Considering the Gospel in the Air

The second section of The Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler with Jared Wilsom addresses the “gospel in the air”. If the gospel on the ground is the still photo of justification, the gospel on the ground is the movie that provides the context for the gospel. It addresses the meta-narrative of the Bible. What this meta-narrative does is help us see our personal salvation in a larger context of God’s glory and plan for the universe.

This is not a new idea. He quotes Martyn Lloyd-Jones as stressing the need for both the personal and cosmic sides of the gospel. We are to live in the tension instead of focusing exclusively on one. Fundamentalists live in the personal while liberals tend to live in the cosmic. Both are true. Both are in Scripture. So we must hold one in each hand. Chandler does a great job of balancing the two instead of affirming one at the expense of the other. This is something Greg Gilbert struggled to do in What is the Gospel?.

As a result, they display a good theological method. The chapters run thru Creation-Fall- Reconciliation- Consummation. They spend a lot of time in Romans 8 and Revelation 21-22.

“The bottom line is that science is in a constant state of subjectivity and do-overs.”

In the chapter on Creation, Chandler lays some cards on the table. He’s a scientific agnostic. I like the phrase and found this section interesting as he criticizes those who want to place science above Scripture and embrace theistic evolution. He is critical of BioLogos. He looks at some articles about the scientific process as well as how the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are incompatible with (macro) evolutionary theory.

Read Full Post »

Considering Theistic Evolution and the PCA

I should stop reading blogs. But then I’d have less to say on this blog. Then again, who cares what I say.

Yes, I’m in a cranky mood. There are reasons, but not ones I want to share.

Will we fall for a lie too?

A number of people are of the distinct impression that the PCA should have issued a statement denying theistic evolution, or affirming the reality of Adam and Eve as special creations of God in His image. They believe the only way to confront the increasing popularity of this sub-biblical, and gospel-destroying view point is to issue a statement, hang a sign saying “not welcome”. There are some in the PCA who think this, and some outside the PCA who think this. I’ve even heard of a family that left the PCA because we didn’t make this statement.

As a member of the court who voted in the majority, I guess I take this a little too personally. I am not sure why this bothers me so much. Perhaps it goes back to why I’ve generally been in cranky lately. But there is the implication that either I don’t understand the gravity of the problem or don’t care about the problem. There is somehow the suspicion on the part of some that the PCA is moving closer to apostasy because we didn’t do something.

But we did. It is easy to look at the ruling, but not think of why people ruled. Some critics have stated why some of us voted the way we did- but still aren’t happy.

I get the seriousness of the issue. The issue of evolution was instrumental in my conversion. I am a young earth, 6 day creationist. I know this makes me a small-minded, caveman in the minds of some people. But I recognize that God’s Word is perfect (though our interpretations are anything but), and that science is not perfect. What they say today is not carved in stone because they always come up with new data, new methods of collecting data and new interpretations of data. It is foolish to think that the majority view of science supercedes Scripture. How’s that Ice Age predicted in the 70’s working?

Read Full Post »

GA 2012- Day 4

You can’t take all this too seriously.

A decent night’s sleep is a wonderful thing. I was tired through part of the day, and not as quick on my feet as I’d like but I was not exhausted like the previous few days. This was good because the business of the Assembly would continue until nearly 11 pm.

I woke up earlier than I’d hoped when some stranger knocked on my door. I decided to pass on the morning seminar and relaxed in the breakfast area of the hotel. Eddie popped by and we enjoyed some time together before heading over to the Convention Center. This is the day that most of the real work gets done as we handled Minutes of Presbytery and Overtures. In the ARP, the review of minutes, Session and Presbytery, focuses on form and not substance. In the PCA attention is paid to substance, particularly the granting of exceptions. There was a biggie regarding the practice of paedocommunion, or infant communion.

Paedocommunion is not permitted in the PCA. Elders are permitted to believe in the practice, but not to teach or practice it. There is a tension over it. I am in the group that prefers the status quo in this matter. Some people want it ruled as permissible to practice. Another group wants it completely gone, and no longer permissible as an exception. Frankly, the way at which it was expressed in the report confused me. I’m still getting oriented to how things are done. But, the discussion overlooked the fact that he was permitted to teach and practice it. If this had been clearly stated, the discussion would  have been much shorter. So it was was referred back to the committee.

Read Full Post »