Book Note: James Dunn’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit (2nd ed.)

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Jared Compton

James D. G. Dunn. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Second edition. London: SCM Press, 2010, xxi + 248 pp.

This second-edition of Baptism in the Holy Spirit represents Dunn’s latest revision of his oeuvre. In the book (originally his thesis), Dunn asks whether or not Pentecostalism is right in separating Spirit-baptism from “conversion-initiation” (Dunn’s now-famous neologism) and, related, whether or not Pentecostalism is right in separating Spirit-baptism from water baptism—or whether, in fact, the “sacramentalists” are right in virtually equating the two. Dunn’s answer—and for that matter, argument and bibliography—remains largely unchanged in the new edition (cf. his “Preface to the Second Edition”): all Christians are Spirit-baptized at conversion-initiation and Spirit-baptism is distinct from—even though it must and will lead to—water baptism (thus, the hyphen in “conversion-initiation”). Or, to state the latter positively, water baptism is a “necessary expression” of the faith that is itself the necessary condition for Spirit-baptism (see, e.g., p. 228).

At one or two places, Dunn’s argument feels slightly heavy-handed, as, e.g., in his insistence that the Samaritan’s faith (Acts 8) was deficient before the arrival of Peter and John, which is to say, before their reception of the Spirit (ch. 5). Overall, however, the argument is convincing and written with Dunn’s characteristic clarity. It will repay a careful reading.

Share
Email
Posted in Book Review | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dr. Bryant Wood to Speak at DBTS

Posted on February 19, 2012 by Bill Combs

On March 14 DBTS will host the William R. Rice Lecture Series. The speaker for this year’s event is Dr. Bryant G. Wood. His topic will be “Archaeology and the Conquest: New Evidence on an Old Problem.”

Dr. Wood is a widely respected biblical archaeologist and scholar who is the Director of Research at Associates for Biblical Research in Akron, PA. He also serves as the editor of ABR’s quarterly publication Bible and Spade. Dr. Wood holds a Ph.D. degree in Syro-Palestinian archaeology from the University of Toronto. His archaeological field work includes extensive excavations in Israel and Egypt over more than thirty years. He is the author of several books and scores of journal articles.

There is no cost to attend the Rice Lectures. However, for planning purposes, all guests are requested to register in advance so that adequate seating and food can be provided. Registration can be completed by calling (313) 381-0111, ext. 402, or sending an email to info@dbts.edu.

Share
Email
Posted in Announcements, Rice Lectures | Tagged | Leave a comment

More on 1st Century Gospel of Mark

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Bill Combs

In my previous posts, here and here, I reported on a debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman during which Wallace remarked that he had information about the discovery of a fragmentary papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Mark that possibly may be from the 1st century A.D. The debate is now available online. Dr. Wallace’s announcement of the Mark fragment and other recent discoveries is at 1:13:40, and Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Wallace discuss it briefly at 1:48:10. What is interesting is that Wallace says the papyrologist (expert in ancient writing on papyrus) who has examined this fragment is considered by many to be the best papyrologist on the planet, and he is certain the Mark manuscript is from the 1st century.

This certain dating is difficult for other experts to accept uncritically since the common way of dating ancient manuscripts is by the style of writing, and usually this is only accurate to about fifty years unless there is some other way to establish the date, possibly by dating other materials with which a manuscript is found. Wallace, who is sworn to secrecy, reports that we will have to wait for the publication of manuscript details in a book set to come out in 2013.

Share
Email
Posted in Textual Criticism | Tagged | 1 Comment

Typology: Lessons from R. T. France

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Bill Combs

We received word yesterday of the death of noted New Testament scholar R. T. France on February 10. Dr. France was well known for a number of important books, including commentaries on Matthew and Mark. You can see a list here. But today I want to call attention to what I think is one of his most important works: Jesus and the Old Testament. Chapter 3, “Typological Use of the Old Testment,” is a brilliant piece of work. Let me share some of France’s perceptive conclusions about typology:

The word τύπος invariably has the primary meaning of “model” or “pattern.” Typology will, therefore, be concerned with persons, events, etc. which are viewed as models or patterns for other persons, events, etc.

