My 100th Blog Post

I've been postponing my blogging the last couple of weeks in large part because I knew this milestone was coming and it is finally here: 100 blog posts! Some of these I migrated from my "side project" blog on "the gospel according to Scripture," but for the most part they originated here and have been largely theological. My original intent was to make this blog about all sorts of things I like and think about and my next goal (as far as the blog is concerned) will be to write about whatever I want to write about. The point is to write.

To celebrate my 100th post I thought I would share with you some of my favourite posts along with my 5 most popular posts of all time. If you're new to the blog, you may not realize that I don't just blog about hell. I've also written a lot about the gospel and the age of the earth.

My favourite posts in chronological order:

5 points often missed about what the Gospel is about. An early post that really captured succinctly what I was blogging about for months.

A Christmas card about the gospel. I was really passionate in this post and it was 'off the cuff.'

Genesis isn't teaching modern science. This post is a must read for Christians debating Genesis 'vs' Science. Just....stop.

Is creation out of nothing a doctrine ex-nihilo? Ditto.

FEAR and the church Probably my all-time favourite.

Is hell the primary motive for Christian mission? Forgot I wrote this post (I was writing a lot at the time) until Jon Coutts posted his index of my posts and I reread it. It may be the best thing I've written (IMHO).

5 most popular posts countdown!

5. How the world views Jesus. A very provoking and heart wrenching reality.

4. Comparing the 3 views: The Hell Triangle. A good basic comparison of the 3 views.

3. An atheist's view on life? Honestly not a great post. It was just the last one before a hiatus

2. RIP Sarah Jones. A post honouring a worker in the film industry I never met.

1. No one goes to hell immediately to hell when they die. Glad this is number one. An important shift needs to be made about how Christians perceive death and judgement. This post is a good example of that.

Amendment: The actual number one post is far and away "A sermon on the gospel." I checked my traffic records from the blog I migrated those posts from. Unfortunately the link for the audio is dead, but I still have my notes if anyone wants me to come preach it at their church. :) One of my favourites, "A christmas card," is also tied with "RIP Sarah Jones." 

Blog Merger

In August, 2011, I started a blog on the gospel and wrote many articles, pointed to resources, etc.I wrote a fair amount on it in phases, but I didn't have the drive to only write about one subject forever. This year I decided to start writing more again because I if I want to be a writer I have to actually write (duh!). When I went to start another blog I made the choice to simply relaunch one that I had started year ago under my own name. I deleted all previous posts and started over with the freedom to then write and post on whatever subject I wanted.

On Thursday, I looked at my old blog and decided it was best to merge it to this one because it is much easier to have everything in one place and I wanted to expose my previous work to new readers. I may write a few posts on the gospel in the next few weeks among other things to break up the onslaught of posts on the age of the earth, Genesis, etc. I do have a variety of interests so you can expect more hockey as the playoffs get closer and the same goes for Doctor who...maybe even Survivor even though the last three times I brought it up the person I was speaking said the exact same thing: "Is that show still even on?" sigh...yes people...yes it is. It's the only reality show I have any interest in, it was just renewed for two more seasons and it will not die because it's Survivor....although I did watch Mantracker cause that's Canadian and awesome.

Tim Keller "Evolution, Creation, and Christian Lay-people"

Here is part of an article by Tim Keller written for BioLogos:

