faculty_blog_header_summer

Written by Charles Zimmerman Monday, 03 June 2013 00:00

Where have they gone & where are they now? 

This month I continue with updates on some graduates of Biblical Seminary.  This month we visit with David Bossard, a 1982 MDiv graduate.  I don’t remember David as a student, I didn’t arrive until he was gone, but I have gotten to know him because we frequent the same fitness center.  David keeps the IBRI website updated and functional.  If you want to know how many hits and from what countries, he is your man. 

1.       What years did you attend at Biblical, and what degree did you receive? 

Attended Biblical 1975-1982. Graduated with M. Div. The first two years my wife and I went to the evening school, then I switched to daytime student. 

Previous degrees: B.Sc (Physics) Drexel 1962; A.M. (Physics) Dartmouth 1964; A.M. (Mathematics) Dartmouth 1966; Ph. D. Dartmouth (Mathematics) 1967. While at Drexel, I also attended evening school at Philadelphia. School of the Bible at 18th and Arch Streets. Nearly, but not quite, completed the studies there. 


2.       What have you been doing since then?   

1967-1982 Associate & Vice President, Daniel H. Wagner, Associates. 1982-1995 President, DCBossard, Inc.

Always active in our local church. Raised 7 children including 5 adopted. Now have something like 9 grandchildren. Each year we take our RV and visit some of them, as well as other close friends we have garnered over the years.  

My main work over the past 20 years has been on several websites: ibri.org (Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute), which has contributions of many, including Biblical Faculty; 19centuryscience.org, a largely secular repository of 19th century books in geology and related subjects; and 19thpsalm.org, which is my personal understanding of the Creation Narrative as given in Science and in the Bible. In particular, macraelib.ibri.org is a large repository of many personal papers of Dr. MacRae, including many syllabi and papers beginning with his graduate days and extending throughout his life. I would also point to almost 200 powerpoint lectures by Bob Newman on all sorts of subjects. The ibri.org website enjoys a remarkable amount of traffic worldwide. 
 

3.       Tell a favorite memory from your Biblical days.

Enjoyed all classes. I was especially impressed by the scholarship of the professors who defended the Bible in issues of Science and Faith: Allan MacRae, Bob Newman, and Bob Dunzweiler (not to diminish the lustre of the other faculty!). The systematic theology courses of Bob Dunzweiler are fondly remembered, and I wonder if anything of equal caliber has been available since his time. I recall a "debate" about baptism in Bob Dunzweiler's class. He sat there with a Cheshire Cat grin as the class overwhelmingly concluded in favor of baptism by immersion, which was not his position as a presbyterian (Some papers by him on the subject can be found on the IBRI.org website -- See Robert J. Dunzweiler, Understanding the Bible, Chapter 13 -- "Baptism: A Consideration of the Scriptural Mode"). 
 

4.       Contact information: email, Facebook, etc. - dcbossard@verizon.net
 

Charles Zimmerman is the Thomas V. Taylor Professor of Practical Theology.  He also serves as Teaching Pastor at Calvary Church in Souderton.  He is married to Kim and they have two daughters, Ashley and Megan.

 

 

 

 

Written by Bryan Maier Wednesday, 29 May 2013 00:00

This may seem like a strange question. Obviously, the Woodworking and First Aid Merit badges would be easy for him.  Joining the “Order of the Arrow” would not present much of a struggle either. Jesus had plenty of service hours and his ordeal was 40 days! Finally, who could imagine a more magnificent Eagle project than rebuilding the temple in three days (pardon all the inside scouting lingo).  But of course, the requirements for advancement in scouting would never be the problem for Jesus. The potential problem would be the proposed change in membership requirements.

For those of you who are not up on the issue, The Boy Scouts of America have had a policy since their inception over a century ago that no openly gay boy can be a part of scouts. Nor can any openly gay man be a leader in scouts.  Recently, there has been an incredible amount of political and financial pressure on the Scouts to revise this requirement (a few private organizations and many local governments have withdrawn their support).  Over the last year, surveys were sent to every parent of current scouts seeking to solicit the view of those who had already committed to the scouting experience for their son. I received and completed one of these surveys. Some of you may get them too.

