New Interpreters Dictionary on sale

CBD is running a sale on the NIBD for only $99.00. Page 24, here, at the top of the page. Or, you could just go to the web page and order it that way.

All does mean ALL

The biblical evidence that Christ’s work is for all people, that the Lord wants all to repent, and that every person can be saved intertwine with the divine enabling passages to show the traditional Arminian position of Jesus’ salvation: Jesus died for all and all can be saved.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 57

Prayer? or noise?

[R]eciting a text is not the same thing as praying that text, let alone praying the text as Jesus intended it to be prayed. If we do not understand what the text means, if we have no comprehension of what it is we are saying and what it is we are praying for when we utter its words, we are simply making noise. A reverent noise, no doubt; even a beautiful one. But still, just a noise.—The Disciples’ Prayer, page 28

<idle musing>
Definitely! I've been reading quite a few books lately that make a big deal about community formation via liturgy. I wonder...how much is just recitation—noise. "A reverent noise, no doubt; even a beautiful one. But still, just a noise."

Think about that the next time somebody talks about community formation via reciting a liturgy. I'm not picking on high church here; in fact that wasn't even on my mind. The argument has been used for community formation in the ancient world. But I guess it could be transported to the modern church, I just wasn't thinking about that.
</idle musing>

Communication

It is important to stress that the relation between S[peaker]-intention and A[ddressee]-interpretation is mediated, not established through the linguistics expression. From the point of view of A this means that the interpretation will only in part be based on the information which is contained in the linguistic expression as such. Equally important is the information which A already has, and in terms of which he interprets the linguistic information. From the point of view of S it means that the linguistic expression need not be a full verbalization of his intention. Given the information which S has about the information that A has at the moment of speaking, a partial verbalization will normally be sufficient. Often a roundabout verbalization may even be more effective than a direct expression of the intention.— The Theory of Functional Grammar Part 1, The Structure of the Clause, page 9

<idle musing>
And this is exactly the reason why communication is so difficult. What happens when the Speaker misjudges the amount of information that the Addressee has? Yep, miscommunication. And it happens all the time.

Now, let's complicate things even more. Suppose what we have is only half the conversation. Suppose you come across a letter from your grandfather to your grandmother in a trunk. How much of what's going on can you follow? I suspect quite a bit—assuming you knew them both.

OK, let's complicate it even more. Suppose the letter was written in Swedish (my grandfather was Swedish). How much will you understand? Even if you do learn Swedish, it will likely be a more archaic version that they are using. Word meanings change over time.

OK, it gets even better. Suppose that we have a letter, written in an ancient language called Greek, written to a group of people living in an ancient city called Corinth...what are the chances that we are going to understand what's going on?

And you wonder why we disagree? You wonder why there are so many commentaries and translations? It's a marvel we agree on anything!

Just an
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Rather remain lowly than be honored by government officials or successful businessmen.

The only true and genuine work is hidden; it is a mystery. We must work with much effort and sweat, even when no one understands what we are doing. People only value outward success, which is deadly. They want to do everything according to their own ideas. Rather than fighting for the coming of God’s reign, they try to attack and overcome the world, all in the name of Christ. This is nothing but spiritual arrogance.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, page 17

Thomas Aquinas still matters?!

Indeed! This post follows up on one from last week about the collapsing of virtue into passion. Good thoughts; be sure to read the whole post for more context.

Turning now to the modern world, we can see that the concept of love which is extolled as a virtue is in reality almost exclusively that of love as passion. Every time soap operas and sitcoms present love as constituted by physical sex (do they ever do anything else?), love as virtue is reduced to love as passion. Every time daytime talk show hosts make some declaration about morality based upon what they feel in their heart, then passion, not virtue, becomes the criterion of what is good and true. And every time an academic denies that there is an objective telos to human nature, passion masquerades as virtue and ethics is turned into aesthetics.

Perhaps this is the real issue in current debates about marriage. Robert George has pointed out that no fault divorce was the real watershed in the recent legal history of the institution. That changed marriage from a relationship of lifelong commitment to that of a temporary, dispensable, sentimental bond. Yet if we look at this through the lens of Thomas's distinctions, we can see that no fault divorce presupposes a prior definition of love as primarily passion, not virtue. Thus, it is arguably not the redefinition of marriage but the redefinition of love which is the real problem underlying society’s current moral malaise. And that redefinition has much wider and more sinister implications. Indeed, as Thomas’s taxonomy helps us to see, it strikes at the very heart of what we consider virtue to be.

<idle musing>
As I said, Indeed! And that's why the Evangelical church will lose this fight. Until Christian marriages become commitments for life instead of commitments of feel-good, there isn't a leg to stand on. Of course, with my Anabaptist leanings, I wonder about the wisdom of the fight in the first place—but that's another story for another time.
</idle musing>

The Lord's Prayer

Jeffrey Gibson was kind enough to send me a prepublication version of his forthcoming book on the Lord's Prayer. For the next few weeks or so, I'll be excerpting from it. Let's start with his translation of the prayer, which he calls (correctly, I think) the Disciples' Prayer. Jeffrey explains his translation over the course of the book.