We may say that a type is an event, a series of circumstances, or an aspect of the life of an individual or of the nation, which finds a parallel and a deeper realization in the incarnate life of our Lord, in His provision for the needs of men, or in His judgments and future reign.

Typology is thus to be distinguished from two other methods of applying the Old Testament: the appeal to prediction, and allegory.

A type is not a prediction; in itself it is simply a person, event, etc. recorded as historical fact, with no intrinsic reference to the future. Nor is an antitype the fulfillment of a prediction…. Typology, however, consists essentially in looking back and discerning previous examples of a pattern now reaching its culmination.

Typology may be described as “the theological interpretation of the Old Testament history.” Allegory, on the other hand, has little concern with the historical character of the Old Testament text. Words, names, events, etc, are used, with little regard for their context, and invested with a significance drawn more from the allegorist’s own ideas than from the intended sense of the Old Testament.

Typology…is essentially the recognition of a correspondence between New Testament and Old Testament events…. The idea of fulfillment inherent in New Testament typology derives not from a belief that the events so understood were explicitly predicted, but from the conviction that in the coming and work of Jesus the principles of God’s working, already imperfectly embodied in the Old Testament, were more perfectly re-embodied, and thus brought to completion.

The difference between typology and allegory uncovers one feature essential to true typology: that is a real correspondence between type and antitype. This correspondence must be both historical (i.e. a correspondence of situation and event) and theological (i.e. an embodiment of the same principle of God’s working). The lack of a real historical correspondence reduces typology to allegory, as when the scarlet thread hung in the window by Rahab is taken as a prefiguration of the blood of Christ.

Typology may, indeed must, go beyond mere exegesis. But it may never introduce into the Old Testament text a principle which was not already present and intelligible to its Old Testament readers.

But while strict exegesis is a prerequisite of typology, it is not correct to describe typology itself as a method of exegesis. Exegesis is the establishment of the true meaning and intention of the original text…. If every type were originally intended explicitly to point forward toward to an antitype, it might be correct to class typology as a style of exegesis. But this is not the case. There is no indication in a type, as such, of any forward reference; it is complete and intelligible in itself.

Chapter 3 is available online in Google Books.

Share
Email
Posted in Hermeneutics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Worship Warcraft

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Mark Snoeberger

Every time I hear a specific date announced for the end of the War in Afghanistan, I experience a brief snort of laughter. What kind of world do we live in where the beginning and end of wars can be scheduled? The fact is, so long as differing worldviews exist, wars are inevitable, and they cannot be ended by fiat.

While the American evangelical worship wars, it seems, are winding down, we still see skirmishes every once in a while. This week I read two thoughtful but dramatically different philosophical perspectives on worship warcraft. The interesting thing is that they were both written on a very high level by careful writers, each with a robust sense of self-consciousness about the worldview he represents. It’s a fascinating study of contrasts and a rare occasion to see worship war philosophy expressed without the normal vitriol. Enjoy reading these blog posts by Russell Moore and Darryl Hart.

Share
Email
Posted in Worship | Leave a comment

American Catholicism’s Pact with the Devil

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Bill Combs

This is the title of a thought-provoking post (essay?) by Paul Rahe, Professor of History at Hillsdale College. Dr. Rahe briefly traces the history of the Roman Catholic Church’s involvement in the political sphere throughout the history of Western civilization. When he arrives at the modern American scene, he says:

In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal.

There are certainly some lessons here for those in the evangelical community.

Share
Email
Posted in Theology | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Bad Trade?

Posted on February 11, 2012 by Dave Doran

Here’s the basic fallacy of the Elephant Room 2 storyline—once you’ve granted to someone good standing as a Christian brother and fellow servant of the gospel, you can’t claim that you’re going to be sitting down to discuss whether he is truly such or not. You’ve already tipped your hand, so the rest of the time it means that you’re just bluffing. And you must think we are all pretty stupid not to recognize this. Especially when the event itself and the post-mortem reports make reference to the wonderful time of fellowship and prayer together the participants enjoyed before the big “showdown” regarding Jakes’ theology.

