Peter Gentry – 4 Factors That Govern Biblical Typology

1. Correspondence

The first is correspondence between events, people, places, etc., of one time, and events, people, places, etc., of a later time. This correspondence is due to the fact that God in his providence sovereignly controls history, and he is consistent in his character so that there are repetitive patterns to his works in history.

2. Escalation

Second is escalation from type to antitype so that the later event, person, or thing that can be said to be the fulfillment of the type is much better and greater than that which foreshadows it.

3. Biblical Warrant

Third is biblical warrant. For something to be considered a type, there must be exegetical evidence in the original text that indicates that what the text is dealing with is intended to be a model or pattern for something to follow in history. For example, deliverance through the Red Sea was intended from the start to be a model for future salvation.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Jaquelle Crowe – Ashamed of My Body: Six Truths for Struggling Teens

I don’t remember the first time I hated my body, but I remember how much it hurt. I looked in the mirror and realized that my body was not perfect, not flawless, and not like it “should” be. I can remember feeling sick with shame.

Becoming a teenager brings terrific joys, but it also brings many new difficulties. One of the most pervasive and crippling is body shame. We live a precious, precarious time in our childhood when we lack shame for our bodies. We view them as our machines, tools for communication and self-expression, the catalyst for our play, perfectly acceptable to us in their functionality. We are self-aware, but not self-conscious.

Then we get older and something happens (or maybe much happens), and cultural messages start to seep into our minds and pollute our perceptions. And one day we realize that beauty is more important than function, and our body is not beautiful. We’re left asking ourselves, How did I never realize how ugly I am, how fat I am, how awkward I am, how (fill in your word of shame) I am?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Tom Ascol – Give Them Law and Gospel

If parents are going to bring their children up “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4), then they should understand the role of both the law and the gospel in that task. The former reveals to us God’s all-encompassing will and the latter reveals to us His all-sufficient provision for sinners who violate that will.

The Law Reveals God’s Will

The first verse that Donna and I taught each of our six children is Ephesians 6:1, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” By doing this we were teaching them God’s law—their and our Creator’s revealed will for their lives. He calls them to live in obedience to their parents. He calls us not to “provoke” them “to anger” but to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). We are both, together with all people, accountable to obey God.

That accountability stems from the most fundamental truth in the world—that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). As the Creator of all things He has the right to rule over and require whatever He deems right of His creatures. He has summarized His requirements of us in the Ten Commandments. Jesus further summarized them in the greatest commandment and the second that is like it. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37,39).

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Ryan Reeves – Why Do We Lie?

We can usually always admit that we were dumb as kids. In my case, I had a habit of doing something wrong and then completely denying my actions. In one case, my mother began to keep lemon candy in her purse, which she would distribute in small numbers during church. They weren’t very good but, hey, #sugar.

The trouble for me was I knew she kept them in her purse–and I knew where she kept her purse. So, over the course of one weekend, I managed to steal the entire package, bit by bit.

Then Sunday came. No candy. Apocalypse Now.

The funniest part of the story is I steadfastly swore that I had not taken any candy. Even if everyone knew I liked them, and knew I was capable of taking them without asking, and could see guilt written on my face–nope not me. Someone else must have taken them.

I can’t remember the punishment but my mother no longer carried candy so frivolously out in the open.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Simon Turpin – The Creation of Adam: Unique Revelation or Ancient Myth?

Introduction

It is widely known that the early chapters of Genesis do not stand alone in the history of the ancient Near East (ANE). Other texts parallel the biblical account of creation and the existence of similarities between Genesis, and ANE literature has led critical scholars to conclude that Genesis was dependent upon the Mesopotamian texts.

Today, however, there are many professing evangelical scholars who argue that the early chapters of Genesis were influenced by these ANE myths.