I render these words, for reasons that will become apparent as we go along, as follows:

Our Father, the one in the heavens,
ensure that we “hallow” your name,
ensure that your reign “comes”
ensure that your will is done on earth just as it is done in heaven;
do indeed give us today our “daily” bread
and forgive us our sins
in the same manner in which we have forgiven
our enemies
and keep us from subjecting you to “testing”
but rescue us from doing evil.—The Disciples’ Prayer, page 28

<idle musing>
I have to admit that I was extremely skeptical of some of this when I started the book. But, 150 pages later (it's a short book), I began to agree with him.

I invite you to follow along and see if he convinces you...
</idle musing>

It's not a plan

There’s probably a part of you that wants a guarantee—you want to know that the risk of sharing your secrets will be worth it. You want to know how this journey will look, step-by-step, and how it will end. Well, God doesn’t usually work that way. As I’ve said from the beginning, this isn’t a ten-step program. Ultimately you must lean on God. And while He doesn’t often point out the exact route on a map, He does something better. He walks with you and promises never to leave your side.—What’s Your Secret? page 196

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt from the book. I hope you learned from it and were challenged...
</idle musing>

Conflicting claims

The Prince of this World is the dominant force behind all government. And this is more distressing when governments claim to be on a Christian basis. Jesus and his Spirit cannot rule because our human schemes maintain absolute control.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, page 14

<idle musing>
Ain't it the truth! As Ken Schenk put it this morning:

As for Christians, the New Testament has done away with the category of clean and unclean, at least in the public sphere. We are strangers and aliens in that land anyway. We need to stop thinking of America as sacred space we need to keep from being defiled.

To which I give a hearty Amen! And then, some advice from Thomas Kidd at the Anxious Bench:

-Stop sending the message that we are lapdogs for any political party, Republican or otherwise. Russell Moore’s recent emphases on our status as a moral minority, not beholden to any temporal political movement, strike a welcome tone on this subject.

-Adhere to the best of the historic and contemporary Christian intellectual tradition, and stop chasing after celebrities and faddish pop Christian writers. We have many able evangelical defenders of the faith, but the politicians and writers who get the most coverage on talk radio and Fox News are often not among them.

-Put our money and service where our mouth is in terms of missions and service. We cannot account for how the world construes what evangelicals do. But as much as we can, we should seek to be known by heroes such as Kent Brantly and Stephen Foster, people who give up their lives to take up their cross. In so doing they find their true life, whether or not anyone applauds them.

Thought for a snowy Tuesday

“Go in through the narrow gate. The gate that leads to destruction is broad and the road wide, so many people enter through it. But the gate that leads to life is narrow and the road difficult, so few people find it. (Matthew 7:13-14 CEB)

Not universalism...not particularism

The principle of universal opportunity is far from universalism, as God still allows His gracious work to be rejected by nonbelievers, His call described in these passages does not ensure a positive response. Grace does not necessitate repentance, either in a universalist direction (excessively broad) or in an irresistible grace direction (excessively narrow). Instead, God grants an unregenerate individual the spiritual capacity to respond, as 2 Corinthians 3:5 states, “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but out adequacy is from God.”— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 54

Heart holiness

There is something about being heart focused that frees us, and that’s why Jesus continually addresses the heart. He lambasted the Pharisees for neglecting the heart, pointed the rich ruler toward an issue of the heart, and praised the widow for her fully devoted heart (Matt. 23; Luke 18; Mark 12). When we’re convicted of greed, it’s not about money; when we lust, it’s not about sex; and when we get angry, it’s not about revenge— it’s all about what happens in the secret places of our hearts.—What’s Your Secret? pages 192–93

<idle musing>
And that is why I always precede the word "holiness" with "heart." We need heart holiness. Anything less is legalism, which is a dead end, as we all know (if we're willing to admit it—even to ourselves).
</idle musing>

Greek word order—again

Most adjectives and other modifiers of the noun, however, convey no such semantic difference between attributive and predicative position. In general, modifiers can be freely placed before or after their head in both definite and indefinite NPs [noun phrases]. This begs the question of whether there may be any explanation for prenominal and postnominal position. For Classical Greek there is evidence that it is information structure that determines modifier position after all. (Dik 1997; Viti 2008a [StudLang 32:894–915], 2008b [Glotta 84:203–38]; Bakker 2009 [The Noun Phrase in in Ancient Greek]). More precisely, it has been claimed that the modifier is prenominal when it is the most salient element of the NP.—Giovanni, “Word Order” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, page 538

<idle musing>
Interesting, isn't it? You did follow all that, didn't you? : )

Now, let's take a look at James 1:5 again:

αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ.

ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. (NRSV)

So, according to Giovanni, the most salient (relevant) part of the noun phrase "God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly" is that he is "giving." The fact that he does so "generously and ungrudgingly" tells us how he gives, but James didn't consider that as important as the fact that our God is a "giving" God.

