It looks like I am getting some flack from some passionate Preterists (full or hyper Preterist, not partial preterists) who say I don’t give them a fair shake in The Theology Program material. Saying that I don’t give people a fair shake disturbs me very much as our program prides itself all being “fair and balanced.”

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogent statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. Continue Reading »

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

One of the dozens of reasons I am a Calvinist has to do with the tension that is allowed within the Calvinistic system that is not allowed in other options. You see, the issues of Calvinism primarily center on one issue: predestination. While the sovereignty of God has its place, it does not ultimately determine where one lands. An Arminian can believe that God is sovereign to a similar degree as a Calvinist. But an Arminian cannot believe in predestination the same way as Calvinists.

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in predestination. In other words, whether or not God predestines people is not the issue. All Bible believing Christians believe this doctrine. The issue has to do with the basis of this predestining.

The Calvinist says that God’s predestination has no founding in the predestined in any sense. God did not choose people based on any merit, intrinsic or foreseen. This is called unconditional predestination because there are no conditions in man that need to be met. It does not mean that God did not have any reason for choosing some and not others, but that the reason is not found in us. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Rewind 20 years: 1988

Walking past the sign at John Marshall High in Oklahoma City which encouraged students to come to Bible study at 6:30 in room 208. Not me. No, not because I did not like the Bible, but because it would be filled with nerds whom I did not want to be associated with. I smirked as I thought that the only reason they were taking this path was because they could not be like me—cool like me. Sure I went to FCA, but all the cool kids did. One kid even approached me, Davey Peirce, and asked me about Christ. I remember his exact words. “Michael, I want you to tell me more about this Jesus Christ.” “Sure,” I responded, “I will get back to you.” I never did. He asked me because I seemed to know a lot about the Bible during that session. Indeed, relatively speaking, I knew more than most. But Christ was a hamper to my style. My indulgence would have to be put on hold if I walked that path right now. I told Christ that I would be back after high school. I was just too busy.

Fast-forward 5 years

With Smashing Pupkins and Blind Melon playing in the background, I lay on the carpet face down in Arizona on my best friends floor in his room. It had now been three years since I told Christ I would be back and here I was. Dropped out of school (although I took my fathers tuition money), drinking every night, playing Madden 93′, living part time with my girl friend, stoned and making jokes about how I would not live past 21. As I lay on the floor, I told the Lord I was sorry. I just did not know what to do. “Lord, forgive me. I don’t even want to be different and for this I am ashamed.” Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A friend wrote to me recently, asking why I haven’t written anything about wife abuse on Parchment & Pen. She urged me to do it because, according to her, complementarianism is rich soil in which to grow this kind of wickedness (she’s an egalitarian). Now, I could dispute the merits of that viewpoint, but I’ll pass. Instead, I want to take a pro-active position on what the Bible says about how a husband should treat his wife. I’ll talk about the do’s and don’t’s.

But to begin with, I should mention a curiosity in the history of English Bibles. In 1537, John Rogers published, under the pen name, Thomas Matthew, the Matthew’s Bible. He essentially combined the Old Testament of Miles Coverdale with the New Testament of William Tyndale. Besides blatant plagiarism, Rogers also added about 2000 notes to his Bible, many of which were controversial. Far and away, the most controversial note was found at 1 Peter 3.7: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull unto [her husband, he should] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her…”! This Bible soon earned the moniker, “The Wife-Beater’s Bible.” I suppose a silver lining in this story is that the fact that this label was so quickly given to the Matthew’s Bible shows us that our ancestors also thought that this little comment was inappropriate. Thank God that note didn’t make it into the King James Bible!

Now if someone could read 1 Peter 3.7 five hundred years ago to mean that he had the right and the obligation to beat his wife if she disobeyed, then certainly some corrective instruction needs to be given.