In my estimation what current science tells us about evolution presents four main difficulties for
orthodox Protestants. The first is in the area of Biblical authority. To account for evolution we must see at
least Genesis 1 as non-literal. The questions come along these lines: what does that mean for the idea that
the Bible has final authority? If we refuse to take one part of the Bible literally, why take any parts of it
literally? Aren’t we really allowing science to sit in judgment on our understanding of the Bible rather than
vica versa?
The second difficulty is the confusion of biology and philosophy. Many of the strongest proponents
for evolution as a biological process (such as Dawkins) also see it as a ‘Grand Theory of Everything.’ They
look to natural selection to explain not only all human behavior but even to give the only answers to the
great philosophical questions, such as why we exist, what life is about, and why human nature is what it is.
Doesn’t belief in the one idea—that life is the product of evolution—entail the adoption of this whole ‘world
-view’?
The third difficulty is the historicity of Adam and Eve. One way to reconcile what current science says
about evolution is to propose that the account of Adam and Eve is symbolic, not literal, but what does this
do to the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that our sinfulness comes from our
relationship with Adam? If we don’t believe in an historical fall, how did we become what the Bible says we
are—sinful and condemned?
The fourth difficulty is the problem of violence and evil. One of the greatest barriers to belief in God
is the problem of suffering and evil in the world. Why, people ask, did God create a world in which violence,
pain, and death are endemic? The answer of traditional theology is—he didn’t. He created a good world but
also gave human beings free will, and through their disobedience and ‘Fall’, death and suffering came into
the world. The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very
engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the
idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution.

Relaunch

This blog is relaunching and should have new content soon. In the meantime, you can check out my other blog on the gospel. Or you can check out some of the other great blogs I read on the right.

Thanks for checking me out.

Jason.

A Sermon on the Gospel

I was very blessed and fortunate to be a guest speaker at Richmond Alliance Church this past weekend. The lead pastor, Jon, specifically asked me to preach on the gospel because we had some conversations about my study on it last year and he thought it would be great for the church to hear. I was glad to do it and it gave me the opportunity to review and rethink it further as well as communicate it better. I based my sermon on Paul's definition of the gospel given in Romans 1:1-7. You can listen to it by clicking the link below. Leave a comment if you have any comments, questions, or thoughts. Also be sure to 'share' it below if you like it. Thanks.

http://www.richmondalliancechurch.com/www/media/metaudio/20130728.mp3

A Phd in Children's Lit.

 A Phd in Children's Lit.

Every Who knows that the garden of Nool

Was formed long ago from the cool of the pool.

The story of how, when, and where Whos debate

But most all agree that each Who was made great.

And each Who wants to live in the garden with care

Expecting each Who to take only their share.

But they can't.

So they don't.

They may try.

But they won't.

You can see that all Whos are in really bad shape

For each Who tends to act much more like an ape.

While the more apely Whos may snag your vermouth

You'll surely escape and then you'll vamoose

To a heavenly dust speck for you know the truth:

The gospel according to the Dr. Seuss

 Hope you enjoyed that. I wrote it as the opening of my sermon on the gospel this past weekend. It is an example of how we can try to fit the story of salvation into culture rather than talk about the gospel according to Scripture which is the story of Jesus which brings salvation. Once the sermon is available online I'll post the link in another blog post.

2 Revised Definitions

It's been awhile since I posted, but I was asked to preach a sermon on the gospel and have done some rethinking on how I articulate my definition. This resulted in the revision of my medium and short versions of the gospel. I have written about the gospel being the story of Jesus and yet my definitions have read like bullet points. The rewriting of the medium definition reflects a move into the direction of telling a story. The short version has minor changes, but is more rhythmic and sounds like a proclamation rather than a dictionary. Here they are:

Short definition:

King Jesus is Lord. He saves and will judge.

Medium definition

The Story of Jesus: Israel's King died on a cross to defeat sin, death, and evil. He was raised from the dead to become Lord over everything (According to the Scriptures). He saves and will return to judge.

Here are links to my previous definitions: Short and Medium

Gospel of Kingdom, cross, and grace

Today I'm passing along a post by Trevin Wax who has been collecting gospel definitions:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2013/03/20/gospel-definitions-daniel-montgomery-mike-cosper/

The 5th day of Christmas

I noticed that another blogger had written about Peanuts' classic Christmas episode and how Linus preaching the gospel by reciting Luke 2:8-14 so I thought I would post the "backstory" they linked to. The following is an excerpt from Michael Taube of the Washington Times:

