the very least was not involved with the founding or establishment of the Roman Church.
I may add, though our business is with Irenaeus, Eusebius (2: 25) quotes from Dionysius of Corinth the statement that Peter and Paul planted together the church of Corinth, and then went on to Rome, taught in like manner, and were martyred. Now that Peter and Paul may have been taken to Rome and martyred together, passing at Corinth together too, is very possible, though we have no account of it; but what is said as to the foundation of the church at Corinth or Rome is unquestionably false. Paul, we know from the Acts and his Epistles, founded that at Corinth, Peter having nothing to say to it. And even Paul did not found that at Rome more than Peter, as his Epistle to the Romans shews: Christianity preceded them both there. The Roman church, so far from having a potiorem beginning, was not founded by an apostle at all.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
- Kingdom People - http://trevinwax.com -
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
Posted By Trevin Wax On March 10, 2010 @ 3:48 am In Interviews
[1]Today, I have the privilege of posting an interview with Mark Galli, the senior managing editor for Christianity Today [2]and the author of A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God [3], Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy [4] and Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God [5].
Trevin Wax: You recently wrote a cover story [6] for Christianity Today that called evangelicals back to the primacy of grace. Why do you believe this emphasis on grace is necessary during this present time?
Mark Galli: For evangelicals it’s an emphasis necessary in all times. We are a movement whose charism is activism. We gather from our various streams and traditions (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, independent, etc.) because we want to join together to do something: evangelize, send missionaries overseas, open urban missions, and so forth. And what a gift this is to the world!
But this strength is also our weakness. It usually begins from a deep sense of gratefulness for what God has done for us–we love because we’ve been loved. But, human nature being what it is, the doing quickly starts to become an end in itself. And then we start imagining that the future of the church or missions or the planet itself depends on our doing. I give lots of examples of this in the October 2009 cover story [6], so I won’t repeat them here.
I will relate one email comment I received after the article came out. I was in conversation with one friend who wrote a book that I feel very much is characteristic of an activism that has left grace behind. He kept insisting that he believed in grace–which I have no doubt about–and that he said so in his book–which was simply not true. When I showed him how little grace appeared as a motive or framing of the book, he responded angrily, “What’s with the grace thing anyway. It’s so vague and jargony.”
When grace is seen as assumed or, worse, “vague and jargony,” I think we’ve got a problem! Without a constant reminder about the priority of grace, we will not only burn out, but our organizations, church and parachurch, will turn into nothing but a glorified social service agencies.
Trevin Wax: Evangelicals are divided over the idea of cultural transformation, namely the amount of influence the church has or should have on the surrounding culture. What are your views on the church and culture?
Mark Galli: James Davison Hunter has just published a book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World [7]. He analyzes the work of everyone from Chuck Colson to James Dobson to Jim Wallis to Andy Crouch, arguing that evangelical views on transforming culture have been naive. Whether you agree with him or not, the book will change the conversation in our movement. An interview with him will appear in the May issue of CT. (So just a heads up to your readers about that.)
My personal view is that it is not our job to transform our culture, let alone the world. Our job is to do the specific thing God has called us to do, whether that is evangelizing the neighborhood, working against the sexual slave trade, relieving world hunger, or whatever. Our job is to do that faithfully and well–and to let God take care of transforming the culture.
Transforming culture is an incredibly complex thing that no person or group can possibly grasp. It’s something that happens, but it happens over centuries. The process is so slow that it is indiscernible to us except in hindsight. I think talk about transforming the world usually fills us with dreams and visions of our own power, when really our vision should be on the people we’re are seeking to love in Christ’s name.
But at CT we recognize that not every evangelical agrees with this point of view! So while you’ll see me wax eloquent (and not so eloquent) on this point from time to time, you’ll also find articles and interviews in CT where the transformation message is repeated.
Trevin Wax: What are your thoughts on the recent announcement of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College?