Not only does the survey solicit my opinion on the issue of allowing self-professed gays into scouting, but it also asks whether I would withdraw my son from the Boy Scouts if the decision does not go my way.  This is a tough question for me. Overall, my boys have had a wonderful experience with scouting. If being missional permeates my whole life (and it should), what impact, if any should my view of God as a missional God play into my answers to the survey? 

I will not share my answers with you but the issues are much more complex that one may first think. There is a lot I could say, but I will settle on 10 points that need to be considered.  Not all of my points lean the same way. 

  1. The Boy Scouts are not a church. True, when Boy Scouts was founded, Protestant Christianity enjoyed the home court advantage in both England and the United States. However, according to the handbook, no religion is given preference and each religion has its own merit badge. Since it is not a church, should the issue of gay scouts be that big of a deal?
     
  2. Again, when Boy Scouts were founded, the gay lobby was pretty much non-existent. Thus the pressure to lower the age at which someone declares their life-long sexual orientation was not present.   Probably many boys with various levels of same sex attraction have joined scouts; they just have not self-identified as homosexual until after reaching adulthood (if ever).
     
  3. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, free to construct their own membership requirements. I teach at a similar private organization where every year I have to sign a contract promising to abide by the behavioral standards outlined in the handbook. If I falsify my position, or renege on my word, it is grounds for dismissal.  
     
  4. It must be admitted, sadly, that the traditional membership requirements for the Boy Scouts has not guaranteed the sexual safety of scouts. Boy scouts have suffered sexual abuse and assault from each other and from their leaders as documented by recent reports. However, the awareness and reporting procedures for current scouting is much more rigid and many policies have been implemented to prevent sexual activity as much as possible. Currently, every parent has to read and sign a 20 page booklet about sexual safety. Leaders have even stricter standards. I have witnessed the strict adherence to these standards in my boy’s troops.
     
  5. The standard ages for Boy Scouts are 12-18. During this time, most boys (and girls) go through a time of experimentation with many things. Is it therefore even possible to say that a 13 year old boy could be irreversibly identified as gay?  What if he identifies as gay at 13 (and is refused membership in Scouts) but by 14 no longer self-indentifies as gay? Should he be allowed in Scouts then? Likewise what about the boy who develops feelings of same-sex attraction while in Scouting? Should he confess these feelings to his scout leader or just wait another year to see if his feelings change again?
     
  6. Likewise, there are different levels of same-sex attraction. For some it is merely experimentation. Others might refer to themselves as still trying to discover their sexual orientation. Still others may claim to be bi-sexual, while others may fully identify with the gay lifestyle.  And at each level there are those who are ambivalent about their feelings of same sex attraction. Who then counts as “gay” when considering membership into the Boy Scouts?
     
  7. Some boys have successfully completed their Eagle projects and then declared that they were gay all during their scouting experience. While this may demonstrate that being gay may or may not interfere with the scouting experience, it does seem to violate the scout law which clearly states that a scout is “honest”. Knowing the membership requirements and lying about them is hard to construe as honest.
     
  8. Because Boy Scouts are losing support, their main institutional support now comes from churches (many of whom may have a problem with allowing gay members or leaders). If these churches withdraw their support because of changes in membership requirements, it could mean the end of scouting.   Likewise, if enough parents take their boys out of scouting because of the change in membership requirements, it could be the end of scouting.  
     
  9. Do I want my 12 and 14 year old sons in a tent or changing clothes in front of an 18 year old girl? If not, why would I feel comfortable with them sharing a tent with an 18 year old boy who has already made it known that he considers himself to be gay? Likewise, would I want my son to go camping with a leader who has identified himself as gay?
     
  10. As a Christian, should I let my moral standards serve as a litmus test for any organization that I (or my sons) join? What about a sports team or a chess club or the city council? Is the Boy Scouts any different?

