Uri Brito asked me once how I can possibly believe that the church is central, and simultaneously be a baptist. Does being a baptistic fan of Jordan, Leithart and Wilson necessarily involve an element of schizophrenia? You might be interested to know how Federal Vision looks from where I stand. If not, just humour me.
A review and a comment on Bible Matrix.
First a comment on Facebook from Chris Griffith:
Started reading Mike Bull’s fascinating new book Bible Matrix. Two chapters into it and I’m already realizing this is a groundbreaking book. He’s synthesizing Jordan and Leithart and giving the layperson an access into understanding biblical typology.
Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, ”and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” —Matthew 3:5-9
Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, saying: ” ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!’ Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And some of the Pharisees called to Him from the crowd, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.” But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.” —Luke 19:37-40
The Bible is consistent with its symbols, so what is it with stones crying out? Continue reading
Under the title Baptism working against you…, my Presbyterian friend Uri Brito wrote:
“Reprobation is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to the idea of apostasy. Apostasy is a real theological and biblical idea. It is directly related to baptism. In baptism, apostates find their worst nightmare. It is better to be baptized by a cult (which is an invalid baptism to begin with) than to be baptized by an orthodox Trinitarian church. The problem for the apostate with the latter baptism, is that they incur the full wrath of the waters. As Leithart writes: ‘Their baptisms are effective in being witnesses against them.’ Baptized apostates will receive what the Egyptian army received.”
How can an involuntary baptism be a witness against anyone? If I am in a coma for some reason on my wedding day and the best man has to make the vows for me, what sort of case are the witnesses going to have if I break those vows because I feel like I have woken up with Leah instead of Rachel?
What about the Grammatical Historical Method?
“I affirm and use the grammatical historical method in all my study of Scriptures, but I do not think it is the only method to use in our study or sermon preparation. If the Bible is one history with many sub-histories, then the grammatical historical method focuses too much on the subs and little on the one history. It draws our attention to the locus without seeing the larger picture. It focuses on the tree while missing the forest. Typology, on the other hand, working with GHM, gives validity to the Biblical language and the Biblical worldview.”
Uri Brito, http://apologus.wordpress.com
or The Resurrection of Christ: Get Over It.
The resurrection of Christ is the linchpin upon which all of Christianity depends. It is the point of the spear when it comes to evangelism.
But when the best theologians spend much of their time philosophising about its basic implications, their thinking divorced from most of the Bible, and relying instead upon Jewish fables and other ancient writings to form their opinions, we have a problem. When the cream of the crop are gagging on the milk, we have a problem.
by Uri Brito
James Jordan makes some interesting remarks concerning scientific methods and the questions posed by science. [1] According to Jordan, modern scientific assumptions about the present betray the past and an accurate approach to the future. Science assumes that what we have today (referring to scientific discoveries) is exactly as it was in the past. However, scientific questions posed today are vastly different than the ones posed one hundred years ago. What Jordan is questioning with this reasoning is that science cannot be certain of its claims in the present, hence it must be seen with skepticism and understood for its limitations. When scientists claim certainty in their methods, they are in essence claiming ignorance of the lessons of the past and the future. Jordan writes:
The point of all of this is that the past is not subject to the kinds of controls and observation that science requires. Interpreting the past involves guesswork to a far greater degree than observational science, and thus there is far more room for presuppositions and assumptions to play a role. [2]
Jordan argues that unbelievers invariably are prone to wander in their scientific endeavors. Hence, “unbelieving ‘science’ does not perceive the true nature of the universe.” [3] Their worldviews restrain them from seeing biblical truth exchanging it for a lie. Jordan concludes that “when Christians operate on the same premises as unbelievers, they will not perceive aright either.” [4] Is it any wonder that natural theologians have begun to deny the historicity of the Creation account?
Jordan makes one further assertion worthy of consideration. He argues that Matthew 13 provides an excellent example of the intention of the Biblical record. According to our Lord, the parables were meant to reveal truth to believers and to deceive unbelievers. Jordan draws a similar parallel to revelation in creation. “If creational revelation is truly revelation, then it partakes of this same parabolic nature.” [5] As the written word misleads the faithless, so does the natural Word. Any approach that seeks to dispel the account of the Scripture is prone to self-deception.
___________________________
[1] James B. Jordan, Chapter 6, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One
[2-4] Jordan, p. 126
[5] Jordan, p. 127
Bible Matrix blog
