Merry X-Mas

Is using "X-mas" as a shorthand for "Christmas" taking Christ out the holiday? Many people have answered yes to this question and are quite worried. In fact, I discovered a Facebook page entirely devoted to this very concern: Its CHRISTmas.. Not Xmas... Why would u take Christ out of His holiday!?!?! 

Now, I am in no place to speak to anyone’s intentions. It is possible that we have people running around and randomly replacing "Christ" with the letter "X," though this seems like a strange and somewhat underused letter in the English alphabet to select. Nevertheless, though such dastardly motives are possible, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this common designation dating back to the middle ages. "X" is actually a shorthand for Christ. Let me explain: the Greek letter Chi looks very much like our English letter X. And, the Greek word for Christ is Χριστός. Notice that the first letter in this word is a Chi. It looks like an X, does it not? Mystery solved, Merry X-mas.

Are you still not convinced? Very well, below I have provided a copy of a letter originally penned in 1804 by the English Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller. Notice how he spells Christmas:

 

The Apostle Paul and the Doctrine of Sovereignty

 (Photo courtesy of St Paul's)

¹² I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, ¹³ so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. ¹⁴ And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.

¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. ¹⁶ The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁷ The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. 
Philippians 1:12-18 ESV

I recently preached a sermon (a video of this sermon can be viewed here) over the above text. In it, I discussed how the Apostle Paul was in prison when he wrote these words. What, then, is the reason for his great optimism? Paul was convinced that God was sovereign and had a plan of redemption that transcended any trial or circumstance. Moreover, Paul, though his situation was bleak, actively embraced the theological truth of God’s sovereignty and sought to be a willing participant in God’s plan of redemption.

What does sovereignty mean? The dictionary defines it as follows: “having supreme rank, power, or authority.” This seems to be correct with respect to God. Certainly, the Bible (and reason for that matter) teaches that God—the creator of all things, infinite in knowledge and power, eternal in being—is sovereign. God has supreme rank, power and authority. We can also conclude from this truth that this great God is intentional and has a plan. 

The passage listed above is a fine example of this. Paul clearly recognized this truth. This is why he was able to rejoice even though his circumstances were poor by earthly standards. As one writer notes: “Paul had been bound but the word of God could not be bound.” Yet, these poor circumstances were the means by which God furthered His redemptive plan. God is sovereign over all, God was sovereign in Paul’s circumstances, and God is sovereign in your life. 

We want to be careful when we discuss God’s sovereignty. Some, unfortunately, speak of God’s sovereignty as though it were sheer power or omnipotence. We must always remember that God’s sovereignty can never be separate from His moral goodness. Theologians very often organize God’s various attributes into two categories: natural and moral. Natural attributes are things such as omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, etc. God’s moral attributes are things such as his faithfulness, goodness, holiness, etc. Andrew Fuller once said that God’s natural attributes are those that evoke respect and the moral attributes are those that evoke love. In the end, however, we must never compartmentalize God and his attributes. People sometimes think of God as an all-powerful ruler, or, perhaps, only as a loving but impotent deity. Whenever we compartmentalize God in this way, we misunderstand Him altogether. God is a unity and all of His attributes work together in harmony. Everything that God does as the sovereign king of the universe is done from the perspective of perfect moral goodness. If all of this is true, then be a willing participant in God’s sovereign plan of redemption. 

   

View the sermon here.          

A Preliminary Response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

A recent doctrinal statement has been released wherein Southern Baptists are implored to reject Calvinism as a theological benchmark and to embrace a series of doctrinal affirmations and denials that presumably affirm a kind of baptistic Arminianism. And indeed a number of prominent and respectable Baptist ministers and theologians have signed their name in approval. The document may be read here.

I have only briefly looked over this document, but I plan on reading it much more carefully in the near future. I will blog on this more fully at a later time. Nonetheless, I have a couple of preliminary observations:

“. . .we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. . . We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”

Though I generally agree that Calvinism as a baptistic nomenclature is less than helpful (for reasons of ecclesiology and missiology rather than soteriology), I am troubled when the writer asserts that the majority of Baptists are not Calvinists. He may be right about this (in a robust 5 point sense); yet, I find myself asking: how does the writer know? In other words, he did not publish his research.

Also, something else disturbing to me is that the doctrinal affirmations and denials lack nuance. For example, when speaking of election, double predestination is assumed, and there is a failure to acknowledge moderate Calvinism which opts for preterition as an alternative—something that is historically quite common among Calvinists (Andrew Fuller for instance). The result of this lack of nuance is that though I realize my theological views are often different from the writer of this document, I am nonetheless affirming and denying right along with the document (with some obvious exceptions of course). And, the writer, as a result, is in danger, at times, of making a caricature of this so called “New Calvinism.” If we can agree (and I’m preaching to both sides now) that many of our theological conclusions are the same, then, perhaps, we can co-exist with a greater degree of unity. More on this later…

New Book Review

Below is a link to a new review for my book Fullerism as Opposed to Calvinism. Dr. Nathan Finn, from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the review for the Gospel Coalition website. His candid and constructive remarks are greatly appreciated.

Click here to read the review.

Violence and the Cross

Violence and the Cross: Fullerism's Answer to Contemporary Attacks on Substitutionary Atonement

 

The following is an audio link of a paper that I presented at a conference, hosted by the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary several months ago. The paper answers contemporary attacks on the substitutionary atonement of Christ through a presentation of Fuller's theological writings on the subject. I welcome any comments you may have.



http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3756