Hopefully, you can see the thorny issues involved. Is the kingdom of God at risk whether the Boy Scouts dissolve or thrive? Of course not. God will still be on a mission. We must remember this as the culture turns more and more against Christianity which no longer enjoys home court advantage.  By the way, it appears that the decision for now (starting next year) will be that boys who see themselves as gay will be allowed to join Scouts. However, potential leaders who identify as gay will still be excluded from leadership.  Is this an acceptable compromise? What do you think?

   

Written by Dan LaValla Monday, 27 May 2013 00:00

It is interesting to observe attitudes and listen to comments from pastors and church leaders with respect o how churches should approach and utilize strategic planning and numbers in a church context. Thomas S. Rainer’s March 4thblog post is very relevant to this topic, which he titled, “Ten Rules of Thumb for Healthy Churches” (http://thomrainer.com/2013/03/04/ten-rules-of-thumb-for-healthy-churches/). Here, he writes, “Using rules of thumb to guage church health is problematic because they are, well, rules of thumb. There will always be exceptions, extenuating circumstances, and even disagreements on the right metrics….Please let wisdom prevail.” Ironically, the same day he posted this piece, in response to a reader’s post outside of the states, he admittedly changed his title to “Ten Rules of Thumb for Healthy Churches in America.”

A personal friend who is a leader in his church recently said to me with respect to the declining numbers in his church, “Looking at the numbers (attendance and giving) is not a healthy way of managing or growing a church; it is important that we keep our eyes on the Lord to see what He is doing and discern if we are doing what He wants us to be doing.” Personally, being a numbers guy, I thought to myself in an unspiritual manner, “Yeah, a good way to keep your church on the decline it to keep your head in the sand and ignore the numbers until your church has to close its doors one day.” Instead, I replied with a much more compassionate tone, “While it can be unspiritual to look to numbers in a selfish manner or in a way that puffs up pride and provides a means of confidence independent of who we are in God (much like King David in 1 Chronicles 21 when he took the census of Israel), looking at numbers to help make a strategic decision and devise a plan of action can also be a wise thing to do (as Jesus commends the King who counts his troops before going to war against another king in Luke 14:31-32 as a metaphor for illustrating the importance to counting the cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus before one decides to go down such a path).

So here are four guiding principles from Proverbs that should be kept in mind with respect to strategic planning and tracking numbers in the context of managing a church or parachurch organization:

  1. In a missional context, the emphasis is on discerning God’s mission for your church or parachurch organization and what its role is in fulfilling God’s mission within its specific context. See the importance of discerning God’s Spirit in my earlier post “When God Interrupts Your Day” http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/faculty-blog/96-regular-content/600-when-god-interrupts-your-day. Proverbs 16:3 highlight this point, “Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and He will establish your plans.”
     
  2. While it is true that while people have the ability to make their plans, and the Lord has the final say to approve or thwart such plans (Proverbs 16:1). This does not mean that we should not plan! Proverbs 14:22 tells us that planning does facilitate results, “Those who plot evil will go astray, just as those who plan what is good find love and faithfulness (Proverbs 14:22).
     
  3. While it is important to establish strategic plans and work to achieve the goals laid out in these plans, people must be willing to be flexible and adjust such plans in response to what God is doing as Proverbs 16:9 states, “In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord directs their steps.”
     
  4. In the management of churches and parachurch organizations, leaders should not use numbers as a means of selfish gain or defining personal success, failure, or prestige; rather, as a means of discerning the health of one’s church or parachurch in relation to God’s calling. As Proverbs 16:2 states, “All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the Lord.”

 
Dan LaValla is Director of Library Services and Development Associate at Biblical. He is Chair of the Endowment Committee for the American Theological Library Association; he serves as vice chair of the Ministry Board and chair of the Missions Committee of First Baptist Church in Lansdale. He is very active in his community, coaching youth baseball and football and has served on several community boards. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/daniel-lavalla.

