Each of the synoptic gospel accounts begins in a rather historical, matter-of-fact way. One begins with genealogy, one with a brief prophecy and John baptizing in the wilderness, and one with an explanation of how historical it is. The Gospel According to John is profoundly different and the difference runs through more than just his account of the gospel, but also his letters and apocalypse.

In some sense, the other writers said simply, “This is about Jesus. Here’s what happened…” John couldn’t do that. He couldn’t simply say Jesus and go about his narrative. The incursion of God into humanity must have demanded a far more dramatic introduction:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world…” (John 1:1-9)

It’s not until verse 14 that the reader is told that this Word was the Son of God, and not until verse 17 that He’s identified as Jesus. Perhaps that sweet name is not the most important thing about Him.

John did something similar at the beginning of his first letter. Again, he could not simply mention Jesus without expressing a grand vision of what he meant when he spoke of Jesus:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:1-5)

By the way, in case you missed it, John saw Jesus with his very own eyes! He only had to mention it four times. (Erik Thoennes did a great job of addressing this in his sermon on the passage.) So many years later, John still maintained the excitement of having seen God incarnate. He not only saw God, but touched Him and heard from His lips a great message. The message? God is light.

Perhaps even years later, John saw Jesus again. But again, John couldn’t just say he saw Jesus…

“Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long rode and a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as the snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in the furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.” (Rev. 1:12-16)

Sometimes I wonder if those who doubt the same person wrote each of these documents have actually read them. There are a number of similarities, but one especially stands out: God is light. I don’t think any other biblical author speaks to God as light as often as John. In his account of the gospel we learn that darkness cannot overcome this light, and similarly in John’s letter we are told there is no darkness in it at all. Furthermore, in Revelation, Jesus is described as “white as snow” and as “the sun shining in full strength” (neither of these have darkness either).

What would lead a man to speak so dramatically of someone in this way? Who could sustain this man’s interest, excitement, passion, devotion, and adoration for some sixty years? What thought could send this man into a frenzied abundance of joyful recollections, theological metaphors, and zealous praise? I fear that too often I speak of Jesus as theological and historical fact, but not often enough as magnificent light and creator of all things. Father, inspire us, as you inspired your beloved disciple, to speak not so simply about your Son; but fill us with such awe and wonder that we cannot contain it,

We've been digging into 1 John at Grace EV Free and I highly recommend Dr. Thoennes's sermons thus far:

1/11/09: The Word Came and Changed Everything

1/18/09: God is Light

1/25/09: Walking in the Light

The rest of the series will be posted on Grace's mp3 page.

The relationship between biblical laws and the covenants or testaments has been the centered of much debate through church history. Today views range from there being no laws that apply to Christians to the view that every law in the Bible is still enforced. All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson offers a version of the New Covenant Theology view. Gibson contends that “All Old Testament laws are cancelled, and all New Testament laws are for our obedience.” (p7)

 

In the first part of the book, Gibson entertains nine objections to his thesis that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. These include the notion that the Ten Commandments are the eternal “moral law” of God, that Christ did not come to abolish the law, that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all scripture is God-breathed and useful. The second part of the book provides eight reasons why Gibson believes all Old Testament laws have been cancelled. They include the claim that the Decalogue is the foundational document of the Old Covenant, that the law cannot be divided, that the Jerusalem Council did not require obedience to the law from gentiles, and that the Decalogue had an historical beginning and end.

 

Part three moves on to the second part of Gibson’s thesis; that all New Testament laws are for our obedience. He responds to antinomian arguments that we’re not under law, but under grace and that the only law is love. He then provides four reasons why Christians must obey the New Testament laws. He cites the mere presence of hundreds of commands given after the cross, points out the sin is lawlessness, and focuses on the praise the Bible has for the law of Christ.

 

The book’s conclusion centers on the issue of sanctification. Gibson argues that sanctification must by Christ-centered instead of law-centered. At the end of the book are two appendices. One considered that objection that New Covenant Theology allows for beastiallity and incest and the other offers thirteen ways we should still use the Old Testament.

 

All Old Testament Laws Cancelled makes many good arguments based on the Bible, and these good arguments make the book a worthwhile read for those familiar with the debate. However, I believe there are at least two significant problems with the book, and these are reflected in the title. It really should be “All Old Covenant Laws Fulfilled.”

 

 The first problem is that Gibson is not persuasive that all Old Testament laws are cancelled. In Genesis 9:6 God gives a law against murder to Noah. This law is clearly pre-Sinai and therefore not part of the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus is the priest of a “better covenant” according to Hebrews, not a better testament. Hebrews tells us that with a new priest there is a change in the law and the old covenant is obsolete. Gibson fails to show how a law (such as Gen 9:6) in the same testament as a particular covenant (such as the old covenant) is subject to the same conditions as laws actually given within that covenant. His logic would lead us to expect God to flood the earth again since His promise to Noah is in the Old Testament and must have been cancelled by Christ.