The first thing to note is that 1 Peter 3.7 ruins the flow of the argument. Beginning in 2.13, Peter had been discussing the person who functioned in the subordinate role in relation to a non-Christian superior. He speaks about obedience to the government—both the king and those he commissions, submission (of slaves) to one’s master, and submission of wives to their husbands. In each instance, non-Christian superiors are in view. But then, at the end of the discourse, Peter turns to Christian husbands. Why does he do this? He didn’t address Christian governors or Christian slave-owners. Why now address Christian husbands? There were Christian slave-owners and even some in government. Why not address them? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE ADDITION AT THE BOTTOM

Considering the activity on my recent blog posts and Theology Unplugged podcasts on the will of God and Barack Obama, I though I would squeeze this lemon one last time (and pour some salt). No, that does not mean take a shot of tequila before reading this!

My basic argument was that whatever faults one may be inclined to find in Barack Obama, he was elected president. In this, it was, in some very real sense, the will of God.

While I was a singles’ pastor for six years, I often dealt with issues from those whom I had married. I had these issue in both premarital counseling and post-marital counseling. In post-marital counseling things got interesting. I would often sit in the presence of a discouraged wife or husband whose marriage was less than happy. For some, things just weren’t clicking. For others, the problems were more serious. Much of the time people would suggest that they had made a mistake. In their mind, they simply married the wrong person and their “soul-mate” was still out there waiting.

These type of things quickly become a matter of theology—very practical theology. The question is this: Is it possible to have married the “wrong” person? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has an cause. But that  cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is God.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of God is heard. Therefore, God’s existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is God. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I wanted to take this opportunity to announce the release of a new monograph that deals especially with the deity of Christ, and especially from a grammatical perspective. Based on my doctoral dissertation but with significantly more material and thoroughly updated, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance was published last week by Peter Lang. If you’re familiar with Sharp’s Rule, which was articulated especially in relation to Christ’s deity, you will understand the need for Sharp’s name in the title. (This announcement is timely, too, since it’s Sharp’s birthday! He’s 273 years old.) The monograph represents about 25 years of research, off and on, and touches on some key passages such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. It’s available at Amazon. But since it is an academic book, it’s a bit pricey: $69.95.

Besides affirming the deity of Christ in both of these passages, the book deals with constructions that do not fit Sharp’s rule and thus have a different force. “Pastors and teachers” in Eph 4:11 and “apostles and prophets” in Eph 2:20 are discussed at length, for example. In neither of these passages is it likely that the groups are identical. The fact that the book came out after Gordon Fee’s magisterial Pauline Christology has afforded me the opportunity to interact with Fee’s arguments that “our great God and Savior” refer to the Father rather than the Son. I disagree with him on this, and argue that the epithet speaks of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, the book had several typos in the Greek due to some font issues at the printer’s. But a corrigenda sheet will accompany each hard copy so that you can spot the errors and make the corrections. If you write to me (dbw@csntm.org), I can send you the corrigenda sheet (in case you buy a copy that was already dispatched to the reseller before the typos were detected).
The monograph will be on sale at the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual meeting coming up in Boston later this month.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A 16th century German sect of Anabaptists led by Nicholas Storch who believed that all knowledge, even knowledge of the alphabet, prevents people from a true knowledge of God. Abecedarians believed that God would provide all necessary understanding through divine means such as visions and ecstatic experiences. According to them, all theology and “academic” learning amounted to an idolatrous abandonment of the Christian faith. Their name, Abecedarians, comes from their denial of the ABCs.

Working in my field, I often wonder if we don’t have more modern day Abecedarians in the Evangelical church than we know.

What do you think?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Was it God’s will for Barack Obama to become the president?

I tell all. Don’t miss this . . .

 

 TUP - God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 2 [24:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1954)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Was it God’s will for Obama to win the election?

Enjoy . . .

 

 God's View of President Barack Obama - Part 1 [23:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1212)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Over at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website (www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Never-Apologize-for-Gods-Truth) a blog post was put up on October 28. The title of the post: “Never Apologize for God’s Truth.” The blog post is a discussion about my essay, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues,” posted at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6133. I thought it misrepresented my views in some serious ways, so I wrote a response. I had thought that that response would either get posted on the site (it wasn’t), would have caused the author to alter what he said (he didn’t), or at least have stimulated the writing of a letter to me from the CBMW folks (they weren’t). Regrettably, I have to post my response here, because of the one-sided story that was given at CBMW. Here’s what I wrote:

A friend sent me the blog that was posted at CBMW about my recent essay on the role of women, posted at bible.org. I’m honored that my views would be considered worthy of discussing at CBMW. But I have to say, I think I was misrepresented.