   

Written by David Lamb Friday, 24 May 2013 00:00

“Are you excited about Psalm 137?” 

I was asked this question during a job interview in England in the spring of 2005.  (I didn’t start teaching at Biblical until 2006.) 

People generally aren’t excited about Psalm 137 since it ends with a blessing being pronounced upon people who bash babies against rocks. 

“Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” (Psalm 137:9).

Shocking, I know.  Why is this in the Bible?  We’ll come back to this question. 

Psalms 137 is called an imprecatory psalm because it includes a curse or imprecation against evil doers or enemies of the psalmist.  Previous blogs in this series have looked at Psalm 1, Psalm 23 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), Psalm 13 (a lament) and Psalm 51 (a repentance psalm).  There is only one psalm that generally characterized by imprecation (Psalm 109), but many psalms have imprecatory sections in them (e.g., Psa. 35:4-8; 55:15; 58:6-10; 69:22-28; 109; 139:19; 143:12). 

Perhaps the most shocking example comes from a familiar psalm.  Psalm 139 begins with “you have searched and known me” (139:1), moves into the pro-life section in the middle, “you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (139:13) but then ends with, “Oh, that you would kill the wicked…I hate them with perfect hatred” (139:19, 22).  Apparently they weren’t fearfully and wonderfully made. 

Why is this type of language in the Scripture?  I didn’t have a good answer about Psalm 137 during my interview that day (and it may have cost me the job). 

If someone were to ask me today, “Why is baby-bashing blessed in the Bible?” I’d say, “I don’t know.”  But here are three things to think about. 

First, just because someone does or says something in Scripture doesn’t mean that God authorizes that act or speech.  Abraham deceives Pharaoh about his wife and sleeps with his wife’s servant Hagar but neither of those deeds is endorsed by God.  Job’s friends say a lot of unhelpful things to their friend, some which sound good, yet their speech is condemned by God at the end of the book (Job 42:7).  Before we decide to model our behavior on Psalm 137:9, we need to ask, “How does this message fit in to the rest of Scripture?”  Scripture does not endorse baby bashing.  The psalmist, not God, is speaking in Psalm 137:9

Second, even though Jesus reminds us that evil thoughts matter (Matt. 5:28), it is better to speak about doing something violent, than actually performing a violent deed.  Yes, focusing on violence by speaking about it can lead to violent behavior, but speech can also be a way to vent and express violent thoughts, which can reduce the likelihood of violent outcomes.  Also, the psalmist is expressing this infanticidal idea in the midst of a psalm of lament to God (“Remember, O LORD…” Psa. 137:7).  God isn’t turned off or shocked by this type of language.  God welcomes our deepest, darkest and most intense thoughts and emotions.

Third, we need to be cautious about condemning the speech of people who recently witnessed the violent deaths of their own children.  The previous verse makes it clear that the Israelites were just asking for an eye-for-an-eye type justice, “Blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!” (Psa. 137:8).  I can’t imagine how these parents would have felt about the people who committed atrocities against their beloved sons and daughters.  By praying about their thoughts of retribution, giving them up to the righteous judge of the earth,these people are taking a first step which willhopefully lead them to a place called forgiveness.

We may feel uncomfortable with this type of cursing language, but it’s in the Bible, so we need to figure out what to do with it.  In the May 2013 edition of Christianity Today, Russell Moore compared hip-hop music (some Christians also feel uncomfortable with hip-hop) to imprecatory psalms (check out the link here): “If country and gospel music are in the company of psalms of lament, hip-hop is in the territory of psalms of imprecation.”

Jesus teaches that we should bless those who curse us (Luke 5:28), but he also curses, and not only fig trees (Mark 11:12-24), but also people who are religious hypocrites (Matt. 23).  Jesus seemed to save his most extreme language toward people who would have been considered religious. 

What are some worthy targets of a prayer of imprecation?  If you were to pray a prayer of cursing like the psalmist during your next church prayer meeting, might that wake up a few of your fellow prayers?