 

The second problem has to do with “cancelled.” We journey into dangerous territory when we replace biblical terminology. The Bible never refers to the Old Covenant (or Testament) laws as cancelled. Instead, Christ is described as having fulfilled the law and prophets. Christ being born in Bethlehem did not cancel the prophecy that He would be born there- His birth fulfilled it. Changing the terminology in this way does something to Christ’s vicarious death on our behalf. Christ’s fulfilling the law for us is far more valuable and precious than if He were to simply cancel the law. Cancellation often implies incompleteness, and there is nothing incomplete about Christ’s work on the cross.

The videos of all speaker addresses and panel discussions from this year's T4G conference are available online for free at Ligonier.org (for a limited time).  These conferences are amazing, encouraging (and often humorous) and it would be well worth your time to watch the videos (if you don't have a lot of time, just watch the panel discussions!)

Check them out here. 

Unfortunately this will not be a book review.  I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book, though I plan to in the near future.  I did however read the Christianity Today article bearing the same title two years ago, and I’ve seen, heard or read several interviews with the author (here's a good one).  Here I simply wish to make a few comments in light of a recent study done by ChurchRelevence.com (more on that in a moment).

Basically, a good chunk o’ Christian youth (roughly 18 – 25) are moving away from the Arminian, mainstream evangelicalism of their childhood toward (to differing degrees) classical Reformed theology (the primary motive being, at least according to the CT article, a desire for deeper theology grounded in historic creeds and confessions).  The majority of the credit for this Renaissance of Reformed thought is given to John Piper.  Because of his passionate preaching and evident concern for world missions, Piper has managed to break into circles (such as the annual Passion Conference) that were previously closed, sometimes even hostile, to Reformed theology.   Thus, Let The Nations Be Glad became a “gateway drug” to Piper’s deeply Reformed emphasis on the radical sinfulness of man, the radical holiness of God, and His absolute sovereignty in all things. 

All this makes sense to me (and I have no doubt that it’s true), but as a blogger, I can’t help but wonder if the recent advent of New Media has contributed to this exodus into the Reformed promised land.  R. C. Sproul was on the cutting edge in the late 80’s and 90’s.  Ligonier made use of every available medium of communication, from radio to cassette tapes, to videos.  Now Dr. Sproul’s teaching series are available daily on the internet and satellite TV.  So, you might ask, why wasn’t there a Reformed Renaissance in the 90’s?  I think it has been slowly building.  Many today who are in the 18 – 25 bracket could have grown up with Dr. Piper’s or Dr. Sproul’s ministries, or their parents could have been first introduced to it.  The use of so many different forms of media mean that some folk who would not have otherwise been exposed to Reformed teaching had the opportunity to see loving, Christ-like pastors and teachers arguing passionately for the clear teaching of Scripture as expressed by historic Reformation theology.  Both Piper and Sproul (and others), it must be admitted, break the mold of what most non-Reformed people tend to think of Reformed people (or worse…Calvinists!).  The point being, there have probably been 1,000 John Pipers preaching faithfully to their small Reformed congregations over the last 100 years, but no one outside their limited communities knew them.  And no one would actually pick up the writings of Calvin or Edwards because of the stigma surrounding “Calvinism.”  Godly men like John Piper, in most cases, remove that stigma.

Now fast forward to 2009.  ChurchRelevance.com has posted a list of the “Top 60 Church Blogs.”  As I looked at the list I was suddenly struck by how many of these blogs are Reformed (some of them are even “confessional”!).  Not only are the top 2 blogs Reformed, which really says something all by itself, but of the 60, a total of 10 are definitely Reformed, at least 1 (the Evangelical Outpost, formerly of Joe Carter) was Calvinist, though Joe didn’t wear it on his sleeve, and perhaps 2 or 3 others as well, but I’m not confident enough to say for sure.  Now 10 – 12 isn’t a LOT out of 60, but consider that no other single theological strain or movement has nearly so many (the Emergent movement had 3 or 4 by my count). 

Now, the correlation-causation relationship is always tricky.  Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys?  I can’t really say for sure, but given what I’ve seen happen with New Media in other arenas over the past decade, I’m inclined to think the latter. 

Has anyone read Hansen’s book?  Does he address this issue at all, and if so, what does he have to say? 

The gap that exists between the different schools of Apologetics (Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional) is becoming increasingly narrow.  After reading Zondervan's 5 Views On Apologetics, you'll come away wondering what the differences between these views actually are. 

