Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 14 (2009)

DBSJ-09.gif

Volume 14 of the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal was released earlier in October. This issue has six articles and a book review. Here is a list of the articles and book review.

“Tongues–Are They for Today” by Mark A. Snoeberger

“‘His Flesh for Our Flesh': The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Second Century” by John Aloisi

“Once More: Quirinius’s Census” by Jared M. Compton

“‘As a Brother': 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Ecclesiastical Separation” by Charles J. Baumgardner

New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ: A Review Article by Andrew David Naselli

Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth: A Review Article by Matthew A. Postiff

Graham A. Cole’s He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, reviewed by Mark A. Snoeberger

Subscription rates for the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal are $10 for two years and $19 for four years. You have two options to subscribe.

1. Pay for a subscription online

2. Send payment to: Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 4801 Allen Road, Allen Park, MI 48101

If you have any questions about subscribing to the journal, click here to go to the seminary’s website for further instructions.

Technorati Tags:

The Believer and Separation

BibleStudy.gif

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary‘s 2009 Mid-American Conference on Preaching went well. The title of this year’s conference was Gospel-Driven Separation. If you would like to read and/or listen to the general sessions and workshops, go to this page. For a post about this year’s conference, check out the blog entry of DBTS’s president, Dr. Dave Doran.

My workshop this year was entitled: “An Old Testament Justification for Separation.” While you can obtain my paper from the seminary’s website, you can also read it by going here.

Technorati Tags:
,

Follow-up to Gail, Gail, Quite Contrary

Gail-R.jpg

One of the reasons for my post “Gail, Gail, Quite Contrary” was to make readily available some information about KJVOnlyism with specific reference to Gail Riplinger. I mentioned that recently I have been asked about her on a few occasions. While I cited another source from the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (there is more information in our journal about this modern-day heresy). For more information about the dangers and heresies of Gail Riplinger, you need to read Fred Butler’s “Leaving King James Onlyism (with Special Thanks to Gail Riplinger)” This is a very engaging post with key sources cited in links. If you know of anyone who is caught up in the pernicious heresy, you need to refer them to this article.

Technorati Tags:
,

Now a Creationist–Jonathan Sarfati

Sarfati.jpg

?

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International is pictured above. He is a key scholars in the modern biblical creation movement (aka, young earth creationism). I have used his books and articles in my class and various seminars on Biblical Creationism. An informative article about how Dr. Sarfati became a biblical creationist has been posted again (originally posted in 2005). It would be profitable for you to read how a scholar of his magnitude with a secular upbringing and education became a staunch supporter of biblical creationism. Check out “Now a Creationist.” In addition, you would be wise to read the concluding bibliography and pick up some of his books and articles.

An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 3)

Apologia1.jpg

On Friday, March 20, I began a three-part series at Sharper Iron defending the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account. As I noted in my first part, because the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has a legacy of interpreting Genesis as a historic narrative, the prevailing interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 has been that it is a record of God’s creative activity in six, consecutive, literal days followed by a literal seventh day of rest. The point of my first post was to provide a fourfold biblical justification for the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account.

With my second post, I summarized four of the most prominent alternative views that have arisen largely as a result of the advent of modern geology and its claims about the (old) age of the earth.

With my third and final part that is posted today, I present three areas of weakness and a questionable presupposition that each view shares. To read this third post, go to “An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 3).”

Evolutionists, Atheists Admit Defeat in Texas

ICR2.jpg

Should students in public schools be encouraged to critically examine Charles Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis? After months of debate, the Texas Board of Education affirmatively answered this question. According to their recent 13-2 decision, students should be encouraged to think critically about current scientific “theories.” While Christians should applaud this decision as upholding academic freedom, supporters of evolution are not quite as optimistic. According to Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pro-evolution lobbyist group National Center for Science Education, this decision is “a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory.” To read more about this decision, check out “Evolutionists, Atheists Admit Defeat in Texas.”

An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 2)

Apologia1.jpg

On Friday, March 20, I began a three-part series at Sharper Iron defending the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account. As I noted in my first part, because the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has a legacy of interpreting Genesis as a historic narrative, the prevailing interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 has been that it is a record of God’s creative activity in six, consecutive, literal days followed by a literal seventh day of rest. The point of my first post was to provide a fourfold biblical justification for the 24-hour day interpretation of the creation account.

With my second post that is posted today, I note four of the most prominent alternative views that have arisen largely as a result of the advent of modern geology and its claims about the (old) age of the earth.
To read this second post, go to “An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 2).

Technorati Tags:
,

A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity

McCune.jpg

I was glad to see Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary‘s release of Dr. Rolland McCune’s A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity. This is the first of three volumes that should be released by 2010.

A reason for my excitement over the release of Dr. McCune’s theology is that I have watched his theology notes grow over the 26 years I have known him. In the spring of 1983, he had a significant role in bringing me to DBTS. From my early days at the seminary, I have read his growing set of notes and have profited greatly from them. Besides reflecting a commitment to historic fundamentalism, McCune’s theology is written from the perspective of a traditional dispensationalist and Baptist. His commitment to a presuppositional and Calvinistic perspective is refreshing. It is great to see a dedicated seminary professor’s work culminate in this publication.

You can purchase his theology by going to the DBTS store. While you are at the DBTS store, you can check out some of the seminary’s other publication by clicking the links under the Category List.

Technorati Tags:
, ,

An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 1)

Apologia1.jpg

Over the next few weeks, I am posting a three-part series at Sharper Iron defending a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3. The thesis of this three part series is that, if we consistently affirm the perspicuity of Scripture, the 24-hour view provides the most internally consistent synthesis of Scripture’s comprehensive message about the nature of the creation account and that modern alternative reinterpretations are inconsistent with a biblical theology of creation.

The purpose of my first article is to provide a fourfold biblical justification for a literal understanding of the six days of the creation week. To read this article, go to “An Apologia for the 24-Hour Day View in the Creation Account (Part 1).”