The points of similarity between Genesis 1–2 and other ANE accounts have led these evangelical scholars to conclude that Genesis is not historical but “is an ancient Near Eastern form of science.” In other words the role of these texts in the ANE was, as John Walton explains, “like science in our modern world—it was their explanation of how the world came into being and how it worked. . . . Mythology is thus a window to culture.” The connection then, for these scholars, between the biblical and the ANE worlds is that, just as with ANE literature, so Genesis 1–2 helps us “see how Israelites thought about themselves, their world, and their God.”4The similarities then are associated with the fact that the biblical and ANE accounts “share a conceptual world,” which is why Genesis 1–2 is seen as “ancient cosmology.” The similarities between these ANE texts and Genesis 1–2 have convinced many of these scholars that Adam never existed or that he is anything other than the first human, who was supernaturally created. These scholars believe their view of Adam is based on careful analysis of the ANE context of Genesis 1–2. For example, after describing several ANE texts about the creation of man, such as Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics, Denis Lamoureux states,

Clearly, these last three examples of the de novo creation of humans are similar to Genesis 2:7, where the Lord acts like a craftsman and forms Adam from the dust of the ground…So what exactly am I saying about Adam? Adam’s existence is based ultimately on an accident conceptualization of human origins: de novo creation. To use technical terminology, Adam is the retrojective conclusion of an ancient taxonomy. And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it follows that Adam never existed.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Michael Boling – Inerrancy as an Issue in the Fundamentalist Movement: 1900 to the Present

quotescover-JPG-75

INTRODUCTION
The issue of inerrancy has and continues to remain a foundational element of the fundamentalist movement. It is from the doctrine of inerrancy that most of the accepted fundamentalist beliefs such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, and the bodily second coming of Christ were founded upon. As noted by fundamentalist scholar and author George Marsden, “Inerrancy, which was to become a code word for much of the fundamentalist movement, had a scientific quality that was related to the view of truth as directly apprehended facts.” As such, inerrancy drove fundamentalist doctrine in a number of key areas as well as the fundamentalist response to modernism, liberalism, evolution, and later efforts at separatism.

Biblical stalwarts such as the Princeton theologians stood against the growing tide of higher criticism and theological liberalism that seemed to be crashing from Europe against the shores of the American theological establishment. As numerous denominations and religious institutions succumbed to the influence of modernism and liberalism, it was conservative scholars such as A. A. Hodge, C. I. Scofield and institutions such as the Princeton Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute who, at least for a time, tried to stem the tide of attacks against the inerrancy of scripture. Scholars such as J. Gresham Machen “who only reluctantly bore the name of fundamentalist,” “fully supported the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.”

A belief in inerrancy by most fundamentalists greatly contributed to the development of various doctrines of the movement in an effort to demonstrate the trustworthiness of scripture. Additionally, this belief provided a means by which to engage the influence and spread of Darwinian evolution and it continues to this day to be a foundational element for interpreting scripture. Fundamentalism and fundamentalist doctrine has centered largely on the issue of inerrancy and the response to those who seek to denigrate scripture by questioning inerrancy as a necessary and prominent issue of the faith. This paper will focus on the development of inerrancy as a fundamental doctrine of the fundamentalist movement, strategically important documents and events which helped shape inerrancy as a vital issue in the fundamentalist perspective, as well as modern trends in the fundamentalist approach to inerrancy. Continue reading “Michael Boling – Inerrancy as an Issue in the Fundamentalist Movement: 1900 to the Present”

Please follow and like us:
0

Dan Fisher- An Impersonal Creator: Understanding Deism

Dust particles dance in the shaft of light penetrating the dirty windowpane as the soothing tick-tock of numerous clocks fills the small workshop. Tiny springs, gears, and screws glisten in the morning sun as they lay scattered across the watchmaker’s workbench, while the welcome heat from the crackling fire in the woodstove drives the chill from the morning air.

Softly whistling a favorite tune, the watchmaker carefully plies his trade, adding the finishing touches to his latest masterpiece. One by one, he meticulously assembles the individual pieces until he has crafted a beautiful work of mechanical timekeeping ingenuity. With a few tweaks here and a slight adjustment there, the job is finished. Polishing the crystal to a shiny luster, he holds the piece at arm’s length and surveys his work. Nodding his approval, the great craftsman sets the hands, winds the spring, and then presses the piece to his ear to listen to the smooth sound of the steady ticking of the works. His job now complete, the watchmaker places the sparkling new pocket watch on the workbench, puts on his coat, and steps outside, locking the door behind him. The cold air forces a shiver from his body as he walks down the street, leaving the watch to run all alone.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Lita Cosner – Would Christ Create Through Evolution?

