Note: this sermon was originally preached at Grace Church Elizabethtown (PCA) in Elizabethtown, KY on March 8, 2020. It does not reflect most recent data on the spread of COVID-19.
I suspect that most if not all of us have likely heard about the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus. If you go to the main page of any news website, you will likely see an article or two on the novel Coronavirus. Last Friday, governor Andy Beshear called for a state of emergency after Kentucky’s first case of novel Coronavirus was confirmed in Lexington.
According to the Center for Disease Control, over 90 countries have confirmed cases of the virus, and over 30 U.S. states have at least one confirmed case of this virus.
In the majority of cases this virus has minor effects, but in some cases it causes severe illness and even death. The fatality rate can be hard to estimate because there are so many variables that need to be controlled for, but the received consensus is that the actual case fatality rate is somewhere between 0.5% and 2%, though this percentage is higher for the elderly and those with previous severe medical conditions. Continue reading “Sermon: Hope from the Stump of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1–10)”
In a previous post, I explained how I came to change my mind on infant baptism. That post was semi-autobiographical, attempting not so much to persuade others as to indicate some of my own thought-processes. I originally intended it just for friends and family members who may have heard that I became Presbyterian and wondered what that was all about. Unforeseen to me, it ended up having a much wider audience than I had originally envisioned. To date it is my most read blog post. No other posts even come close.
In it, I promised a future post in which I would “more directly explain my views on infant baptism, address some related issues, and share a fuller, annotated bibliography of resources I found helpful.” This is that post. Again, this is not my Treatise on Infant Baptism. I am not going to say everything that can be said. I wouldn’t even say that I am writing this with the primary intent of persuading others or making a full-fledged case. My goals are more modest. This will primarily be informative, aimed at helping interested readers understand how I view infant baptism, what I think it does, and what further resources may be consulted on this matter. Continue reading “On Baptizing Babies”
When Greg first asked me to preach, he did not assign me a text. We can only hope that he has learned his lesson. The sermon text for today is Exodus ch. 21–ch. 40. Don’t worry, I’m not going to read it out loud. This will definitely be more of an overview or big-picture kind of sermon.
I hope to sketch out six major movements that take place in these last chapters of Exodus. These movements or divisions form a plot that eventually comes to revolve around this central question: will the Lord dwell with his sinful people or not? Continue reading “Sermon: The Story of Sinai (Exodus 20–40)”
We are almost at the end of Pastor Greg’s 40 days of absence. When he returns he will be preaching through a few psalms, or so I have been told. So as I was thinking on what I would preach on for the last Sunday before he gets back, I thought that it might be beneficial to preach a sermon on the Lord’s Prayer. There are a few reasons for that. For one, it will introduce the subject of prayer as a topic before he preaches through a few psalms.
Another reason I thought it may be good to preach on this is that we pray the Lord’s Prayer, together, as a congregation every week. And that’s not accidental. That’s not just because we’re lazy or couldn’t think of anything else to put in there. No, that’s on purpose. So I thought it may be good to unpack the Lord’s Prayer a bit so that when we pray it together we can know a bit more of its meaning and significance.
More personally, I think I needed to preach a sermon on prayer. In fact, if Greg wasn’t preaching through some psalms when he gets back, I probably wouldn’t have chosen to preach a sermon on a passage of Scripture dealing with prayer. Prayer is just something that I would not say is my great strength. We’re all different as persons, and we all have different God-given strengths and gifts, and some of us are more spiritually mature than others, so I’m not sure how many of you will sympathize with this—but for me at least, I have often sensed the difficulty of prayer. Continue reading “Sermon: The Lord’s Prayer (7/28/19)”
During seminary I became convinced of infant baptism. This might come as a surprise to some folks, since I have been somewhat discreet on social media about this development. This is mainly because I was still a student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an active member at a Baptist church as I wrestled with this issue, and I did not want to appear divisive. But as of last October my wife and I joined a Presbyterian church here in Louisville, last December I graduated from Southern, and this May I came under care of the Ohio River Valley Presbytery in the PCA and began a one-year pastoral internship. So it now seems appropriate to write about this topic.
