Restless and Reforming

when local government attacks the faith

2010-01-23T03:02:00.000-08:00

Andy Hunter has an excellent article regarding the treatment of Bridget McConnell, the head of Culture & Sport in Glasgow and head of the department which helped fund the controversial MOMA exhibition that included an invitation for gay people, who felt excluded by Scripture, to record their names in the margins of an open bible. As you can imagine, some of the name recording turned into vitriolic comments against Christianity. Unfortunately, some Christians have responded by sending Bridget McConnell "hate mail" (you get the impression she is loving the publicity). Andy explains why this approach is stupid to say the least.

Would a healthy dose of two kingdom theology save Christians from such madness? I dare say it would.

american missionaries in scotland

2010-01-20T12:19:00.000-08:00

David Robertson has advice for prospective missionaries coming from America to 'bring revival to Scotland':

Avoid the danger of Romanticism. Scotland is not the land of Mel Gibson, Brigadoon, quaint wee redheaded Highland lasses, Eric Liddell running in the Glens and John Knox preaching in the pulpits! Equally Scots going over to America sometimes get the 'grass is always greener on the other side of the fence' syndrome. To be in large churches, with extensive programs and great wealth, who also seem to be making a significant impact upon their community - that is quite an experience and one which sometimes leaves the Scot feeling a) inferior and b) thinking ‘this is it. This is the way God wants us to work'. The result is that some of us come back with the notion that the Americanisation of the Church will be its salvation. That is patently not true. Likewise American missionaries who come over here thinking that all Scotland needs for revival is for things to be done the way they are back home, will not get very far. Having that attitude will do a great deal of harm - not least by causing an opposite reaction whereby anything new is seen as American and thus de facto to be rejected. Cultural sensitivity is a basic requirement for any missionary.

Give it a read.
HT: Iain D. Campbell

john thomson reads meyer

2010-01-18T13:07:00.000-08:00

My good friend John Thomson is finding interesting stuff in Jason C. Meyer's The End of the Law. Another book on my "to read" list.

paedobaptism in 1 corinthians 10

2010-01-18T12:36:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking through paedobaptism (pb) recently and am currently reading The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge. I'll post one or two thoughts on the book in due course. It's a topic that has consumed me for the last 5 years or so. Some days I think I'm convinced and other days not. Sorting this one out is on my 'to do' list this year. One interesting proof-text used by paedobaptists is 1 Corinthians 10:1, 2:

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea..

In this typological baptism, all Israel were baptized into Moses as they passed through the Red Sea. That's all Israel; men, women, children and babies. (I also heard it said that the only example of baptism by immersion here was the Egyptian soldiers drowning!) An interesting passage, and probably one of the strongest arguments for pb.

ezra and observance of the law

2010-01-09T12:06:00.000-08:00

I came across this little gem in my signed copy (gush!) of D.A. Carson's adaption of the McCheyne readings, For the Love of God, Volume 2:

Ezra devoted himself to the observance of the Law. For some people, study is an end in itself, or perhaps a means to the end of teaching. But even though the subject matter is Scripture, for these people there is no personal commitment to living under its precepts - to ordering their marriage, their finances, their talk, their priorities, their values, by the Word of God. They do not constantly ask how the assumptions of their age and culture, assumptions that all of us pick up unawares, are challenged by Scripture. The study of Scripture, for such people, is an excellent intellectual discipline, but not a persistent call to worship; the Bible is to be mastered like a textbook, but it does not call the people of God to tremble; its truths are to be cherished, but it does not mediate the presence of God. Ezra avoided all these traps and devoted himself to observing what Scripture says. (January 7)

word-faith craziness

2010-01-08T15:02:00.001-08:00

HT: Mockingbird

was the mosaic law gracious? - part 2

2010-01-08T13:46:00.001-08:00

It would be dishonest of me to say, after the last post critique-ing Doug Wilson's views on the character of the Mosaic Law, that I don't have questions about the law as a covenant of works. These are:

First, how could Zechariah and Elizabeth walk blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord (Luke 1:6 ESV)? I thought the law was un-keepable?

Second, it says in Deuteronomy 30, in relation to law-keeping:

¹¹"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. ¹² It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' ¹³Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' ¹⁴But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. (ESV)

Paul quotes this passage in Romans 10 in relation to the simplicity of trusting Christ. How does this fit?

In the earlier post, I quoted some Scriptures that I believe drive a truck through Doug's system. Perhaps the texts I've offered in this blog post drive a truck through mine, perhaps not. In situations like these, what we have to do is work out whether we've understood the texts or whether our systems need tweaking to bring them into line with Scriptural truth. I'd be interested in feedback.

was the mosaic law gracious?

2010-01-08T12:56:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to do a (very) wee bit of reading up on the Federal Vision (FV) controversy recently in order to understand the issues. In so doing, I came across this quote by Doug Wilson, a big player in the FV conversation, in describing the Mosaic Law during his dialogue with interlocutor Lane Keister (aka Green Baggins):

For the regenerate heart, it is all grace, nothing but grace, grace from top to bottom. All God's words, all God's intentions, all God's promises. For the unregenerate, it is all demand, all law, all "do this and live." Now, who understands God and His Word rightly? And who distorts it? Correct, the regenerate man understands it all correctly. But God anticipates and uses the incorrect understanding, and He uses it to bring people to Himself. The Law works them over, and Christ saves them.

