This outstanding article became available today on John Frame‘s website: “Antithesis and the Doctrine of Scripture.” Frame notes, “This was my inaugural lecture on assuming the J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL.” (See also “The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress,” including their blog.)
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007)
Bruce Metzger (cf. here and here) passed away on 13 February 2007. Although evangelicals do not agree with Metzger on some key areas, I am profoundly grateful for his work in textual criticism. Few are as gifted as he was.
Tributes:
- Darrell Bock‘s blog
- Michael Haykin‘s blog
- P. J. William‘s blog (See the comments section, too.)
- John Piper‘s blog
- Ben Witherington in Christianity Today
- Iain Torrance‘s message
- Princeton Theological Seminary
- Michael W. Holmes in SBL Forum
- Gordon Fee on the “Evangelical Textual Criticism” blog
- J. Keith Elliott in The Independent
- Daniel Wallace on Bible.org
News stories:
Theological Satire
Using the technique of satire is one of the most effective ways of making a point. It can be outlandishly funny, but it can also be infuriating and offensive. It’s almost always controversial. While people’s take on satire differs, I tend to enjoy it (especially when I agree with the point being made!).
This week I stumbled across a blog devoted to theological satire: “tominthebox news network.” While I don’t agree with everything there, I must say that I can’t remember the last time I laughed harder. It’s quite witty.
MacArthur on the Emerging Church
Today we received this CD in the mail: “What’s So Dangerous About the Emerging Church?” Phil Johnson interviews John MacArthur for a solid hour in layman language. (You can purchase it here as a CD for $6 or an MP3 for $3.) Jenni and I listened to it this evening and thoroughly enjoyed it. If you listen to it, keep in mind that his target audience is laymen—not scholars on epistemology. Overall, we found the interview to be refreshingly bold, even shockingly so. It’s definitely the same MacArthur you watch on Larry King. He is unashamedly outspoken for the truth.
Atonement: Four Views
I’m taking a Ph.D. seminar with Dr. Graham Cole at TEDS this semester: “Historical Theology: The Atonement.” (BTW, Dr. Cole is currently working on a book on the atonement that will be part of D. A. Carson‘s New Studies in Biblical Theology series; it probably won’t be finished until around 2010.) Consequently, I’m doing a fair bit of reading on the atonement. Last Thursday I enjoyed reading one of the latest contributions on the subject:
Beilby, James and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.
The four views defended are:
- Christus victor: Greg Boyd
- Penal substitution: Tom Schreiner
- Healing: Bruce Reichenbach
- Kaleidoscopic: Joel Green
The thesis of the first three essays is that their view is the primary facet of the atonement–not that it is the only facet. Green argues that no facet should be primary.
Bottom line: Schreiner cleans house. First class. Well done. Highly recommended.
Point of interest: Boyd’s response to Schreiner involves a five-page comparison and contrast of his view with Schreiner’s as it lines up with C. S. Lewis‘ depiction of Aslan’s death in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (pp. 100-105). Boyd lists two “profound” differences between Schreiner’s view and his/Lewis’ view.
- “First and most fundamentally, Lewis believes that self-sacrificial love is a ‘deeper magic’ than the law, while Schreiner, so far as I can see, does not” (p. 102).
- “Because of their differing views on ‘deep magic,’ Lewis and Schreiner provide very different answers to the question, Who demanded that the deep magic of the law be satisfied with ‘a kill’? For Schreiner, it is God. For Lewis (and most advocates of the Christus Victor view) it is the devil. Here is where the rubber meets the road in terms of the difference between these two views . . .” (p. 103).
For years I have been baffled by the number of people who have no problem with using Aslan’s death as an illustration (without qualification) of Christ’s atonement. Although it is wonderfully illustrative for some aspects of Christ’s atonement, it is fundamentally flawed by placing too much authority and initiative in the hands of Satan (i.e., the white witch).
For more on problems with the Christus Victor view (which often includes some form of the ransom-to-Satan theory), see explanations and refutations in standards systematic theologies. Wayne Grudem‘s Systematic Theology is a good place to start (p. 581 et al.).
Update:
The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer
Over the Christmas break, I had a one-week window to do some pleasure reading while in Greenville. One of the books I read was this one:
Bryan A. Follis, Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.
It was an enjoyable, edifying read, and it prompted me to spend about six hours watching Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live? one morning/afternoon that week.
For more info, see the following:
- Crossway’s entry: You can search inside the book, view parts of it as a PDF, and read a description of its contents followed by endorsements by people such as D. A. Carson and J. I. Packer.
- A review of Follis’ book by Douglas Groothuis just published in Jan. 2007 in the Denver Journal
- A brief bio of Francis Schaefer
Wise Words from John Hannah
John Hannah was the 2007 Distinguished Scholars Series Lecturer at The Master’s Seminary. From January 8 to 13, he taught “Readings in the Life and Writings of Jonathan Edwards, America’s Premiere Christian Thinker.”
A Th.M. student who took Hannah’s course typed out some interesting quotes, and quite a few of them are gems: see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
HT: Pulpit Magazine.