Adversaria Videos and Podcasts
Scripture, Theology, Liturgy, and Culture
On this week’s Mere Fidelity, Derek and I are joined by Dr Jeremy Treat to discuss his new book, Seek First: How the Kingdom of God Changes Everything.
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
If you would like to support the production of the podcast, you can do so over on Patreon.
What is your take on small groups? Is it a fad? Does it come from mega-church culture? How important is it to be a part of a small group if organic friendships and involvement are already part of one’s church experience? Is it healthy for churches to pressure members into joining a small group?
I have just read your very intelligent contribution to the series of articles at Theopolis on the relation of Israel to the Church. I would describe myself as supersessionist, but in the sense that Israel and the Church are one, because the Church, rather than a newly created covenant people in parallel with ethnic Israel, is the crucified and resurrected people of the covenant established in the calling of Abraham, which has been brought to a greater level of glory and maturity in Christ. In this way of thinking, the only supersession, or replacement, which has taken place, is the substitution of believing Gentiles for unbelieving Jews in the olive tree of Israel.
I nevertheless believe that Romans 8-11 speaks of a national conversion of the Jewish people at the end of this age. It is also quite apparent that in spite of their rejection of Christ, Paul believes that they are loved of God and retain their uniqueness as the appointed messengers of his salvation for the sake of the nations.
But insofar as they have rejected Christ, who is the yes of the Father unto all the promises made unto Israel, how are we to understand Paul’s assertion about the “gifts and callings of God” to them being “irrevocable”? It is difficult, for example, to comprehend how their “callings”, if we are to understand that as a reference to their priestly vocation as a light to the nations, is capable of being realized so long as they reject Christ.
Any light you can shed for me on this mystery would be greatly appreciated.
On this week’s Mere Fidelity, Derek and I are joined by my friend Dr Gerald McDermott to discuss his work on the future of Israel. You can read some of Dr McDermott’s work on the subject in his book Israel Matters and The New Christian Zionism, which he edited. You can listen to his podcast, Via Media, here.
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
If you would like to support the production of the podcast, you can do so over on Patreon.
I am the reader on the Audible version of the first volume of the Davenant Institute’s modernization of Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
You can purchase a copy here.
This edited transcription of this episode is provided by John Barach. If you would be interested in his services, he is a superb theological copy editor. His command of English grammar and his meticulous attention to detail, coupled with his theological acumen and knowledge, make him the perfect person to go to for such work (if you use the contact form linked on the header bar, I can forward any interested parties to him).
Transcriptions like the following are made possible by my supporters. If you would like to help to make this possible, please consider supporting or donating using my Patreon or PayPal accounts. New sponsorship and donations are being earmarked for this specific purpose.
If you would like to volunteer to transcribe some videos yourself, please contact me using the page above. You can see a complete list of my videos and transcripts here.
Continue reading “Transcript for The Parable of the Good Samaritan”
Onsi Kamel recently wrote an article for First Things, ‘Catholicism Made Me Protestant’. He discusses it with me in this episode.
A brother challenged me after reading my book, where I talk about how sacred space and time are transformed through the Lord Jesus from being temple- and sabbath-oriented, to being person- and whole-life-oriented. He suggested that I am inconsistent to simultaneously hold that attending church is worship per se, and that we enter the heavenly court during this time (a view I briefly argue for here).
He linked me to the work of a brother of yours, Tony Payne of the Sidney Anglicans, who argues for a view in which attending church is not any more worship than any other part of life, but merely an embodiment and acting-out of the communion we have at all times in the Lord Jesus—a view he dubs the “gathered in heaven” model of church.
I’m sympathetic to Tony’s view, but I equally find it hard to abandon the idea that meeting on the Lord’s Day is especially worship in some sense (perhaps something like ritual worship as opposed to mundane worship). Similarly, although I agree that we are, at all times, in the presence of God through his Spirit, there does nonetheless seem something significant about the symbolic representation of drawing near to his throne, which actually does draw heaven and earth together in a way that isn’t true during the ordinary course of life. One possible avenue of relieving this tension that has occurred to me is in the threefold intensification of sacred space in the temple itself; can we perhaps correlate the “mundane” worship of Rom. 12:1 to service in the courtyard, while the “ritual” worship I see hinted at in Acts 13:2; 1 Cor. 14:25 is service in the Holy Place, with Jesus’ everlasting service being in the Holy of Holies?
I have been having some struggles with the doctrine of sola scriptura & private interpretation. The issue I’m running into is whether the Bible alone is actually sufficient to come to answers on primary (or what I view as primary) doctrines.
For instance, for several years I have been unable to come to any conclusive answer about what communion “is” (real presence, symbolic etc.). One can try to exegete as best as possible, use early church writings etc, but at the end of the day, it seems that it boils down to one’s best guess of what Jesus meant by “This is my body.” Luther, Calvin, Zwingli all had their own best guesses that differed from each other. Given that communion is a command of Jesus, the variety of viable opinions in Protestantism on how to practice/think about communion makes me feel that I will never be able to achieve any sense of certainty that I am even obeying Jesus’ command correctly or interpreting him correctly.
This same issue has been popping up for other doctrines, such as whether sacraments impart grace or not, is remarriage adultery etc.
At this point in my questioning, it is seeming to me that Protestantism, in framing Christianity by the Solas, is necessarily forced to subjectivize/be non-conclusive about matters that Protestants say are of secondary importance (communion, divorce etc) but may actually be of first importance.
This perceived “insufficiency” of fairly unanimously defining more crucial doctrines by Scripture alone is leaning me towards a Catholic position. On a practical level, I’m feeling that if I were to remain a Protestant, I would be piecing my religion together with no reasonable sense of assurance that I’m in the right ballpark, rather than accepting something revealed (ie. Catholicism) wholesale.
Continue reading “Sola Scriptura, Roman Catholicism, and the Quest for Certainty”
Adversaria Videos and Podcasts 