Monthly Archives: August 2012

Principles for Christian Dating

Posted on by
Reply

If you were to look up the word “dating” in a Bible concordance, it might be something of a shock to learn that it is a word never mentioned in the Bible – not even once. “Dating” is not a Biblical word. Neither is “courtship.” In the scheme of things, dating is a fairly recent cultural phenomena. Even today its prevalence is seen mainly in the western world.

Because of this fact, and in spite of the title above, you won’t find a Bible passage that addresses principles for Christian dating. The concept is just not there. Yet unless parents employ the arranged marriage approach still favored in many parts of the world, ‘dating’ is the default mechanism in play for any single person seeking to find a compatible partner for marriage.

With this in mind, here are two short but helpful articles from http://theresurgence.com/ that deal with the topic of Christian dating. The first is by Brandon Andersen, entitled “5 Notes on Dating for the Guys.”

I work in church operations, which I means spend an inordinate amount of time with young, single volunteers, many of whom are recent converts. When I first started, it quickly became clear that most young Christians have no idea what Christian dating looks like practically. Here are some insights to help Christian men date in a way that honors God.

1. A Definition of Intentional
“Intentional” is one of those words that sounds right, but no one really knows what if means. So I would like to clear that up. Here is my working definition for intentional and how it relates to how a Christian man should pursue a woman.

The intentional man repeatedly and constantly goes first and takes on all of the risk of rejection. He always lets the girl know where he stands so she feels secure and isn’t left guessing. (On the other hand, don’t weird her out by talking about marriage on the first date.)

Approaching her initially:

Intentional: “I’d like to take you out on a date.”
Unintentional: “Wanna hang out sometime? My roommates are all gone this weekend.”
Paying the bill:

Intentional: “I’ve got it.”
Unintentional: “Can you cover half the bill? I’m pretty broke right now.” (My wife believes this communicates, “You are worth about $20, but not quite $40.”)
Following up after a date:

Intentional: “I had a great time tonight, and would definitely want to do this again. I will give you a call this week.”
Unintentional: “I’ll call you sometime.”
Bringing other people in:
Continue reading →

The Unity of the Trinity in the Work of Redemption

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Barrett and Thomas Nettles, authors of the book, “Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy” respond to a question about four point Calvinism (those who reject the “L” of Limited Atonement in the acrostic TULIP):

What about the death of Christ have convictional “four-point Calvinists” perhaps failed to adequately consider?

At least two things: (1) the priestly role of Christ and (2) the Trinitarian unity in redemption planned, accomplished, and applied. First, as Stephen Wellum recently argued in his SBTS faculty address and as David Schrock contends in chapter 4, Christ is the great high priest of the new covenant and therefore acts as a representative, substitute, and intercessor on behalf of God’s people. In doing so he not only pays the penalty for their sin, but purchases everything necessary (including the work of the Spirit) to bring them to salvation. Universal atonement advocates fail to situate Christ’s priestly work in its covenantal context.

Second, to affirm an individual, unconditional, and particular election by the Father and an effectual, unconditional, and particular calling by the Spirit—but then to affirm a universal, provisional, and general atonement by the Son—creates confusion in the mission of the Trinity. Robert Reymond captures what such inconsistency would sound like as Jesus prays in the garden: “I recognize, Father, that your election and your salvific intentions terminate on only a portion of mankind, but because my love is more inclusive and expansive than yours, I’m not satisfied to die only for those you’ve elected. I’m going to die for everyone.” Therefore, as Robert Letham argues, universal atonement “threatens to tear apart the Holy Trinity,” for it means the Father and Spirit have different goals than the Son. But as the Reformed slogan opera trinitatis indivisa sunt reminds us, the works of the Trinity are indivisible. The Father plans redemption, the Son accomplishes redemption, and the Spirit applies redemption, and all three persons of the Trinity are simultaneously and actively involved in each other’s salvific work on behalf of the elect.