ER2 was not about theological and ministerial differences. It was about commonalities. Or, to put it another way, it was about minimizing differences in order to highlight commonalities. The end of the day conclusion was supposed to be something like, “Yeah, we’re all different and have our disagreements, but we all love Jesus, want to see people saved, and want to grow big churches. We’re all on the same team.” That might be an acceptable goal for a day of discussion like ER2 if: (1) you are in fact on the same team, and (2) you’re not promoting the event as an opportunity to find out if that is actually true. To promote and prepare for the event with the assumption that you are all on the same team, while talking like you’ll make your conclusion after the event is simply dishonest.

Let’s not kid ourselves about what the real purpose of something like ER2 is, though. James MacDonald (and to a lesser extent, Mark Driscoll) is using it to position himself as a leader, as someone who influences church life in our day. He is building a reputation and a network. Is that a problem? No, I don’t think so. Is he unique in pursuing this purpose? Absolutely not. Our day is full of efforts like this—T4G, the Gospel Coalition, 9Marks, Shepherds Conference, Desiring God. All of these are competing in the marketplace of ministry ideas because they believe they have something to offer and they want to help churches and pastors. I’ve got no principled problem with anybody trying to influence other people.

If James MacDonald wants to help pastors and churches, then creating a platform to do so is a legitimate effort. The problem arises when anybody chooses to build that platform in ways that compromise the gospel or send an uncertain sound about fundamental theological truths. This is the grave danger for all efforts to build movements or coalitions—trying to reach certain constituencies often results in compromising relationships with errant leaders. That danger is only increased by the celebrity culture and obsession with visible success that dominates contemporary Christendom.

Schedule big names and you can draw a big crowd. Gather a big crowd and you’ve opened new avenues for your own influence. It doesn’t make any sense to me to fight the reality, or even legitimacy, of this. Who reading this wouldn’t rather hear a Spurgeon than me (with the one exception of my wife, I hope!)? My main problem isn’t with big names, with big names getting scheduled for events, or with the fact that people like to hear big name speakers at events. All of that is just the way it is and some of it is completely justifiable—some people have big names because they are serious about God’s Word and have been so for a long time. I’ve given up trying to figure out why some men are more popular than others. Really doesn’t matter to me. It is what it is.

The reality of creating a platform for influence does not, however, mean that we can ignore what the Bible says about false doctrine. It is wrong to form unholy alliances even if it is for the purpose of reaching more people with the truth. The truth always suffers when people start scheming like this. The “greater good” inevitably becomes the club to beat down opposition to compromises. That and the issue seems always to get mired in personal debates that sound more like “I am of…” than whether biblical truth holds the place of functional control in our decisions.

The invitation of T. D. Jakes to the Elephant Room is simply another version of the same problem that has plagued evangelicalism for 60 years. What is the boundary of Christian fellowship? Or, to turn it another way, how unorthodox can a person be before we conclude that he is beyond the boundary of Christian fellowship? There has been a very broad swath of evangelicalism that has been willing to shift the boundary wider and wider if doing so brought the possibility of expanded influence.

How has that worked out for evangelicalism? Maybe one way to answer that would be to wonder whether Ockenga, Henry, and Carnell would have invited someone with the belief system of T. D. Jakes to something like the Elephant Room. I might be wrong, but from what I have read of their writings, I don’t think they would have considered Jakes an evangelical. So, who has been influenced by whom over these past sixty years?

Share
Email
Posted in Theology | Tagged | 3 Comments

Update on 1st Century Gospel of Mark

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Bill Combs

In a previous post, I noted that Dr. Dan Wallace remarked during a recent debate that he had information about the discovery of a fragmentary papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Mark that may possibly be from the 1st century A.D. Immediately, Wallace’s announcement was big news on numerous blogs, with Wallace himself responding in the comments section on several of the blogs in order to clarify some misunderstandings. Dr. Wallace has now issued a new statement that you can read here.

