The Character of a True Theologian

 "By a theologian, I mean one who, imbued with a substantial knowledge of divine things derived from the teaching of God himself, declares and extols, not in words only, but by the whole course of his life, the wonderful excellencies of God and thus lives entirely for his glory."

--Herman Witsius, "On the Character of a True Theologian"

The More Scriptural, the More Spiritual

Crucial principle for life and ministry: the more Scriptural something (a belief, a practice, a method or way of doing ministry) is, the more spiritual and God-pleasing it is. (And the reverse is therefore true too.)

Elaboration: If something is Scriptural it is spiritual and God-pleasing (because 'Scriptural' = defined by God Himself through His Word). If it is unscriptural it is unspiritual and dis-pleasing to God.

The more Scriptural something is the more spiritual and pleasing to God it is.

The more unscriptural something is the more unspiritual and displeasing to God it is. I'm not saying 'more strict' I'm saying more Scriptural. (The Pharisees were stricter than Jesus, but not more spiritual and God-pleasing.)

Paul says he prays that the Colossian believers will be filled with the knowledge of God's will or purpose (Col. 1:9ff.). Well, that knowledge comes through God's inscripturated word.

So if we really want to live a God-pleasing life and carry out God-pleasing ministry, we will live a life, and do ministry, shaped by the fullness of the knowledge of God's will and the knowledge of God himself -- realizing that comes through God's word and that God’s Word is available to us through Scripture.

And what is the Biblical basis for all this? ...the fact that God gave us the Bible.

The Loss of a Transcendent, Great and Glorious Deity

And here is what I think, in many ways, is our fundamental problem: in the past human beings, for a number of reasons, had a profound sense that there was a transcendent Deity (or deities) to which, one way or another, we were accountable. Philosophers had their names for it (e.g., the numinous) -- the Bible calls it "the fear of God' -- a powerfully profound awareness (often almost sub-conscious and nearly always suppressed) that God was indeed the Supreme Being, the One "with whom we have to do."

But now, in the West at least, in the 'first world', secularizing influences have gained such a momentum and have had such a pervasive effect, that this sense of the divine and transcendent seems all but extinguished (publicly, at least) -- and the result: a hollowed out, hopeless society of men and women who spend almost all their time in superficial strategies of strenuously hiding from the hopelessness (and calling it play or entertainment) and self-medicating the meaninglessness (including via our self-styled spiritualities, aka, idolatries). Claiming to be wise, we've become miserable fools.

And, worst of all, even when we occasionally still talk about 'God', we no longer seem to have a clue as to the great and terrible and awe-ful Being of whom we speak.

Are men basically good?

' Men of lax and corrupt principles, take great delight in speaking to the praise of human nature, and extolling its dignity, without distinguishing what it was, at its first creation, from what it is in its present fallen state. These fine speculations are very grateful to a worldly mind. They are also much more pernicious to uncautious and unthinking youth, than even the temptations to a dissolute and sensual life, against which they are fortified by the dictates of natural conscience, and a sense of public shame. But I appeal from these visionary reasonings to the history of all ages, and the inflexible testimony of daily experience. These will tell us what men have been in their practice, and from thence you may judge what they are by nature, while unrenewed. If I am not mistaken, a cool and candid attention, either to the past history, or present state of the world, but above all, to the ravages of lawless power, ought to humble us in the dust. It should at once lead us to acknowlege the just view given us in scripture of our  lost state; to desire the happy influence of renewing grace each for ourselves; and to long for the dominion of righteousness and peace, when “men shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”* * Mic iv. 3.-

-- John Witherspoon  "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men" (sermon)

How Trump vs. Clinton Helps to Prove There Is a God

I don’t offer that caption lightly, and here’s why:  in my opinion, the fact that a free society of independent persons, privileged with the opportunity to choose, make the choice that Donald  Trump and Hillary Clinton (and the policies they espouse, and the people that they are) are the best options available to lead that society, then surely something supernatural is at work – specifically something supernaturally bad.  For folly (in the sense of that word found in the Book of Proverbs) that is that deep and that perverse must surely be diabolical.  (Reflect on Ephesians 4:17-19).  And the only world-view that takes seriously the reality of the Devil is the world-view and way of thinking that believes that there is a God – the true and living God, the Judge of men and nations, who will certainly have the last word.  (Romans 1:18-32;  Acts 17:30-31).

No Such Thing as Religious Neutrality

'Augustine knew there was no such thing as spiritual or religious neutrality. People are for or against the Bible’s God. All humanity, he observed, belongs to one of two societies— one city that “lifts up its head in its own glory” and “loves its own strength as displayed in its mighty men,” and another city that “says to its God, ‘Thou art my glory and the lifter up of mine head’” and “‘ I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength.’”

-- Jonathan Leeman, "Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ's Rule (Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture)" InterVarsity Press

Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

ANTINOMY: an 'appearance' of contradiction. A key example: Divine sovereignty and human responsibilty....

"The particular antinomy which concerns us here is the apparent opposition between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, or (putting it more biblically) between what God does as King and what he does as Judge.

"Scripture teaches that, as King, he orders and controls all things, human actions among them, in accordance with his own eternal purpose (see Gen 14:8; 50:20; Prov 16:9; 21:1; Mt 10:29; Acts 9:27-28; Rom 9:20-21; Eph 1:11, etc.). Scripture also teaches that, as Judge, he holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues (see Mt 25; Rom 2:1-16; Rev 20:11-13, etc.). [Acts 4:27-28]

"God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are taught to us side by side in the same Bible; sometimes, indeed, in the same text. Both are thus guaranteed to us by the same divine authority; both, therefore, are true." -- J.I. Packer

What will we do with our liberty?

