As iron sharpens iron,
one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
First issue includes K. Bauder on why pastors should be learned in worship and music, Scott Aniol on a biblical understanding of culture.
I came across this powerful passage in a book by Dr. Doug McLachen, “Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism;”
Too many evangelicals have opted for unholy love; and too many fundamentalists have opted for unloving holiness.
Kathy Keller’s review/open letter to the author of A Year of Biblical Womanhood.
Regular Baptist Books has released a new volume, Dispensational Understandings of the New Covenant, edited by Mike Stallard of Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Titles need to be manageable in length, and this one labels the book nicely. It would have been more precise, however, if it had specified that the book contains traditional dispensational understandings of the New Covenant, and actually only some of them.
The limitation is deliberate. The book results from collaboration between traditional dispensationalists in the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. This council, which meets annually for the exchange and examination of ideas related to dispensational theology, includes only traditional dispensationalists. From the time that it first met in 2008, one of the goals of the council was to foster the publication of current, traditionally-dispensational thinking. Dispensational Understandings of the New Covenant is its first major release.
The book is necessary because dispensationalists have never agreed about how the church is related to the New Covenant. Some think that the church has no legal relationship to the New Covenant. Others believe that the church is not a party to the covenant, but nevertheless stands in some relationship to it. Still others have believed in the existence of two New Covenants, one for Israel and another, different one for the church. Some have argued that the church is directly related to the New Covenant and has been brought in as a participant alongside Israel.
“For a long time now BioLogos has ignored its initial mission of trying to convert evangelical Christians to evolution. It didn’t work—as I predicted—because those Christians know that if you buy Darwinian evolution, then you have to see much of the Bible as either fictional or at best metaphorical.
Read Part 1.
A detailed refutation of the various explanations of Israel’s northern tribes is impossible within this format. The great Hebrew Christian scholar, David Baron, in his work The History of the Ten “Lost” Tribes has provided the most detailed and accurate answer to the question. The following is a summary of his main points with a few personal observations. The fallacy inherent in all of the theories is simply this: the tribes were never lost, but continued as part of the main body of the Jewish people. Consider the following five points:
1. At the time of the disruption of the united kingdom in 930 B.C., faithful Israelites from all the northern tribes joined their brethren in the south and continued their identity as part of the kingdom of Judah. Two books in Scripture that are strangely ignored by British-Israelites are 1 and 2 Chronicles. These books make it clear that the tribes in the north continued their existence as part of Judah after 930 B.C. Consider 2 Chr 11:14, 16: “For the Levites left their suburban lands and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem; for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest’s office unto the LORD; …. And after them, out of all the tribes of Israel, such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.” These verses provide irrefutable proof that many godly individuals out of “all the tribes of Israel” rejected Jereboam’s idolatry and joined the southern kingdom. During the reign of Asa, others followed from Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chr. 15:9). Thus, it is evident that the kingdom of Judah absorbed many from the northern kingdom through the years.
What is reason’s relationship to Revelation? My understanding is that we do not subject the Bible to reason. We believe that things that are truly reasonable will be in complete agreement with the Bible. Therefore, we judge our observations by the Scriptures, and, if necessary, reconcile our observations to the Scriptures. We do this on the basis that the Holy Bible is the very Word of God, and thus, infallible.
Discussion