David Lamb is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Biblical. He’s the husband of Shannon, father of Nathan and Noah, and the author of God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?He blogs regularly at http://davidtlamb.com/. See also http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/david-lamb.

   

Written by Derek Cooper Wednesday, 22 May 2013 00:00

In my recently published book, Christianity and World Religions: An Introduction to the World’s Major Faiths, I discuss the six major non-Christian “stories” or religions of the world. As I teach these religions in classrooms and churches and discuss them with friends and neighbors, I have consistently uncovered several myths many Christians believe about each of these religions. 

In the first two blogs, I wrote about the false belief that Christianity is the only religion with a Savior as well as the common notion that Hinduism believes in many gods. As I showed, both of these assumptions are not true. 

In this blog, I will discuss the third myth: All, or at least most, Muslims are Arabs.

Of all the different religions today, Islam is the one that receives the most attention. No matter whether you are listening to the radio, reading a newspaper, or watching the local news, reports of Muslims, ostensibly violent ones, are rampant. Many of these reports focus on Arab Muslims, especially in light of the recent Arab Spring and the Syrian war. Because of such media attention in the Middle East, coupled with the basic knowledge most people have that Muhammad, the father of Islam, was Arab, many assume that Islam must be an Arab religion. 

Now, of course, it is true that Muhammad was Arab and that Islam is the dominant religion, by far, in the Middle East. However, nobody assumes that because Jesus was Jewish, Christianity is exclusively, or even predominantly, a Jewish religion. Nor do most people regard Buddhism as an Indian religion despite the fact that the Buddha was Indian and that Buddhism emerged out of India. Instead, most people assume that Christianity is a non-Jewish religion—mostly European—and that Buddhism is a southeastern or eastern Asian religion, originating perhaps in China or Tibet. 

In point of fact, I must first clarify that the Middle East does not equal Arab. Two of the largest countries in the Middle East—Turkey and Iran—are not Arab at all. The term Middle East is unfortunately amorphous; if we reasonably broadened it to include Central Asia, the percentage of Muslim Arabs would dwindle even further in relation to the non-Arab population in countries like Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. 

Here are the facts. Nearly 80% of Muslims are Asian or African. Stated differently, of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, less than 20% are Arab. In fact, the countries with the five largest numbers of Muslims worldwide are all non-Arab countries. 

Ranking by Size

Country

Population by Millions

1

Indonesia

205

2

Pakistan

178

3

India

177

4

Bangladesh

148

5

Nigeria

78

As these statistics indicate, it is more accurate to conclude that Islam, if anything, is an Asian religion. In fact, according to the Pew Forum on Religion (pewforum.org), predictions for the next couple of decades indicate that Asian countries will continue to boast the largest populations of Muslims worldwide. Of the ten countries to have the largest Muslim populations, only two of them—Egypt and Iraq—contain sizeable Arab populations which speak Arabic. 

Throughout Islamic history, it is indisputable that Arabs—including their Arabic culture, thought, and language—have played a significant role in the development of Islam. And the very fact that the Qur’an was given (and later recorded) in Arabic and that the Kaaba, a holy shrine in Mecca, is located in Saudi Arabia ensures Arabic influence. Yet Arabs are today a small percentage of Muslims in the world today. 

Truth be told, much of the historical antagonism between Muslims and Christians during the medieval and modern periods did not necessarily pivot on an inherent antagonism between say, European Christians and Arab Muslims. In many ways, today as in the past, Islam has been an Asian religion. For it was Central Asians like the Turks who ultimately wrested Christian control out of the eastern Mediterranean, and it was the Mongols who were the architects of one of the largest and most powerful empires in world history, stretching from Japan to Russia, and wiping out the (Nestorian) Christian population in the process. 

In the future, Christianity and Islam will continue to be the two most influential religions on the planet. Because these religions both believe in their universality and that they alone convey the truth about God, humankind, and the world, competition between them will fiercely persist. The tension, in other words, has less to do with ethnic differences and more to do with their common and singular vision for universality. In the end, and unlike inclusive religions like Hinduism or Baha’i, either Christianity or Islam is true. 