In my term paper for my "Christian Mind" class this past Fall, I attempted to narrow the gap even more.  Specifically, I decided to look into the relationship between Presuppositionalism and Alvin Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology."  In the paper, I argue that neither of these two "schools" is really a unique method of doing Apologetics.  Presuppositionalism is actually a critique of theological rationalism and Reformed Epistemology is, well, an epistemology!  I beleive that both of these schools  of thought can learn from each other and both have strong points that ought to inform our Apologetic method.  Lastly, because so many people do think of Presuppositionalism as a unique method of doing apologetics (and indeed those who consider themselves "Presuppositonal" claim that it is), I also offer an argument against Presuppositionalism as an apologetic system which I have labled the "Transcendental Argument against Presuppositionalism." 

Read the paper here. 

Casper the Friendly Ghost.  The title seems a bit like an oxymoron.  Ghosts, after all, are not friendly.  The same is often said of John Calvin.  He was the "tyrant of Geneva."  He was the father of the "frozen chosen."  However, according to Dr. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California, Calvin was a lot more like Casper than we think. 

In his address at the "Calvin's Legacy" Conference this past weekend, Dr. Godfrey shows us how Calvin was actually quite warm and friendly toward his friends and those whom he ministered to in Geneva.  Theodore Beza, Calvin's student and successor, said of the Reformer, "In the common course of life, there was no man more pleasant.  In him all men may see a beautiful example of Christian character."  This side of Calvin comes out most strikingly in his letters, especially as he tried to ease tensions and solve disputes between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe.  When launching polemics against Rome, Calvin could be quite harsh.  But when dealing with the struggling churches of the Reformation, even when Calvin disagreed with them, he was a shining example of moderation and flexibility, and showed a great passion for the unity of the body of Christ.

Read the live blog notes from Dr. Godfrey's lecture here. 

In honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, Westminster Seminary California's 2008 Conference is on the lasting legacy of John Calvin's life and work for the contemporary church.  The conference is tonight from 6 - 9pm and tomorrow from 8am - 2:45pm.  Unfortunately it is sold out, but for those of you interested in following the conference online, Dr. Scott Clark (Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at WSC) will be live blogging here.  The live blogging will begin right at 6pm tonight and run through the whole length of the conference (minus Dr. Clark's session, if he can't find someone to fill in for him). 

You can subscribe via RSS feed here. 

Also, here is the conference schedule.  And here are the speaker bios. 

My friend and fellow grad student Nathaniel Taylor has written an argument for the existence of Hell using Anselmian "Perfect Being" philosophy.  It is interesting (and sure to be controversial) and worth a read for anyone interested in a defense of the traditional Evangelical doctrine of Hell.

You can read his argument at the blog Reason From Scripture (to which I am also a contributor). 

Molly Worthen has written an interesting article for The New York Times Magazine on Mark Driscoll and his "hip" Mars Hill Church entitled Who Would Jesus Smack Down? 

The point of her article seems to be to highlight the "paradoxes" that surround Mars Hill.  Not only is it an Evangelical church where the pastor swears and talks explicitly about sex and the members are pierced and tatooed.  Not only is it a thriving megachurch in the Country's most secular and unchurched city.  But Driscoll preaches a hard-edged, no-holding-back Complementarianism and Calvinism.  The paradoxes here being that Complementarianism, which teaches that women ought to be functionally subordinate to men in the church, is helping men in the congregation to treat women better than in their non-Christian days, and Calvinism, which teaches the total depravity and moral inability of all people, is creating a church of passionate activists and evangelists. 

I'd only like to make 2 comments and then I'll just let you read the article for yourself.  First, Worthen doesn't really seem to know any actual history of Calvin or his work in Geneva.  At one point she comments on Driscoll's unwillingness to compromise and how quick he is to "shun" church elders or revoke a congregant's member privaleges when they voice disagreement with him, suggesting that Driscoll is just like Calvin in this respect.  She then goes on to say, "John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness."  As far as I know Calvin only oversaw the burning of one person in Geneva, and from several sources I've read the general consensus seems to be that he was reluctant (perhaps even unwilling).  As to the other charge, I'd really like to know where she gets this story from.  Dr. Scott Clark comments,


In any case, my point is that her assessment of Driscoll's Calvinism would be far less paradoxical if she better understood the theology, the history, even the man himself (I noticed that most of her quotes come from random members of the congregation, rather than elders or Drsicoll himself.  I wonder why that is).

Lastly, some of the things she says about Drsicoll's disciplining practices are a bit alarming.  In traditional Reformed churches, it could take years to officailly excommunicate someone, and in my denomination (URC) the final step cannot be taken until a regional assembly of elders is called.  Again, as Dr. Clark (half jokingly) comments, "shunning is an Anabaptist practice." 

I'd like to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt for now.  I really hope he isn't practicing a dangerous kind of authoritarianism that could backfire. 

Read Worthen's article here.