This post is a semi-autobiographical account of how I came to change my mind on this issue. Initially, the need for a post like this was impressed on me after a couple different people I know, upon hearing that Ivy and I have become Presbyterian, wondered if we had gone liberal. This is understandable, since the PCUSA is the largest Presbyterian denomination in America. But the notion that I have drifted leftward is mistaken. After graduating seminary, I am even more, not less, convinced of issues like the inerrancy of Scripture, male-only eldership, and the sinfulness of homosexuality. I am currently a candidate for ministry in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which is a theologically and morally conservative Presbyterian denomination. Nothing on that front has changed.
More generally though, I wanted to write this post so that family and friends can have a better idea of what exactly has changed in my views and how that change came about. Continue reading “On Becoming Presbyterian”
George Whitefield is a well-known figure who has been assessed from a number of different vantage points. Recent scholarship assesses the supposed impact he had upon commerce, the development of the “religious celebrity” persona, and in fostering conditions that would lead to the American Revolution. Thomas Kidd comes at Whitefield from another angle in his George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father: while not discounting the arguments of other approaches wholesale, he thinks that these “do not really focus on Whitefield’s primary significance or the way he viewed himself.” Kidd argues that “George Whitefield was the key figure in the first generation of Anglo-American evangelical Christianity,” and his biography seeks to place him “fully in the dynamic, fractious milieu of the early evangelical movement.” Eschewing both naive hagiography and cynical contempt, Kidd presents a balanced view of Whitefield both in his strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures. Continue reading “George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father”
Few theological questions today gender such impassioned debate as the question, “For whom did Christ die?” Just about every Christian has a view on this issue, and likely holds to it quite strongly. The question itself can be understood in different ways. On the broad scale, the question can be read against the backdrop of universalist readings of the atonement versus more exclusivist readings of the atonement. The universalist understanding posits that Christ’s death is universal in application: the sins of all men are already forgiven through the cross. All that is left is for unbelievers to simply recognize that they are already forgiven and justified. The exclusivist understanding, typical among evangelicals, holds that Christ’s death is limited in application: it is applied only to believers.
More narrowly, within evangelicalism a different sort of debate with regard to the extent of the atonement occurs. This debate takes the shape of general atonement versus limited atonement, and it runs down a dividing line between Calvinist and Arminian views of soteriology. While both sides agree that the atonement is limited in its application to believers, they disagree on whether God effectually intends to save the elect alone through Christ’s atonement. Arminians deny this, while Calvinists affirm it. This debate has spawned a number of books, both scholarly and not-so-scholarly, and is a source of no small contention for the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the U.S., which allows for both Arminian and Calvinist viewpoints in their membership. Continue reading “The Extent of the Atonement and the Extent of Reformed Orthodoxy”
This is a paper I wrote for my doctrine class during my junior year in college.
The dereliction presents us with an unthinkable scenario: the eternally beloved Son of God cries out to his Father, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” How ought this astonishing reality be understood? Has the divine nature suffered? Or might it be said that the person of the Logos himself did not suffer, but only the human nature which is associated with him? Did the Father—however briefly it may have been—turn his back on his eternally beloved Son and switch to hating him? As inconceivable as it may seem, in the dereliction the eternal Logos is experiencing, through his human nature and as a representative substitute, a sense of the withdrawal of the divine love and delight, and a sense of the divine judgment—and this so that the judgment and wrath hanging over sinful man would be taken away forever. First I will place the dereliction within the broader story of Scripture in order to cast light on its meaning and significance, then I will deal with some mistaken views of the dereliction. Continue reading “The Dereliction of the Son”
James’ epistle is often viewed as a somewhat haphazard collection of fragmented thoughts, with no apparent structure or order. He moves from one topic to another, and we know not why.
Admittedly, James does not write in the form of an argumentative discourse. His letter is more like a collection of wisdom sayings. It even more closely resembles a series of teachings like one encounters in the Sermon on the Mount (which James draws from pervasively). But this does not mean that the book has no structure. James is a chiasm. At least, I think so.
Continue reading “The Chiastic Structure of James”