As you read the article, you’ll notice that Jakes states that he does not particularly like the term “persons” in the Orthodox description. He is not alone in this – Calvin and Barth apparently didn’t “favorite” the term either. However, his preference for the term “manifestations” is – in my opinion – terribly unhelpful. Yet, Jakes does claim a distinction between the Father and the Son. For example, he does believe that the Father died on the cross (patripassianism), according to the interview.

It may be that Jakes has taken a step toward orthodoxy here; it was encouraging to hear him say that reading the Bible caused him to shift his view of God. However, some of his comments still make me a bit uncomfortable. Let me just say it this way, when it comes to the Trinity, there are some things that you can say and there are some things that you can’t say. Take a look at the blog post on Parchment and Pen and the interview with the Elephant Room.

“You assert the power of free will and the human cause; but no miracle was ever seen or heard of, as proceeding from God, in support of a doctrine of the human cause, only in support of the doctrines of the divine cause” (66).

Erasmus attempted to call out Luther for ignoring the teaching of free will by those whom Erasmus considered approved men down through the ages of the Church . . . that is, aside from Wycliffe, Laurentius Villa, and Augustine. Luther, of course, had no problem not being identified with certain men of the Church arguing that he would rather be identified with only a few and ultimately only with Christ. Further, he turned things back to the conversation at hand – the nature of the human will. He addressed the works employed by Erasmus to approve the aforementioned men, and Luther employed these to articulate a point in favor of the divine will and opposed to the idea of a free human will.

Interesting use of apologetic rhetoric – from both Martin Luther and Erasmus.

Again, I would like to thank you for reading and following Level Paths. I have the opportunity to preach at Scofield Memorial Church (Lord willing) on November 26th, 2011. As I begin the sermon-making process, I am reminded that there are two sermons, which I had the opportunity to share at Scofield, that I have not yet made available here on Level Paths.

A Living Temple Made of Living Stones

The first is entitled “Living Naked before the Almighty God,” and the date of the sermon is 09/12/2010. This sermon focuses on Psalm 32 (my favorite Psalm). Making ourselves naked before God is paradoxically a place of great security. The second sermon is entitled “Rebuilding the Dwelling Place of God’s Glory,” and the date of the sermon is 07/10/2011. This sermon focuses on the text of Haggai 1:1–2:9, and it examines the text through the historical context, timeless theology regarding the temple in Scripture, and makes application for the Church (and local church) today.

You can find and download these sermons at Scofield Church’s website by clicking here.

In Christ,

Rex

In Christ,
Rex

Where do you stand in this debate?

Interesting read for those interested in higher education. With what do you agree? With what do you disagree?

Take Mark 3:20–35 for instance. Floods of people are seeking Jesus because of his power over the demonic realm. He has just appointed twelve apostles to assist him in his proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of God. At the beginning of our passage, Jesus has returned home and a large crowd has gathered to him. It is important next to notice the “sandwich” that Mark creates. Think of v. 21 and vv. 31–35 as the bread and vv. 20–30 as the meat. The Gospel writers often use this literary device of “sandwiching” with related theological themes in the narrative.

So, Jesus’ family arrives on the scene in verse 21 because they thought he was crazy. “What is he thinking—all these people and all this commotion—he’s lost his mind!” They purpose in their heart to restrain him, but then the “camera” angle changes and moves to another group of opposition. The experts from Jerusalem claimed that the source of Jesus’ power which he exercised over the demonic realm had its source in the ruler of the demons—Satan himself (i.e., Beelzebul—lord of the flies; lord of filth).

After speaking parables that present such an idea as nonsensical, Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, people will be forgiven for all sins, even all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” In verse 30, Mark explains why Jesus responded so harshly, “because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” They attributed Jesus’ power over the demonic realm to the prince of the demons so that his work was some kind of demonic witchcraft, and in so doing, they blasphemed or defamed the Holy Spirit (1:10, 12). This is the unpardonable sin—to attribute the work and power of the Holy Spirit, who was unmistakably at work in Jesus, to the work and power of an unclean, demonic spirit.

Following this hostile encounter between Jesus and the experts in the law, Mark returns to Jesus’ own family, who, if you remember, thought Jesus had lost his mind. As his family draws near to restrain him, he responds, “‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’”