In an April 2017 contribution to the BioLogos website,1 NT Wright argued that “If creation is through Christ, evolution is what you would expect”. However, the argumentation is fatally flawed by the assumption of evolution imported onto the text of Scripture.

Wright asserts, “We must somehow start with what we know of Jesus’ own vision of truth and the kingdom and power and ask what that might mean for creation itself.” One consequence, he suggests, is that “if creation comes through the kingdom bringing Jesus, we ought to expect it to be like a seed growing secretly.” He argues that even though most evolutionist scientists are motivated by a non-Christian worldview, they “nonetheless come up with a picture of Origins that looks remarkably like Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom: some seeds go to waste, others bear remarkable fruit; some projects start tiny and take forever, but ultimately produce a great crop; some false starts are wonderfully rescued, others are forgotten. Chaos is astonishingly overcome.”

However, Wright makes an elementary error when he goes to soteriological texts to inform his doctrine of creation, and uses those soteriological texts to override the plain meaning of the cosmological texts! I agree with Wright that our doctrine of Christ is important for our doctrine of creation—the key Christian contribution to the doctrine of creation is the assertion that Jesus is the agent of creation. However, understanding Christ as the Creator did not lead anyone in the church to suddenly take the timescale and mode of creation outlined in Genesis non-literally until after uniformitarian geologists and Darwinian biologists began to challenge the biblical view.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

K. Scott Oliphint – The Divine Design of Salvation

Once we acknowledge that sin is universal, that it continues in every person from the point of conception on (Ps. 51:5)­—and that it is individual, that it plagues and enslaves me—we begin to see what Christians mean by “salvation.”

Since sin is rebellion against a holy God, it is impossible that such a good and holy God could overlook that rebellion. Since he is holy, he must punish all violations of his character.

This concept of God goes against more “popular” notions of him. Typically, people think that God’s love trumps everything else. He is not bothered by our rebellion. Others think God’s primary job is to forgive us, no matter our attitude toward him.

We have to recognize who God is, not what we might want him to be. We must know him according to what he says he is and does. God says that “the one who sins is the one who will die” (Ezek. 18:20). He says that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and the death that sin produces is not just physical death but eternal punishment (see Rev. 20:14, for example). The Lord is too holy to allow sin in his eternal presence. He cannot look upon, or tolerate, sin (Hab. 1:13).

An analogy might help. Suppose you have a sworn enemy who had dedicated himself to opposing and fighting against all that you are and stand for. Anything that you hold dear he vehemently opposes. His disposition toward you includes a resolve to fight against everything you love. Now suppose this enemy claims that your responsibility is to accept him as he is, to bring him into your home, and to include him in all your affairs.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

R. C. Sproul – Descartes and the Anatomy of Doubt

Spiritus sanctus non est skepticus — “The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic.” So Luther rebuked Erasmus of Rotterdam for his expressed disdain for making sure assertions. Luther roared, “The making of assertions is the very mark of the Christian. Take away assertions and you take away Christianity. Away now, with the skeptics!”

Doubt is the hallmark of the skeptic. The skeptic dares to doubt the indubitable. Even demonstrable proof fails to persuade him. The skeptic dwells on Mt. Olympus, far aloof from the struggles of mortals who care to pursue truth.

But doubt has other faces. It is the assailant of the faithful striking fear into the hearts of the hopeful. Like Edith Bunker, doubt nags the soul. It asks “Are you sure?” Then, “Are you sure you’re sure?”

Still doubt can appear as a servant of truth. Indeed it is the champion of truth when it wields its sword against what is properly dubious. It is a citadel against credulity. Authentic doubt has the power to sort out and clarify the difference between the certain and the uncertain, the genuine and the spurious.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0