Mark Galli: I was surprised at the announcement, given his pastoral (vs. academic) background, and given his strongly Reformed perspective (given that Wheaton is more theologically diverse). But he’s done a marvelous job of answering concerns about these matters, and his initial moves as president-elect have been impressive.
Trevin Wax: How has Christianity Today fared during these days of difficulty for print media and these days of increasing evangelical fragmentation?
Mark Galli: Like every other publishing company, we had to cut staff and pages in 2009. Fortunately, our parent company, Christianity Today International, has been fiscally conservative. So we had funds to help us weather 2009, when we took a big hit financially. With the cuts and a trimmer budget, the good ship CT is no longer listing, and is starting to move forward again. I’m pretty optimistic about the future, frankly.
Trevin Wax: Could you explain your role as editor of Christianity Today?
Mark Galli: I’m responsible for deciding what goes in each issue of the magazine, how it is shaped, edited, titled, and designed. That being said, there is no way that one person can do all this. And while I may have the final say on all these matters, I depend heavily on a very gifted staff to bring their expertise to bear on the magazine. For example, I rarely tell the design team to redo a design–that’s really their expertise, and I’d be a fool to think I could design better than they can.
So much of what we do is collaborative–we’re always in conversation about matter large and small–that it’s sometimes hard to say who actually was responsible for this design or that title or the shape of that article. People regularly compliment me on the magazine, and I regularly say that it’s a group effort from start to finish. We really have a talented staff right now, so it makes my job relatively easy!
Trevin Wax: Where do you see Christianity Today ten years from now theologically?
Mark Galli: About where we are today: a centrist, mildly Reformed publication. That’s been our history for 55 years, and, given the current editorial leadership, I don’t see anything that would suggest we’ll be shifting in the near future.
I like to reiterate, however, that who we are as a magazine and what we publish are slightly different. That is, while our editorial bias is mildly Reformed, we’re always on the look out for Wesleyan authors to contribute their unique perspective in our pages. And while we’re centrist, we like to publish pieces about and by evangelicals more decidedly on the left and right.
In other words, we see ourselves as a magazine where the movement can come and reason together. We have our own biases, and it would be dishonest to pretend we don’t. But we try to remain open to other points of view. It’s not about the biases of the current staff, but about the movement as a whole.
Article printed from Kingdom People: http://trevinwax.com
URL to article: http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/10/turning-evangelicals-back-to-grace-an-interview-with-mark-galli/
Copyright © 2009 Kingdom People. All rights reserved.
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
Posted By Trevin Wax On March 10, 2010 @ 3:48 am In Interviews
[1]Today, I have the privilege of posting an interview with Mark Galli, the senior managing editor for Christianity Today [2]and the author of A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God [3], Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy [4] and Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God [5].
Trevin Wax: You recently wrote a cover story [6] for Christianity Today that called evangelicals back to the primacy of grace. Why do you believe this emphasis on grace is necessary during this present time?
Mark Galli: For evangelicals it’s an emphasis necessary in all times. We are a movement whose charism is activism. We gather from our various streams and traditions (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, independent, etc.) because we want to join together to do something: evangelize, send missionaries overseas, open urban missions, and so forth. And what a gift this is to the world!
But this strength is also our weakness. It usually begins from a deep sense of gratefulness for what God has done for us–we love because we’ve been loved. But, human nature being what it is, the doing quickly starts to become an end in itself. And then we start imagining that the future of the church or missions or the planet itself depends on our doing. I give lots of examples of this in the October 2009 cover story [6], so I won’t repeat them here.
I will relate one email comment I received after the article came out. I was in conversation with one friend who wrote a book that I feel very much is characteristic of an activism that has left grace behind. He kept insisting that he believed in grace–which I have no doubt about–and that he said so in his book–which was simply not true. When I showed him how little grace appeared as a motive or framing of the book, he responded angrily, “What’s with the grace thing anyway. It’s so vague and jargony.”
When grace is seen as assumed or, worse, “vague and jargony,” I think we’ve got a problem! Without a constant reminder about the priority of grace, we will not only burn out, but our organizations, church and parachurch, will turn into nothing but a glorified social service agencies.