Elsewhere, Doug quoting the WCF in support for his views says:

"This covenant [of grace -- DW] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament "(WCF 7.5).

An OT Israelite who did not have the faith of Abraham was abusing the covenant of grace. He belonged to the covenant of grace, so that if he did not have evangelical faith, this meant that he was a covenant breaker.

He makes some interesting points about the Mosaic Law, but I'm unsure that his arguments prove that the Mosaic Law was a gracious covenant. Let me tentatively offer reasons for my doubts:

Firstly, it's interesting to note in WCF 7.5 that there is no mention of the covenant of grace being administered through moral commands. It seems that the covenant of grace is administered through the types, prophesies and promises of the law. How is the covenant of grace administered through, for instance, "the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name"?

Secondly, and related to the above, surely the fact that there are gracious elements to the Mosaic Law (i.e. pointers to Christ) does not nullify the fact that the over-arching covenantal structure is one of works, i.e. "do this and live"?

Third, perhaps the works principle of Moses was related to the continuance of Israel in the promised land and referred to temporal blessings in order to highlight gospel truth? The works principle demonstrated that there was none righteous (no not one!) and that salvation was always through faith alone. The law was a school master, showing Israel (and thus the world) of the need for Christ. So for instance, even Moses failed to enter the promised land (despite the fact that we know he will enter the heavenly Jerusalem). If even this giant failed to keep the ordinances of the law, it is no wonder that the land vomited Israel into exile.

Fourth, if Moses is gracious to the regenerate man, why does Paul say that "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12)? Note, Paul doesn't say that the law is abused by the unbelieving. The law itself is not of faith. IMHO, I've yet to read a NPP/FV advocate who knows what to do with that verse.

Fifth, if Moses is gracious to the regenerate man, why does Peter describe him as "a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10 ESV)? Could the experience described here (i.e. of the godly under Moses prior to the eschatological Spirit) provide interpretation to that described in Romans 7? I suspect so.

Doubtless there are some holes in my arguments here and there, and I, for my profound thickness, cannot see them. Yet, with this disclaimer in place, I can't see past the above. The issues are weighty and deserve careful pondering.

office hours - rsc takes centre stage

2010-01-07T09:42:00.001-08:00

Now I'm back at work I'm again listening to podcasts on my commute. Today I listened to the second from last offering from the faculty at WSC where the tables were turned on regular host R. Scott Clark. Mike Horton interviewed RSC in a fascinating discussion. I'd rate this one my joint favourite so far (along with the Mike Horton interview). RSC's passion for the gospel and the Reformed faith shines through as he discusses why history is important to doing theology, why the church isn't merely a gathering of people who love Jesus and why modern notions of "spiritual" are more Gnostic than biblical. Give it a listen.

justification and union with Christ

2010-01-06T12:14:00.000-08:00

In the past I have explored the relationship between justification and union with Christ. There has been a healthy debate between faculty members of WSC and WTS as to which doctrine has theological priority. For instance, R. Scott Clark argues for justification in response to a video by WTS prof Lane Tipton.

I mentioned yesterday that in the latest Confessional Presbyterian Journal, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. reviews Cornelius P. Venema's revised/updated doctoral dissertation Accepted and Renewed in Christ. The "Twofold Grace of God" and the Interpretation of Calvin's Theology. I mentioned that while Gaffin generally appreciated the work, he did have some quibbles.

One of Gaffin's concerns relates to how Venema places union with Christ within Calvin's soteriology. He says:

Where one might most expect an accent on union, however, it is missing. So for instance, the Summary (148-149) to the (important and helpful) chapter on the relation of justification and sanctification states that "these two aspects of God's grace in Christ...remain inseperably joined by virtue of their common foundation in Christ's redemptive work through the power of the Spirit." That, of course, is true as far as it goes. But for Calvin, especially by way of summary, it is true only as union with Christ is indispensable for mediating that common foundation and only as the inseperability involved exists as an integral consequence of that union; justification and sanctification (in its initiation and continuation) are inseperable (as well as distinct) only as they are, coordinately, the immediate fruit of union. (p272)

Gaffin quotes the following from Calvin as support for this statement:

...we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value to us. (3:1:1, quoted p273)

A powerful quote indeed and at first glance seems to back up Gaffin's thesis. Yet the arguments are complex and worth ploughing through. Did Calvin hold to this? This interchange between Gaffin and J.V Fesko (of WTS and WSC resp.) will provide further food for thought.

evangelistic services?