“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”
— Edmund Burke

Something Other Than God?

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."

-- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Disdain for definitions

"Nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms" -- J. Gresham Machen

Too heavy a burden

'No human relationship can bear the burden of godhood, and the attempt has to take its toll in some way on both parties.' 
-- Ernest Becker

The Christian Pastor and Foolish Ideas

"Have nothing to do with foolish ideas fit only for the godless and the gullible...." (1 Tim. 4:7, paraphrased). I have a feeling that that verse should have a real impact on my participation with Facebook, blogs, comment threads, etc.

A commentary explained that Paul is telling Timothy that when he encounters such foolish ideas, he is to "'refuse', 'beg off' dealing with them. To discuss them seriously would be to give them a dignity which they do not deserve."

-- D. Edmond Hiebert

Freedom of Religion

Heartened to hear Pope Francis, in his speech from Philadelphia, affirm the crucial reality that the right to religious freedom (affirmed in the very first amendment of our Bill of Rights) is by no means restricted to the 'freedom to worship' (the phrase characteristically used by President Obama and Hillary Clinton), but also the freedom to practice and live out one's religious commitments in every sphere of life -- "in the public square", culturally, politically, vocationally, etc.

The conclusion to his speech: "May this country and each of you be renewed in gratitude for the many blessings and freedoms that you enjoy. And may you defend these rights, especially your religious freedom, for it has been given to you by God himself...."

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." -- "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (via the United Nations"

Perspective

“For what you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are.”
― C.S. Lewis

Meditative Prayer and Scripture

"Meditative prayer is far from the mystical practice of emptying one’s mind and yielding to the experience of mental passivity. What Packer calls for is that we fill our minds with truth from God’s Word about God himself. Meditation is what Packer refers to as directed thinking, active mental exertion in faithful and sustained focus on Scripture, God, the beauty of creation, the truths of redemption, and all that has been revealed of Christ and his saving work."

-- Sam Storms, "Packer on the Christian Life: Knowing God in Christ, Walking by the Spirit (Theologians on the Christian Life)" (p. 143). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn versus Anthony Kennedy on the Nature of Liberty

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's view of human freedom, rooted in historic Christian thinking, is just about diametrically opposed to the view espoused by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his recent Supreme Court opinions...

Consider this quote from Solzhenitsyn:

"...in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

"Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century's moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century...."

-- "A World Split Apart" — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978

Sez who?

Whenever an individual or a society faces some crucial cultural, ethical issue there is, looming in the background an absolutely critical question:  Sez Who?   That is, if you assert that  marriage is [fill in the blank], then who's to say you are right in your assertion?

Theists -- people like our Founding Fathers who believed in a Creator -- can plausibly answer the Sez Who question by saying, "God says....."  (And that's just what Christians do on this matter, relying on passages like Gen. 1:27; 2:24 and Matt. 19:4-6).   Now of course secularists don't find this convincing, nor do they accept this answer to the Sez Who? question.  But what almost always seems to go unnoticed is that they do not appear to have a coherent and compelling answer themselves to "Sez Who?"

Is their answer to, "Who says your concept of marriage is the right one?" -- is their answer merely, "I do...I and the people who agree with me"?   Would that be Justice Kennedy's answer?   So are we down to merely "we do, and majority rules"?  But our founding documents' understanding of inalienable rights (endowed by the Creator, and recognized, but not given, by Government) -- that understanding was precisely intended and designed to protect these fundamental rights from the dictates of the majority.

And yet, it seems like "majority rules" is what has happened here.   There is, in this world-view, no transcendent "Who" (God) -- Justice Kennedy's opining does not, because it cannot, go there.  There is only 'us' -- and so, "majority rules" after all.  And it's not the majority of the populace (via referendum) nor the majority of duly-elected legislators (via political process) -- no, it's the majority of Supreme Court justices.

So 'who says' that marriage is what we were told yesterday that it is?  Five judges, that's who.

Freedom of Conscience

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." -- Thomas Jefferson

Can a man ask a question God can't answer?

"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half of our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that."

-- C.S. Lewis, “A Grief Observed”

Behind the Cultural Changes -- a War of World-views

The story of any society is the story of its primary beliefs and fundamental ideas about the nature of reality. For a long time in America and in the West, those primary beliefs were significantly shaped by Biblical (Judeo-Christian) teaching. Now, that is less and less true. A new fundamental belief system (virtually religious in the way it functions in society and culture) is becoming more and more dominant in the inevitable contest of ideas.

And so for example, the Old Wisdom said that man was fallen, and thus there was a strong current of evil and folly at the core of his nature that kept leading him to choose self-destroying and shalom-shattering ways. The "New" Way of Thinking teaches that human beings are basically good, and following one's own heart is the best course to take in the whole range of choices that one faces in life.

But even apart from divine revelation, how anyone, in light of the actual events of human history (including current events), and the honest assessment of one's own heart, and in light of the increasing manifestations of folly and vice in popular culture and media -- how anyone, defying all this evidence, can seriously maintain that human beings are essentially good is incomprehensible to me.

The "New" Beliefs may well prevail in the clash of the core ideas that shape the West; but the Old Reality will still play out too....we will reap what we have sown.