Bible, Theology & Philosophy

What is beauty?

The beginning of the Rock Music culture in the US is a little difficult to pinpoint, but by the time of Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock,” its presence was evident to almost everyone. With the advent of Rock the youth of America possessed their own music. Their parents dismissed it as dissonant, gyrating wildness and told their children: “That isn’t music!” But the youth—particularly the Baby Boomer Generation—held on to it tenaciously. Rock/Pop has now become the world’s music to the extent that it is heard everywhere and all the time. Now teenagers listening to 100-year old hymns think, “That isn’t music!”

Many post-modern thinkers will probably tell you that the quality of music is a matter of taste, determined by culture and experience. This is a break with how people have thought, literally for millennia. It uses an argument that can easily be turned against itself (you can also say that the proposition “quality of music is merely taste, determined by culture and experience,” is simply a product of culture and experience, and perhaps not valid at all). When we talk about music or art, we also talk about the concept of beauty. I am not telling you a fairy tale when I say that there was a time when people agreed on what is good music, even if they disagreed on style preference. When and how did the change to today’s view of beauty come about? I think the change began slowly with the ideas of Immanuel Kant (and you thought it all started with Elvis, right?).

Roger Olson and I disagree about plenty of issues, but according to a recent blog post, we apparently find concord in one important topic. We are both convinced that Christians should not sing hymns that express significant error.

To be sure, Roger and I dispute both what constitutes error and how significant the error is. He is Arminian while I am Calvinistic. He is very broadly evangelical while I am pretty narrowly fundamentalistic. He believes that the gospel does not have to include hell (though he does not deny its existence), while I believe that the good news (gospel) is only as good as the bad news (laðra spella) is bad, and that the gospel is hardly news at all without a doctrine of eternal perdition behind it. These differences are more than negligible, and they definitely mean that Roger will sing some songs that I cannot, and vice versa.

Where we agree is in taking hymnody seriously. What we sing is a confession of what we believe. For us to sing what we do not believe would be to bear false witness.

Roger says that he cannot sing “Be Still My Soul” because it expresses God’s sovereignty, even over evil. On the other hand, one of my former colleagues could not sing the last stanza of “Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness” because he is convinced of limited atonement. Personally, I relish both of these hymns, but Christian charity forbids me from pressuring a brother to affirm what he does not believe. For him to do so would be a sin, and for me to coerce him would also be a sin. I take no offense with what he cannot sing, though I may well disagree with his choice.

Thus far, I believe that Roger and I are committed to the same general practice. In my own conscience, however, I go one step further. We have not discussed this matter, but I would be surprised to discover that Roger would take this step with me.

This brief paper addresses select considerations regarding Isaiah 4:2-6 as it relates to Spirit baptism and the Day of Pentecost (which is also thought to be the day God gave the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel). I have written about these correlations elsewhere, but today’s focus is more specific. I may eventually write another installment on Isaiah 4:2-6 and its use as a “mother text” for several New Testament passages.

As we read through the Old Testament, we find the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:2 hovering like a dove over the waters. We read much about the Spirit, including an incident regarding King Saul who had a Pentecost-like experience in 1 Samuel 10:9-11 (ESV):

When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day. When they came to Gibeah, behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, “What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”

Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Parts 4 & 5, and Part 6.

The dead in Christ—what are they doing?

Before Christ, believers were often perplexed by the prospect of death. One of God’s great servants, Job, recorded his fear that it would be a realm of permanent nothingness—

As the cloud disappears and vanishes away,
So he who goes down to the grave does not come up. (NKJV, Job 7:9)

But later, God illumined his mind to write:

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,
Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me! (Job 19:25-27)

Reprinted with permission from As I See It. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at [email protected]. Photo: GREATSITE.COM, which also has a review.

Nearly a decade ago, I “chanced” upon a hardback facsimile reprint of the 1536 edition of William Tyndale’s New Testament translation (Columbus, Ohio: Lazarus Ministry Press, 1999. The original is #21 in the chronological listing of printed editions of the Bible in English in A. S. Herbert’s Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525-1961, p. 13). The price was acceptable (just under $32), so I purchased the volume and have consulted it from time to time. I very much prefer facsimile reprints over mere reproductions (in print or on the net) of the text of a Bible translation, because there are regularly features of the original edition that are omitted in the reprint, along with the very real possibility of inadvertent alterations in the text.

At the beginning of this year, I decided to read this facsimile NT through, and just this morning (as I write), completed the task (which had been interrupted by two trips to Eastern Europe). This makes at least the 8th different English translation of the NT that I have read entirely. These—in roughly I read them—include KJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, Stern’s Jewish NT, ERV, HCSB and now Tyndale (of course, I have read several of these repeatedly and have read portions of the NT in many other English versions).

This week’s mail brought one of the first copies of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen. The book is a contribution to Zondervan’s Counterpoints series. It has been in the making for just under four years.

Andy Naselli was the one who came up with the idea for this “four views” book, suggesting the topic to series editor Stan Gundry during the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2007. Naselli already had his Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University and was working on another in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He was also working as D. A. Carson’s researcher.

Though his educational background is with Bob Jones University, I’m not sure whether Andy would want to be identified as a Fundamentalist today. Even if not, however, he is definitely not an opponent of Fundamentalism. From the beginning, one of his main concerns was to have a credible presentation of the Fundamentalist position included in the volume. Several names were discussed: Mark Minnick, John Hartog III, Dave Doran, Mike Barrett, and both of the Houghton brothers (Myron and George). It was thought that all of these writers would defend approximately the same vision and values in their presentation of the Fundamentalist perspective. At one point, the editors even considered the possibility of featuring more than one Fundamentalist author.

When all was said and done, I was chosen to write the chapter (though any of the others would certainly have done as well). In accepting the opportunity, I was especially motivated by the prospect of subjecting a defense of Fundamentalism to the criticisms of representatives of other positions. On my view, Fundamentalism is suffering from a kind of ennui today, partly because we have been content to talk only to ourselves. My opinion is that the idea of Fundamentalism has merit and we ought to be eager to share it with the rest of the world.