Isn't linguistics fun? : )
</idle musing>

Nothing

We can accomplish nothing for God’s kingdom on the basis of human strength. All we can say is that “we are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty” (Luke 17:10). Jesus empowers the workers in his vineyard to overcome the world. It is not we who do it, but the Spirit, who acts in and through us and before whom all other spirits must bow. This is what you will experience when hearts turn to you. See to it, then, that God alone works. God is like the sun that sends its rays everywhere, even into the grimiest places.—Christoph Blumhardt in The Hidden Christ, pages 11–12

God is dead

And it’s actually true – God is dead! Of course he isn’t really dead, but in the lives of people he is dead. Nobody gets very excited if you say “God”; that is one of the most boring things in the world. When a rabbit jumps up in a field, everybody calls out, “A rabbit!” and shows a certain interest. But for most people God is irrelevant. He is dead.

There is another way God is dead: our civilization simply doesn’t need God anymore. What good is God when you are on the train? The man at the controls, it is his job to get me to Stuttgart. The conductor can groan, the fireman can break his back, the engineer can worry, but isn’t it all the same to me? I just sit there on the train. That is why we can be so crude and ruthless about enjoying everything these modern times offer us; we do not need God. Science and technology do not need God. They are succeeding quite well without him! Hence the words, “They will look on him whom they have pierced” – killed, that is. God is dead, murdered. Nietzsche experienced more truth in his wrought-up nerves than all the boring Christians, who don’t have a serious thought left for God! God is of no real importance, even for people with religion, because religion has become more important than God. Though people get into tremendous arguments about religious questions, all the time God is dead. And it is perfectly all right with them if he is dead, because then they can do what they like. That is another trait of our times, people want to be able to do whatever pops into their heads or feels good at the moment....

Shame on us Christians who are always wanting to have it nice and soft, with a bit of God in our lives! We’ve got to fight until we’re dead, or we aren’t worth Christ’s name. God calls out to us, “Share in my business!” and we are fooling ourselves unless we do this.—Christoph Blumhardt in Action in Waiting

<idle musing>
I just discovered this guy from the 1800s, Christoph Blumhardt, thanks to Roger Olson's post from today. What I've read so far is great. You'll probably be seeing more excerpts from his books over the next weeks.

If you're interested in learning more, check out this link for free articles and e-books. I see that Wipf & Stock has some good stuff too; follow this link. They've even started a Blumhardt Series, although it doesn't seem to be producing a lot of books.
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Lord, the depths of a person’s conscience lie exposed before your eyes. Could I hide anything from you, even if I did not want to confess it to you? If I tried I would only be hiding you from myself, not myself from you. Whoever I am, Lord, I lie exposed to your scrutiny.—Augustine

<idle musing>
Augustine at his best. I think I'm hiding from God, but really I'm just hiding God from myself. Food for thought, isn't it?
</idle musing>

It's a privilege to pray

"Seppli, Seppli!" he [Father Clemens] said kindly, as he pressed his hand, "what have I heard ? Are you not willing to follow Stanzeli when she wishes to go into the chapel? I wish to tell you something: our Heavenly Father does not command us to go into the church and pray; but He gives us the privilege of doing so, and every time we pray He sends us something, only we cannot always see it immediately."—Johanna Spyri, Red-Letter Stories, page 17

Word order in Greek

Within the framework of Functional Grammar, she [Helma Dik, Word Order in Ancient Greek, 1995; Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue, 2007] argues that the order of content words (i.e., Dover’s mobiles) in Classical Greek clauses can be accounted for by the following pattern:

(8) (Setting) — Topic — Focus — Verb — Remainder

According to (8) Classical Greek word order is pragmatically determined and fixed. The Setting slot refers to optional adverbials at the beginning of the clause (Dik 2007:36–37). Next follows the core of the clause: the first position is occupied by topic and the second position by focus; the verb is in the third position, unless it is itself topic or focus, and is followed by pragmatically unmarked constituents in an unspecified order.—Giovanni, “Word Order” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, page 535

<idle musing>
Good stuff. I'm working my way through Simon Dik's The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1 right now. Wonderful! Maybe I should have done some linguistics in grad school—as if I didn't have enough to do : )

And, yes, I'm strange; why else would I label a post like this as "Just for fun"!
</idle musing>

God started it

Arminians affirm that it was necessary for God to initiate salvation because man was spiritually depraved by his Adamic inheritance.— Prevenient Grace: God’s Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 40

"To" or "from"?

Satan wants us to believe that God will reject us if we run to Him, convincing us that we had better run away from Him. Satan blinds us to God’s compassion and mercy and skews our perception of God. Convinced that God is mad at us, we buy into the lie that He will destroy us instead of the truth that God welcomes us in any state. Satan also knows that the best way to keep you from running to God is to keep you away from others, living in isolation.—What’s Your Secret? page 172

<idle musing>
Yep. Run from God and hide—by yourself. Away from the prying eyes of God and others—at least that is how we see it. But really, what are doing is running away from the compassionate love and care of God and the tender love of others...but we don't see it that way.
</idle musing>