"...as ridiculous as this may sound, some people thought the first animated Peanuts special also would be the last. As Mr. Solomon writes, “‘A Charlie Brown Christmas‘ had been made quickly and on a minuscule budget.” Network executives at CBS thought it was going to be a colossal failure, calling it “flat” and “slow” and “only aired it because it had already been scheduled.” The three artists “feared they had created a flop, ending Charlie Brown’s television career just as it was beginning.” Instead, it turned out to be a massive success, winning Emmy and Peabody awards, and is still earning accolades to this day.
One of the things that set “A Charlie Brown Christmas” apart from other animated specials was when Linus recited the Gospel of St. Luke (2:8-14). Schulz wanted this important biblical passage in the special even though CBS expressed concern. Melendez also was “initially dismayed,” telling the cartoonist, “Sparky, this is religion. It just doesn’t go in a cartoon.” Schulz apparently looked at him “very coldly and said, ‘Bill, if we don’t do it, who will? We can do it.’” Melendez acknowledged Schulz “was right,” and that particular scene is kept intact each year.
The words Peanuts and Christmas are synonymous in today’s popular culture"

Thanks to Mr. Schulz many people still hear what Christ-mas is all about.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/24/book-review-the-art-and-making-of-peanuts-animatio/#ixzz2GQ8Gtdaz

The 4th day of Christmas

Here is the fourth and final Christmas post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 4

The 3rd day of Christmas

Here is the 3rd post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 3

The 2nd day of Christmas

Here is the 2nd Christmas post by Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part 2

The 1st day of Christmas

You may not realize it, but the Christmas season starts today (it has been advent until now) and goes for 12 days. Yes, the 12 days of Christmas is a real thing. It's part of the church year (and I think protestant evangelicals miss out on a lot by not using the church year). To celebrate the season I'll be posting every day with blog links from other writers as well as some thoughts of my own. Happy reading! And Merry Christmas!

The first few posts are from Scot McKnight: The Christmas gospel part one

FF Bruce lists necessary elements of the gospel.

Great post by Mike Bird on FF Bruce's list of when your gospel is or isn't the gospel: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2012/12/when-is-a-gospel-not-a-gospel/

John Meunier ponders the gospel debate

I found a post on the gospel by John Meunier, a part-time pastor.

In it, he cites an interview with Tim Keller on Trevin Wax's blog about the gospel needing to keep the salvation of the individual central. As you can imagine, I couldn't disagree more. This was the comment I left on the blog:

I think the real problem is that real conversation isn’t taking place. McKnight et al are still being misunderstood and lumped into a 'kingdom' or social gospel rather than their actual view of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's story and the promises of God to make a people for himself (which contains individuals necessarily) through which to redeem the whole creation. The individualism of Keller and others at TGC is not the gospel according to scripture. I used to define it that way, but after reading McKnight's book on the subject and rereading the entire New Testament and studying every instance of the noun and verb 'gospel(led)' it is clear who is using the term correctly. It is not as though individuals aren't saved, that justification isn't by by faith, or that the gospel has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, but that is a misdirected and narrow view that is simply not the focus of the gospel as defined by the New Testament.

After reflecting a little more, I'm not sure that McKnight really is misunderstood as much as I outline here, but that his methodology is being ignored. Keller is not using the whole of the Bible to define the gospel and I think that if individual salvation is thought to be central then the passages that are being used are not being understood properly. The gospel is about Jesus, but even if you say the gospel is about salvation it should be stated that it is the salvation of God's people, which includes individuals when they put their faith in Jesus. Even Paul continues to say that God's people is Israel. We are simply grafted in (Rom 9-11).

David Fitch on gospel proclamation

At this rate of discovery I am beginning to think the shift in how we define the gospel is getting to the point of near "consensus" at the scholarly level. Check out this quote by David Fitch:

"...we must understand we are speaking “reality” into people’s lives by the Spirit and we too are being challenged and changed in the process. This dynamic of proclamation I believe has been lost because a.) our preaching has become limited to a teaching exercise, and b.) we have limited the gospel so narrowly we have lost many if not all the entry points with our culture. I hope to address some of these issues in forthcoming posts."