Here’s what the blog post said, “Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…”

That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church. Probably the strongest statement I made in terms of certainty was “I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage are willing to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.)” Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The above title is taken from a chapter in the eminent sociologist Rodney Stark’s recent book What Americans Really Believe (Baylor University Press, 2008). Anti-Christian prophets such Thomas Woolston (1670-1731) and Voltaire (1694-1778) foretold the disappearance of religion. In the 1960s, anthropologist Anthony Wallace claimed, “The evolutionary future of religion is extinction.” Belief in supernatural forces affecting nature without obeying its “laws” will “erode and become only an interesting memory.” Around that time sociologist Peter Berger was quoted in the New York Times as saying that religious believers “are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture.” However, in 1997 Berger took it all back, as the world had gotten more religious since that assertion. Atheists are ever the minority in our global village.

The rise of the New Atheism, led by what Stark calls “angry and remarkably nasty atheists,” is attested to by several bestsellers, which have presumably signaled a breakthrough for atheism—“that large numbers of Americans were now ready to stand up and admit they didn’t believe in God.” Despite recent claims that the number of atheists has risen sharply in recent years, the evidence reveals something else: “what most people who say they have no religion mean is not that they are irreligious, but that they have no church.”

The percentage of atheists in America revealed by, say, Gallup polls and the Baylor Survey, shows a tenacious consistency over the years: 1944: 4%; 1947: 6%; 1964: 3%; 1994: 3%; 2005: 4%; 2007: 4%. I found it interesting that “the majority of children born into an irreligious home end up joining a religious group—most often a conservative denomination.” Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have learned something over the last few months. You have all heard the saying that the two things you don’t talk about in mixed company are religion and politics. I have found that religion is much easier to talk about than politics. People are much more tolerant about religion because my decisions and beliefs don’t necessarily affect you. At least they don’t affect you to the degree that my political decisions and beliefs effect you. Why? Because politics, here in America, is a democracy, religion is not. When you and I vote we affect each other, creating a necessary submission to our elected leadership.

Whether you voted for him or not, my fellow American citizens, Obama is our new president. The balance of powers has now completely shifted. Agree or not, the people have spoken.

I praise God for this. In fact, I will rejoice at the revealing of his will.

Why?

Because, ultimately, God is in control of who sits in the White House. The plans of the heart belong to man, but the Lord makes things happen (Prov. 16:1). God placed Obama in the presidency according to his sovereign will. That is right. Obama is the man God decided would be our next president. This is exactly what he wanted to happen.

Argue with him if you will. Argue about the history of this country, the supreme court judges, the issues of morality, and the moral superiority of our view on taxes but, in the end, “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD” (Prov. 21:30).

Don’t bother inviting him to your morning party either. He will not come. No RSVP either. In fact, he won’t even send an angelic representative. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

From The Theological Word of the Day

(Gk. theos, God + tokos, “parturition, childbirth”)

Theotokos is a historic designation given to Mary in relation to her role as the mother of Christ. Theotokos means “God bearer.” This designation was approved by the third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Nestorius apposed the use of the term theotokos, preferring christotokos (”Christ-bearer), believing that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature. Most, however, felt that this would divide Christ into two persons. Led by Cyril of Alexandria, the council chose theotokos to acknowledge a belief in the dual-nature of Christ. It is important to note that this designation was not meant to venerate Mary, but to make a theological statement about Christ. He must be fully God and fully man if man is to have redemption.

Read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius defending theotokos.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I was watching a gospel presentation on the web the other day. You know, one of those dynamic slide presentations that have a nice piano playing in the background, warm colors, and leaves you wishy washy at the end. Well, this site walked people through the Gospel telling what Christ did and how it is we can have eternal life. At the end of the presentation people were called upon to say this prayer:

“Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and don’t deserve eternal life. But I believe you died and rose from the grave to purchase a place for me in heaven. Lord Jesus, come into my life; take control; forgive my sins and save me. I repent of my sins and now trust in you to save me. I accept the free gift of eternal life.”