In this three-part series, we have dispelled three common myths many people believe about world religions. If you would like to read more about other religions and learn how to respond to them as a Christian, I encourage you to read Christianity and World Religions. You won’t be disappointed!


Dr. Derek Cooper is assistant professor of World Christian History at Biblical, where he also serves as the associate director of the Doctor of Ministry program. Derek’s most recent book, which was written for classroom use, church groups, and for lay readers, is titled Christianity and World Religions: An Introduction to the World’s Major Faiths. His faculty page can be found here.

   

Written by Sam Logan Friday, 17 May 2013 00:00

Well, the answer to this question is like the answers to so many similar questions – no, there is absolutely no hierarchy of sins and yes, there certainly is a hierarchy of sins.

My first blog on this subject explored briefly the “no” answer and my second blog examined biblical evidence for the reality of just such a hierarchy.  The point of this blog will be to make a few very tentative suggestions about the specific nature of this hierarchy.

I emphasize “very tentative.”  My previous blog was based on general “deductions” from Scripture but those deductions seem to me to be good and necessary (to use the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith).  I believe that the deductions contained is this blog are, indeed, “good,” but I would hesitant to say that they are “necessary.”However, since this is precisely the area where “the rubber hits the road” in terms of the actions and attitudes of individual Christians and of the Church of Jesus Christ, I will nevertheless suggest some possible “good” deductions.

Before I do, however, I would like to be open and frank about one thing I will NOT be doing.  I will NOT be basing my deductions on the frequency with which a certain sin is mentioned in the Bible.  Rightly or wrongly, I interpret the frequency (or infrequency) with which some sins are mentioned as being one of those matters which are directly related to the specific cultures within which God gave His word to His people.   Many doctrines which the church (and I) regard as crucial (the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc.) are not mentioned frequently but this does not mean that they are less important because of their infrequency.  Similarly, some actions that can be taken today (for example, genetic and gender manipulation) were unknown to the cultures of the Bible but this does not mean that those actions are therefore biblically “neutral.”

1.  The consequence of Acts 5

I mentioned this passage in my previous blog.  It is both evidence of a hierarchy and a suggestion about what the “worst” sins may entail.  Here is the relevant section of that passage:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.  [Emphases added.]

This passage makes no comment about the eternal destiny of Ananias and Sapphira but it does seem to indicate that lying to God and testing the Spirit of the Lord are, in at least some ways, especially heinous and, on that basis, warrant the specific temporal judgment of physical death. 

2.  The consequence of Joshua 7

The story of Acts 5 is foreshadowed in Joshua 7.  There, the Israelites are repulsed by the army of Ai and Joshua falls down before the Lord and asks why He was not with His people.  Here is the Lord’s response to Joshua:

10 The Lord said to Joshua, “Get up! Why have you fallen on your face?11 Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings. 12 Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you.  [Emphasis added] 

Again, temporal punishment is directly related to “lying to God.”  Here, of course, the Lord offers a “way out” but that way is no more available to those who had been killed by the forces of Ai than way any “way out” available to Ananias and Sapphira.  So again, “lying to God” seems to be especially heinous and, on that basis, warrants a specific temporal judgment.

3.  The consequence of Isaiah 58

Finally, there is a very different emphasis throughout Scripture, one found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It finds especially clear expression in Isaiah 58, where, in the context of threatening temporal judgment on the Northern Kingdom, God says this to and through His prophet:

Cry aloud; do not hold back;
lift up your voice like a trumpet;
declare to my people their transgression,
to the house of Jacob their sins.
2 Yet they seek me daily
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that did righteousness
and did not forsake the judgment of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments;
they delight to draw near to God.

The Lord tells Isaiah that His people will protest like this:

‘Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?’

And the Lord responds to this protest with these words:

6 “Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up speedily;
your righteousness shall go before you;
the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.”