According to Jesus, who is in and who is out? Who is a member of his family? If like the experts in the law, you defame the work of the Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus by attributing to him the work of the devil or an unclean spirit—you are not in. Further, some sort of blood relationship doesn’t get you automatic access either. Your parents are Christians? Great. Are you a Christian? You attend a church where Christians gather for worship? Great. Are you a Christian who worships the Triune God? A special title or a special relationship doesn’t grant access into Jesus’ family. The one who does the will of God is a member of Jesus’ family. What is the will of God according to Mark? Pick up your cross and follow Jesus to Jerusalem for the sake of God’s kingdom. Proclaim the good news in suffering, by faithfulness and with power.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and he created humanity in his image. He also designed humanity with a distinct twofold purpose: (1) to be numerous upon the earth and (2) to rule over the earth (Gen. 1:28). In order to understand the twofold purpose, we first must understand what is meant by “being created in God’s image.” There are like a zillion proposed answers to this. One that is certainly part of proper interpretation here involves the ancient practice of kings claiming territory and marking it with their image. Kings identified their claim on a territory by establishing an image of some sort (e.g., a statue) in the land that belonged to them. This same sort of thing can be observed in Mark 12:13–17. When Jesus was challenged about paying taxes to Caesar, he asked “Who’s image is on the coin?” Of course, Caesar’s image was on the coin. Thus, he replied, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” What belongs to God? Humans do. Why? Because his image is on them.

Now then, how do we understand the twofold purpose in God’s creation of humanity? First, humanity was commanded to be numerous so that the image of God  would have more of a presence on the earth. Second, humanity was commanded to scatter and fill the earth so that rule of God would spread upon the earth as his image (i.e., humanity) expanded the boundaries of Eden.

Then comes the Fall. What happened in the fall? The humans who had been established as the representatives of God’s rule on the earth rebelled against the King and did not act in a way that expressed God’s ownership over them. They sided with God’s Adversary. While it is difficult to explain in detail what happened with regard to the rule of God upon the earth as expressed in humanity, something changed. The repetition of the command after the Flood in Genesis 9 is slightly different; there is not a command to “subdue the earth.” Further, the Adversary is given titles like “prince of the power of the air” and “the ruler of this world.” Thus, it appears that humanity forfeited its role as the image of God in the Fall.

Enter Jesus. The Adversary immediately tempts the Godman (i.e., the second Adam) to inherit the kingdoms of the world by submitting to him in worship. So, is his temptation legitimate? Absolutely. God’s prescribed way for humanity to be restored to its position as the image of God (i.e., the representative of God’s rule) was through the faithfulness of the second Adam. He would have to be faithful even on the road of suffering and death on a cross. He would have to be faithful unlike unfaithful Adam. Satan extended a temptation to Jesus to inherit the nations of the world apart from suffering and death, apart from allegiance to the Father and his will. Now read Matthew 26:36–46.

We often maximize Jesus’ deity over his humanity, and we forget that in his humanity he lived as a man who perfectly walked in step with the Spirit of God. In so doing, he offers the restoration of the image of God in humanity. Further, we become participants in spreading the rule of God by faithfully following Jesus’ journey to death and resurrection. One day, the second Adam will return and usher in the complete establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth. New heavens and a new earth will follow so that what God desired in the beginning will indeed come to fruition all because of the faithfulness of his beloved Son.

Deuteronomy 8:3 addresses one major need we have with two (I’ll call them) sub-needs that are very much in relationship with the major need. First the major need—it is clear not only from this passage but also from the exodus journey of the people of Israel that YHWH wanted them to learn one, simple, yet profound lesson that would determine the spiritual life of the nation for years to come. This is the Lord’s lesson for them and for us: “You need Me.” O how desperate we are for the Maker and Sustainer of life! Do we even know this? Are we Americans able to see that our materialism is a house built on a foundation made of sand? Every moment of our existence is dependent upon the gracious will and words of the one true God.

Second, there are two related sub-needs that jump out of Deuteronomy 8:3. We first learn that once we recognize our need for YHWH, we enter into a relationship with him dressed in humility. This is because his hand gives or withholds. The words of the songwriter, “He gives and takes away” are indeed true. How dare we presume upon the Almighty! Therefore, we should expect relationship with him to look like a school of humility—where we experience suffering and tests so that we may know from whom our provision comes and not be deceived.

The second sub-need is often neglected because we rarely discuss what belief really is. We tell others that they need to believe in God and in his Son Jesus Christ whom he has sent for us and our salvation, but we rarely discuss the nature of belief. In Deuteronomy 8:3, I think that the nature of belief is addressed indirectly. Reread the second half of the verse, “He did this to teach you that humankind cannot live by bread alone, but also by everything that comes from the Lord’s mouth.” This statement can be boiled down to this, “In what or in whom have you placed your trust?” Ultimately, you are even incapable of feeding yourselves should YHWH will it. Therefore, our second sub-need is a heart that is loyal to the Lord.

We have just exited the Easter season, which aims the heart of the Christian at the work of Jesus on the cross and in his resurrection—that which perhaps magnifies our needs the most. We need the Lord—more than anything else, for all things come from him and all things will return to him. In addition to this, when we enter into relationship with him, we are called to humility and to loyalty. My prayer is enter into a deeper awareness of these needs in my own life.