Trevin Wax: Evangelicals are divided over the idea of cultural transformation, namely the amount of influence the church has or should have on the surrounding culture. What are your views on the church and culture?
Mark Galli: James Davison Hunter has just published a book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World [7]. He analyzes the work of everyone from Chuck Colson to James Dobson to Jim Wallis to Andy Crouch, arguing that evangelical views on transforming culture have been naive. Whether you agree with him or not, the book will change the conversation in our movement. An interview with him will appear in the May issue of CT. (So just a heads up to your readers about that.)
My personal view is that it is not our job to transform our culture, let alone the world. Our job is to do the specific thing God has called us to do, whether that is evangelizing the neighborhood, working against the sexual slave trade, relieving world hunger, or whatever. Our job is to do that faithfully and well–and to let God take care of transforming the culture.
Transforming culture is an incredibly complex thing that no person or group can possibly grasp. It’s something that happens, but it happens over centuries. The process is so slow that it is indiscernible to us except in hindsight. I think talk about transforming the world usually fills us with dreams and visions of our own power, when really our vision should be on the people we’re are seeking to love in Christ’s name.
But at CT we recognize that not every evangelical agrees with this point of view! So while you’ll see me wax eloquent (and not so eloquent) on this point from time to time, you’ll also find articles and interviews in CT where the transformation message is repeated.
Trevin Wax: What are your thoughts on the recent announcement of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College?
Mark Galli: I was surprised at the announcement, given his pastoral (vs. academic) background, and given his strongly Reformed perspective (given that Wheaton is more theologically diverse). But he’s done a marvelous job of answering concerns about these matters, and his initial moves as president-elect have been impressive.
Trevin Wax: How has Christianity Today fared during these days of difficulty for print media and these days of increasing evangelical fragmentation?
Mark Galli: Like every other publishing company, we had to cut staff and pages in 2009. Fortunately, our parent company, Christianity Today International, has been fiscally conservative. So we had funds to help us weather 2009, when we took a big hit financially. With the cuts and a trimmer budget, the good ship CT is no longer listing, and is starting to move forward again. I’m pretty optimistic about the future, frankly.
Trevin Wax: Could you explain your role as editor of Christianity Today?
Mark Galli: I’m responsible for deciding what goes in each issue of the magazine, how it is shaped, edited, titled, and designed. That being said, there is no way that one person can do all this. And while I may have the final say on all these matters, I depend heavily on a very gifted staff to bring their expertise to bear on the magazine. For example, I rarely tell the design team to redo a design–that’s really their expertise, and I’d be a fool to think I could design better than they can.
So much of what we do is collaborative–we’re always in conversation about matter large and small–that it’s sometimes hard to say who actually was responsible for this design or that title or the shape of that article. People regularly compliment me on the magazine, and I regularly say that it’s a group effort from start to finish. We really have a talented staff right now, so it makes my job relatively easy!
Trevin Wax: Where do you see Christianity Today ten years from now theologically?
Mark Galli: About where we are today: a centrist, mildly Reformed publication. That’s been our history for 55 years, and, given the current editorial leadership, I don’t see anything that would suggest we’ll be shifting in the near future.
I like to reiterate, however, that who we are as a magazine and what we publish are slightly different. That is, while our editorial bias is mildly Reformed, we’re always on the look out for Wesleyan authors to contribute their unique perspective in our pages. And while we’re centrist, we like to publish pieces about and by evangelicals more decidedly on the left and right.
In other words, we see ourselves as a magazine where the movement can come and reason together. We have our own biases, and it would be dishonest to pretend we don’t. But we try to remain open to other points of view. It’s not about the biases of the current staff, but about the movement as a whole.
Article printed from Kingdom People: http://trevinwax.com
URL to article: http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/10/turning-evangelicals-back-to-grace-an-interview-with-mark-galli/
Copyright © 2009 Kingdom People. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)