Clearly (I think!), the Lord is basing His temporal judgment of the Northern Kingdom at least in part on how His people treated the weak, the oppressed, the hungry.

And the importance of this issue is reflected in the following words of Jesus from Matthew 25 which, though probably relating to eternal judgment rather than to temporal, makes it unmistakably clear how the Lord sees these matters:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

In these passages and in many others as well, the kind of active obedience that Scripture requires focuses specifically on care for those who are weak . . . exactly as Jesus cared for us when we were mired in our own weakness and sin.

My conclusions from all of this?  There are two:

First, in terms of temporal realities, which is where we all live now, any affirmation regarding the things of the Lord that we know to be false is especially heinous and is grounds for severe temporal judgment, both by God Himself and by God’s people.  We are not talking about mistakes or errors of judgment or even faulty doctrine here.  We are talking about conscious lying in the specific context of the faith.  One example – consciously and intentionally exaggerating the effectiveness of one’s ministry.  Sharing encouraging facts is one thing; intentionally overstating ministry success is something else entirely.

 Second, in terms of temporal realities, which is where we all live now, ignoring or failing to minister adequately to the weak, the poor, the hungry, the sick – such delinquencies are especially heinous and are grounds for severe temporal judgment, both by God Himself and by God’s people.

Thank God (and I mean that literally) that the judgments mentioned in the previous two paragraphs are temporal, not eternal.  Thank Jesus that He has borne the eternal judgment for ALL the sins of ALL of His people (see my first blog in this series).  But temporal judgment is real and, even more important, temporal judgment reflects the fact that the behavior being judged is an offense, a “slap in the Face,” to the very God who has redeemed us by the blood of His only begotten Son.  And it just doesn’t get much worse than that!

As I said, these are truths that I deduce from Scripture.  I think they are good, though perhaps not necessary, deductions.  But I am really eager to hear back from readers of this blog.  What do YOU think Scripture teaches?  Are there “temporal” judgments in the post-New Testament era?  If there is enough interest in this topic, I may continue exploring such issues as the possibility that God has temporal judgment in store for the United States because of things that we, as a nation, have done or are doing.   


Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical. He also serves as the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship (www.wrfnet.org). He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is President Emeritus of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)..  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also  http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan  

   

Written by Sam Logan Thursday, 16 May 2013 00:00

Well, the answer to this question is like the answers to so many similar questions – no, there is no hierarchy of sins and yes, there certainly is a hierarchy of sins.

My previous blog explored briefly the “no” answer while this blog and the next one will explore the “yes” answer.

We must admit that there is no direct and specific Scriptural evidence in support of answering “yes” to this question.   But that, of course, is true of many doctrines which we regard as clear Scriptural teaching.  One example of this would be the doctrine of the Trinity.  That doctrine is, correctly in my judgment, deduced from numerous Scriptural passages such as Genesis 1:26  [“Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”], where the “us” and the “our” are grounds for deducing, at the very least, plurality in God.

Further, many of the historic orthodox statements of faith specifically provide warrant for using deduction in the formation of doctrine.  The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture “ (emphasis added).  Of course, all churches, including (perhaps especially) those for which the Westminster Confession is regarded as authoritative, provide numerous examples of in-fighting over just what is and what is not “good and necessary consequence,” but my point is that all churches do, at some point, utilize deduction in reaching doctrinal conclusions. 

So we must “deduce” a “yes” answer from Scripture.  But can we?  If so, which specific Scripture passages?