So far so good, right? Well, yes . . . but . . . I am not going to pick the prayer apart with a theological fine tooth comb, but I do want to show you what the next slide in the presentation said. Here it is:

• If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sins
• Placed your trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death
• And received the gift of eternal life
• You are now a child of God forever.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that first bullet point has me slightly concerned. Now I am not sure I am a child of God. Has anyone forsaken their sins? I have and continue to try, but no luck yet. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Question 52, Article 4

Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?

Objection 1. It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to Acts 2:24: “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell”: and Romans 8:11: “He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies.” Therefore Christ is not the cause of His own Resurrection.

Objection 2. Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): “The lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the Resurrection.” Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to Psalm 40:11: “But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again.” Therefore He was not the cause of His rising again.

Objection 3. Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death. But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His Resurrection. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As a Evangelical Protestant, I come from a tradition that believes strongly in the priesthood of all believers. What does this mean? Among other things it means that I reject a formal sacerdotal system. What is this?

From the Theological Word of the Day:

“Sacerdotalism

(Lat. sacerdos, “priest”)

Sacerdotalism is the belief in an established hierarchy that separates man from God. In such a system the priesthood stands as an essential mediator between God and man. This priesthood, according to sacerdotalists, is a necessary component in worship, receiving communion, confessing sin, baptism, and other acts of administering grace. This “caste” system is generally rejected by most Protestants who traditionally hold to the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet. 2:5). Protestants believe that the only mediator between God and man is Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Advocates of sacerdotalism reference the priesthood established in the Old Testament which was sacerdotal. Opponents will emphasize the difference between the New Testament church and the Old Testament theocracy, believing that the Old Testament sacerdotal system is completely fulfilled in Christ and, therefore, no longer necessary (Heb. 10:19-20).”

The priesthood of all believers is primarily illustrated as the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), symbolizing the fulfillment and overshadowing of the old temporary sacerdotal system. Now, you and I as believers don’t need any representation to God other than the God-man, Jesus Christ.

What does this mean?

Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is saying the same thing I said a few weeks ago about a demotivated work force. Punish the rich and you may not get your beer at all.

Source Unknown (if you wrote it, claim it).

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Most of you would agree without any argument that one of the greatest crisis that American Christianity faces today is nominal Christianity. If not, you should!

Nominal Christianity is defined by those who proclaim the name Christian, yet remain uncommitted in any real sense. One of the distinctions that the term “evangelical” has sought to claim over the last fifty years is just the opposite of nominalism. Evangelicals have hoped to distinguish themselves as those that not only believe the essential truths of historic Christianity, but live according to those beliefs. Although the relevance of the term “evangelical” as a bearer of this distinction is the subject of great debate, the understanding of its opposite, nominalism, is still a problem. (Although I would credit the problems within Evangelicalism not only to commitment, but to a deteriorating distinction in our worldview).

The nominalist is very difficult to understand.

Some who are nominal Christians are such and don’t recognize that they are bearing a name without bearing the beliefs associated with that name. In other words, “Christian” is not a very distinct term anymore. One can believe themselves to be a Christian because they are American, have been baptized, go to church, have a conservative worldview, or vote Republican. This type of nominal Christian may live for years without ever really understanding what it means to be a Christian. They may have never made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ in any sense.

Some who are nominal Christians know themselves to be such and just don’t know how to make the “turn” to a passionate commitment to Christ. Frustration, confusion, doubt, skepticism, and just a general lack of passion can all be seen as symptoms of this type of nominalism. I know of someone who is very close to me who simply cannot understand why they don’t have as much commitment to Christ as they do to other things that fill their thoughts. Nominalism is best expressed by a lack of commitment, or better, commitments that are more important to them than their commitment to God.

In your experience among the people you know who are nominal in their commitment to God (and this could be you), what do you believe the reasons are?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!