Theology

What Does “No More Sea” in Revelation 21:1 Mean?

August 25, 2007 by Phil Gons

Revelation 21:1 reads,

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Does this text teach that the new earth will not have large bodies of water (θαλάσσας)—no more lakes, seas, or oceans? Most think so.

The “sea” . . . must disappear before the eternity of joy can begin.1

The first hint of what the new heaven and new earth will be like comes in John’s observation that there will no longer be any sea. That will be a startling change from the present earth, nearly three-fourths of which is covered by water.2

Why would this be? Most argue that the sea symbolizes evil (or death or disorder), and thus the eradication of evil necessitates the removal of the sea.

[Read more…]

Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 743. [↩]
John MacArthur, Revelation 12–22 (Chicago: Moody, 2000), 263. [↩]

Economic Trinitarian Relations

August 22, 2007 by Phil Gons

Pastor Timothy Mills recently submitted a review of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology to our PastorBookshelf Reviews website. His comments were generally positive, but not as positive as I would have hoped for such a fine introduction to biblical doctrine.

One area where he disagreed with Grudem was in his handling of the Trinity.

His choice, however, of the model of the Trinity as a hierarchy setting the pattern for the marriage relationship (454) is problematic. The Trinity is a tri-unity, while a marriage is merely dual-mutual. Yes, the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church (Eph. 5:23), but that is a relationship between the husband and wife, as between Christ and the church; but not as between the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. No where does the New Testament make that comparison.

I suggested to Pastor Mills that that is precisely the connection Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:3: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Just as a husband is the head of his wife, so the Father is the head of the Son.

Update on the Pronunciation of “Propitiation”

August 21, 2007 by Phil Gons

I recently wrote about the various pronunciations of “propitiation” that are in use by pastors, theologians, and scholars, making particular reference to D. A. Carson’s peculiar pronunciation: prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn.

According to the poll, the majority of the readers of this blog follow the pronunciation that I use: prō-pĭsh-ē-ā-shŭn. A couple prefer prō-pĭt–chē-ā-shŭn or prō-pĭch-ē-ā-shŭn. But no one—at least from my limited readership—follows Carson’s prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn.

“Faith Reviving” | Augustus Toplady

August 12, 2007 by Phil Gons

I recently enjoyed reflecting on this encouraging hymn text with solid theology penned by Augustus Toplady (ERF | ODCC):

Augustus Toplady From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on thee?

Complete atonement thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place
If sheltered in thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with thy blood?

Bahnsen on the Extent of the Atonement

August 10, 2007 by Phil Gons

I recently stumbled across a brief defense of limited atonement written by Greg Bahnsen (Wikipedia | Theopedia) in 1972 (at the age of 23 or 24). His fervency reminded me of Owen’s in Death of Death in the Death of Christ (WTSBooks) and Packer’s in his introductory essay in the same (which is also the eighth chapter in his A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life).

More Bahnsen Debates

August 9, 2007 by Phil Gons

Note: The site hosting the MP3 files below no longer has them up, but Archive.org has them cached. I’ve updated the links. Make sure to right-click and select “Save link as” to download them.

I recently stumbled across and listened to two other free Bahnsen (Wikipedia | Theopedia) debates:

Greg Bahnsen vs. Edward Tabash: Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3
Greg Bahnsen vs. George Smith: Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 | Pt 4 | Pt 5 | Pt 6 | Pt 7 | Pt 8 | Pt 9 | Pt 10 | Pt 11 | Pt 12

They aren’t quite as good as the debate against Gordon Stein (Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 | transcript), but they are still worth listening to.

[Read more…] about More Bahnsen Debates

The Proper Pronunciation of “Propitiation”

August 6, 2007 by Phil Gons

While traveling to OH for my sister’s wedding last weekend, I had the opportunity to listen to D. A. Carson’s (Wikipedia | Theopedia)1 three-part series on the New Perspective on Paul (Theopedia): “The So-Called New Perspective on Paul Critiqued” (Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 also here: Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3).2 He delivered it at Reformed Theological Seminary in 2005. It’s a helpful overview and introduction to the issues.3 If you don’t have a good grasp on the New Perspective, this is a good place to start.

But the New Perspective is not the subject of this post. During the course of the third lecture, Dr. Carson repeatedly referred to propitiation (Theopedia) when working through Romans 3. What struck me as odd was his pronunciation of the term. He consistently said prō-pĭs-ē-ā-shŭn (e.g., 48:54). Perhaps as intriguing was that he pronounced the verb form, “propitiate,” (correctly, in my view) as prō-pĭsh-ē-āte rather than the expected prō-pĭs-ē-āte.

See also Andreas Kostenberger’s ten-page biography of Carson. [↩]
See Andy Naselli’s nice collection of Carson audio. [↩]
See Adrian Warnock’s summary. [↩]

Wright, Scripture, and Jesus

June 3, 2007 by Phil Gons

I recently read a response from N. T. Wright (Wikipedia) to an individual with concerns about Wright’s views on a variety of subjects. Toward the beginning of Wright’s response appears this statement, which piques my curiosity and strikes me as odd:

I believe firmly and passionately in scripture, and even more firmly and passionately in Jesus himself.