1. The Book of Leviticus

The Book of Leviticus is full of God’s commandments to His people.  Chapter and chapter after chapter provides direct and infallible instruction with regard to what God’s people are to do, what they are not to do, and what happens if they disobey.  And over and over again, God Himself makes distinctions among the sins in terms of what is needed to “pay for” each of the sins.  Chapter Five is particularly specific in indicating that different sins warrant different sacrifices.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

2.  Acts 15

The entirety of this chapter seems to deal specifically with the question of what ceremonial laws are SO IMPORTANT that even the Gentiles must keep them.  And the conclusion is equally clear:  “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”  Whatever the reason for this particular distinction, there can be no question that a very specific distinction is being made.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

3. I Timothy 3

The same is true on the “positive” side.  As Paul outlines the qualifications of “overseers,” he mentions numerous spiritual characteristics that are required of such persons.  He could simply have told Timothy that overseers must conform to all the commands mentioned in Scripture; instead, he identifies certain qualities which must be present in those who would lead Christ’s church.  Of course, overseers should obey the whole law of Christ but they must have these specific qualities.  There seems to be a clear hierarchy here.

So there does seem to be Scriptural grounds on which to deduce that there is a hierarchy of sins. 

But one final point needs to be made before moving, as I will do in my next blog, to discuss what sins seem to be “worst.”

That final point picks up on my argument in the previous blog that ANY sin renders an individual personally disqualified for eternal life in the presence of the Triune God.  If that is the case, what difference does it make if some sins are more “serious” than others.  All three of the above-cited passages help us to answer this question.

Eternal punishment for sin is not the only punishment about which the Bible speaks.  Some sins, whether committed by the regenerate or by the unregenerate, bring temporal judgment on the sinner.  Take, for example, the story of Ananias and Sapphirain Acts 5 (which I will discuss more fully in my next blog).  They sinned by lying to God’s representative and, by inference, to God Himself.  And they received temporal punishment for that sin – they both were killed.  Scripture does not comment on their eternal destiny and we should not either.  But it is clear that this particular sin produced particular immediate temporal judgment.

Similarly, as in the I Timothy passage quoted above, certain forms of obedient behavior are regarded as essential for temporal offices and/or activities.  Paul is not telling Timothy in I Timothy 3 that only those possessing the qualities he names will go to heaven.  He is simply saying that those qualities are necessary for the office of an overseer.  Therefore, we should, I believe, regard those specific forms of obedience as related to temporal, not eternal, realities. 

So arguing that there is, in one sense, a hierarchy of sins does not involve us in any form of “salvation by works” theology.  It simply reflects accurately Scriptural teaching.

But what are the “worst” sins?  I will try to address this question in my next blog.


Sam Logan is Special Counsel to the President and Professor of Church History at Biblical. He also serves as the International Director of the World Reformed Fellowship (www.wrfnet.org). He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is President Emeritus of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia)..  He is married to Susan and they have two sons and two grandsons. See also  http://www.biblical.edu/index.php/samuel-logan  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Page 10 of 24

Blog Mission

The purpose of this blog will be to expand the influence of our faculty, maintain contact with our graduates, and invite other friends to think with us about important biblical and theological ideas.

Biblical's Faculty

Biblical’s Faculty:

We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the Gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.

Latest Blog Entries

Written on 22 October 2014 - by Dr. Dave Dunbar
Written on 20 October 2014 - by Philip Monroe
Written on 17 October 2014 - by Bryan Maier
Written on 13 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 10 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 08 October 2014 - by Stephanie Lowery
Written on 06 October 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum
Written on 03 October 2014 - by Stephanie Lowery
Written on 01 October 2014 - by Dan Williams
Written on 29 September 2014 - by R. Todd Mangum

Previous Blog Entries

Follow Biblical

Follow us on the following sites and receive notifications on upcoming events and blog entries:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on Twitterg+_64_black

Contact Admissions

800.235.4021 x146

215.368.5000 x146

215.368.4913 (fax)

 

admissions@biblical.edu

Stay Connected with Biblical

Follow us on the following sites:

Follow Biblical on facebookFollow Biblical on TwitterFollow Biblical on YouTubeg+_64_black
Or simply call us at...
800.235.4021 x146 or 215.368.5000 x146

Support Biblical by Giving

800.235.4021 x162

215.368.5000 x162

215.368.7002 (fax)

 

development@biblical.edu

Home

Site Login