Share
Email
Posted in Textual Criticism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Artful Dodges

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Dave Doran

Personally, I think that Thabiti Anyabwile has provided some of the best commentary on the inclusion of T. D. Jakes into the Elephant Room discussion. His initial offering before the event was dead on target, and his follow up post is also worth reading. He continues to provide valuable insight that by highlighting the personal dimension of false teaching. This is not merely an abstract discussion of theology or ministry.

This last post by Thabiti also serves to highlight the rottenness of what Bryan Loritts posted right after ER2 and followed up on in a video conversation with James MacDonald. It appears that Loritts has taken down the blog post, but in it he makes the case that the loudest opponents of ER2 have been “middle aged white Reformed guys” and he suggests that “a few of my black brothers [are] playing into what some have historically called white idolization in their longing to fit in with this Reformed crowd”?

Here’s the video of him making the same basic charges.

I’d like to make three points about these charges.

First, this is a classic example of shifting the focus away from the complaints being lodged against ER2 and T. D. Jakes to the people who have lodged them. The age and ethnicity of the ER2 critics are really irrelevant. The real question is, “Are they right in their complaints?”

Second, and much worse, is that Loritts impugns the motives of the black critics of ER2 and Jakes by suggesting that they are being vocally critical in order to gain acceptance with the middle aged white guys. This really is a despicable tactic which borders on calling them a bunch of Uncle Toms. The only commendable aspect of his assertion is that it is so transparent that the slime factor is easily seen.

Third, I think it important to point out the role that MacDonald plays in facilitating this baseless charge against his black critics. It is obvious that Loritts is being interviewed by MacDonald in order to make this point. Worse, MacDonald plays all naïve in the face of Loritts’ accusation against his brothers, “What would they be leveraging it for? Opportunity?” What James ought to have been doing is saying, “Brother, it seems like you’re judging these men’s motives, aren’t you? Have any of them told you that they are opposing ER2 in order to gain a larger hearing in the white theological world?” Instead, MacDonald plays his part perfectly and lets Loritts take the cheap shot.

The irony here is that the whole exchange leaves the door wide open for speculation as to why Loritts would take that shot and also why MacDonald would give him air time to make it. The reason that is so is because neither MacDonald nor Loritts actually engaged the charges against Jakes and ER2. Instead of dealing with theology and biblical obligations to defend the Gospel, they threw in some red herrings. I think that stinks.

The theological issues at stake in this debate are very important—denial of the Trinity and a false prosperity theology are major, not minor problems. That these matters were so poorly addressed in ER2 should be a very serious cause of concern. It was a classic case of pietism trumping doctrine, with the added intoxicant of celebrity schmoozing poured on top. A very bad day in light of Acts 20:28-30.

It is also important, I think, to expose the methods being used to obscure the truth here. Good men are raising important, serious theological questions and objections, and those objections are being met with personal insults and artful dodges. Sadly, I’m not really surprised by this because that has been the mode of operation for decades—rebut questions about doctrinal concern with accusations of theological nitpicking; pit love against doctrine; emphasize the personal piety of those accused of false teaching; drop hints that certain unhappy people are just jealous of other’s success; imply that people are using controversy to gain visibility and opportunities.

These are not new tricks. That they were trotted out so quickly just shows that things have not changed. That they seem to work so effectively is what ought to concern anybody who is serious about sound doctrine and the health of the church.

Share
Email
Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged | 2 Comments

2012 Student Global Impact Missions Conference

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Pearson Johnson

In January, during Christmas Break, Inter-City Baptist Church was privileged to host over 200 college and seminary students for the Student Global Impact National Conference. Since 2000, every other year, this conference has provided an opportunity for college and seminary students to be challenged in the area of missions, to network with other students interested in various fields, and to be encouraged by the fellowship they enjoy. I would encourage you to download the audio of the conference.

God has allowed Inter-City Baptist Church to be heavily involved in missions, and we have a number of DBTS graduates serving in strategic ministries around the world. A missions mindset is of great benefit to all of our DBTS students. We want to keep the mission before us, always conscious that the goal of our academic pursuits is not a degree, but a sharpened ability to equip others in the USA and worldwide so that Christ’s Church is built for His glory.

Share
Email
Posted in Missions | Tagged | Leave a comment