You can read more here: http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/proclaiming-the-gospel-in-the-neighborhood/

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Derek Vreeland - The Gospel vs the plan of salvation

I came across yet another group C adherent this week in Derek Vreeland on his blog here. It is essentially another summary of Scot McKnight's book, but has a helpful chart outlining the differences between the gospel and what some call the gospel, but is actually the plan of salvation.

	The Gospel	The Plan of Salvation
1.	Exemplified in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5	Exemplified in the “Four Spiritual Laws”
2.	True to the teachings of the Apostles	True, but not the gospel
3.	A story framed around Jesus	Principles framed out individual human beings
4.	Highlights the Person who is the good news	Highlights our benefits
5.	Focuses on how God made Jesus alive again	Focuses on how we are made right with God
6.	Produces disciples	Produces decisions
7.	Depends on declaration/creativity	Depends on persuasion/rhetoric
8.	Creates a gospel culture	Creates a salvation culture

Gal 3:6-9 - Abraham heard the gospel

This post has been a long time coming. but I did get other posts up including my short, medium, and long definitions of the gospel. I'm sure these definitions will be altered by the time this blog covers the use of the 'gospel' noun and verb in the New Testament, but they will work for now. I've decided to leave some assessments of the texts I look at open for additions from you. This text is a good example.

I've skipped over a large section of Galatians since the last time we delved in because there is no use of the 'gospel' verb or noun and the main concept of that section was covered in the post, "Galatians and gospel logic."

There are plenty of passages that directly speak about how the gospel was promised beforehand and this is one of them. Here's the interesting part: It has to do with being descendents of Abraham and fulfilling that promise of God to make a people for himself. Here's the text, Gal 3:6-9 (NRSV):

6 Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’,⁷so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham.⁸And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’⁹For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

 The verb, 'gospelled before' is in verse 8 and is the single occurrence of the modified 'gospelled' verb (essentially adding a prefix making it past-tense).  It refers to the gospel having been told to Abraham. The gospel that was declared was that all nations would be blessed in him. All who believe (Jews and Gentiles alike) are descendents of Abraham and therefore blessed with him. It seems to me that the text is saying that when we have faith in the gospel we are blessed because we are brought into Abraham's family.

As this is the 2nd last occurrence of the word in Galatians, I should also touch on how its seems that Paul is saying the 'promise' or 'blessing' or 'inheritance'  is the Holy Spirit himself (3:14) who we live by leading to eternal life (6:8-9). Paul again reiterates, after his long explanation about how it is only through faith in Jesus and what he has done, that we are Abraham's descendents (3:29).

Why do you think this is such an important point for Paul?
How does it change how we view the gospel?
Do you think I need to integrate this more into my definitions? How?

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Mark Stevens discusses 3 gospel groups

Another adherent of 'group C', as I've called it, appears to be Mark Stevens. He is part way through a series on some books written about the gospel or which include it as a central theme. Interestingly, he categorizes group A as "soterian" group B as "Social Justice" and group C as "Historical/Contextual". I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of each 'group' and disapprove of using Scott McKnight's 'soterian' title as well as group C's title, which sets them out as the clear logical choice before full consideration.

Here are the posts:

Introduction
"Soterian"
"Social Justice"
"Historical/Contextual"
Conclusion (coming later this week)

What do you think?

Leave a comment. Share the post. Thanks for reading.

Using the term 'gospel' to denote the right things.

I noticed that someone tweeted this quote from N. T. Wright on our modern use of the word 'gospel'. It is one of the phrases that haunted me all year while reworking the biblical definition in my mind through study, prayer, and reflection. I also used it to stir up discussion in the 'Prison and Pastoral epistles' class I co-taught in the spring.

Another question I asked often was whether or not Paul would have been imprisoned or killed by Rome for preaching the gospel without using 'Lord' or 'Christ' (King) and whether it mattered that some don't even include those titles let alone their implications. I also pushed further asking whether Jesus would have been killed either. The charges, trial, verdict, sentence, and sign above his head on the cross by Rome are pretty explicit.