2010-01-06T12:07:00.000-08:00

My former co-blogger and considerably-older-than-me-friend Donald Ferguson has launched a new blog A Diet of Worms. Donald is a teacher in a Glasgow secondary school (thus he believes in purgatory of sorts) and knows more theology/bible than most in vocational ministry! Theologically, Donald is baptistic and soteriologically Reformed. His latest post is a belter and asks the question as to whether evangelistic services on the Lord's Day are biblical.

new year resolutions

2010-01-05T12:32:00.000-08:00

If I was the type of bloke to do new year resolutions (I'm not), I'd set myself up for a fall by perhaps resolving:

to post shorter articles on the blog
to cultivate and exibit humility
to know my own limitations as a reader and blogger
to reign in my martial impulses
to avoid "ready, shoot, aim" blogging, i.e. make sure I understand an argument before I criticise it
(related to the above) to be less dogmatic on an issue if I've only read one side of the argument (even if that argument seems compelling)
to listen a lot more to "balanced" Christian leaders e.g. John Stott, John Frame, D.A. Carson
to avoid unnecessary alienating rhetoric
to avoid reactionary theology, i.e. just because I let go of a former cherished belief, don't swing too far in the opposite direction
to stop eating rubbish (I mean sugary foods - not refuse)
to exercise more
to sleep more
to be more patient with my children
to read more bible
to memorise more bible
to find a job less draining than (maths) teaching

Thankfully, I'm not in the resolution business.

justification and the double grace

2010-01-05T12:01:00.000-08:00

Previously, I've discussed issues surrounding the controversial doctrine named by John Murray as "definitive sanctification." Well, I've come across a related Calvin quote.

In the latest volume of the, superb, Confessional Presbyterian Journal, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. reviews Cornelius P. Venema's revised/updated doctoral dissertation Accepted and Renewed in Christ. The "Twofold Grace of God" and the Interpretation of Calvin's Theology. On the whole, Gaffin commends the work as an aid to better understanding Calvin. Yet he has some quibbles.

One of his concerns is that Venema is "not entirely clear" (p270) whether Calvin considers "justification to be the cause of sanctification". (p270) Then Gaffin offers the following quote from Calvin's institutes:

Christ was given to us by God's generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ's blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by his Spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life. (Battles translation, 1:725 - quoted p271)

Gaffin notes that in this quote, not only reconciliation (here equivalent to justification) but also sanctification is definitive and settled. While Calvin no doubt regularly treats sanctification (regeneration) as an on-going, life-long process in the believer, here it appears to be otherwise. (p271)

Interesting stuff. Did Calvin articulate "definitive sanctification" before John Murray coined the phrase? Gaffin's argument seems to carry some weight.

Tomorrow I'll post some stuff on justification and union with Christ from the Gaffin review.

more arguments for the iao

2009-12-30T06:48:00.000-08:00

A view I'm coming around to is like that postulated by Brian Vickers. That is, although no single biblical text teaches the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience (IAO) in it's fullness, the doctrine is the result of a tapestry of relevant texts.

Take Romans for instance. In Romans 4:1-8, faith is "credited" or "counted" as righteousness. At the end of Romans 4 in verse 25, all of a sudden we read that Christ "was raised for our righteousness". So faith is counted as righteousness because of Christ's resurrection.

Then into chapter 5:1, we have righteousness "by/through faith" which is also "through Jesus Christ". Then in verse 9, we are "righteous-ed by his blood". In 5:18, 19 we read that it is the obedience of the one man (I think this fits better than "one act of obedience") that makes many righteous. It is tempting to read Romans 4:1-8 and offer the reductionist argument that since faith is credited as righteousness, any kind of place for Christ's righteousness must be excluded. But this argument fails to deal with the complicated nuances each text brings to the complete view.

Furthermore, if we hark back to Romans 3 and assume that the subjective reading of pistis Christou is correct (a grand assumption I realise), the picture is filled out even futher. We read in verse 22 that the righteousness of God is given "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who have faith." (The idea of the faithfulness of Christ would create a remarkable contrast with unfaithful Israel in verse 3).

So to chronologically sum up:

God reckons faith as righteousness apart from works.
God reckons us righteous and gives us peace through Christ.
God reckons us righteous on account of Christ's resurrection.
God reckons us righteous on account of Christ's blood.
God reckons us righteous on account of Christ's obedience in place of the disobedient first Adam.
God gifts righteousness through Christ's faithfulness, because there are none who are faithful, no not one.

As I've already stated, to assert that since Paul affirms faith is credited as righteousness then it must follow that Christ's righteousness is not in view, is to undermine the complexity of the biblical passages.

arguments for the iao from philippians

2009-12-30T06:13:00.000-08:00

Over the festive period I listened again to John Piper's talk on Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ. In it, he argues for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience (IAO) from Philippians. Some interesting points he makes (with some of my own mumblings):

The "found" language. Is it any coincidence that Christ was "found" in human form obedient (Phil. 2:8) and that Paul's aim is to be "found" in Christ righteous (Phil. 3:9)?
The inadequate language of innocence. Many today equate righteousness with a "not guilty" verdict and believe that if anything at all is imputed to the believer, it is merely the cross work of Christ. After all, if righteousness just means innocence, then Christ's cross is all that is needed. This is something I have wrestled with as I've found the evidence from many passages to be compelling. For example, we read in many Scriptures of being made righteous by Christ's blood (e.g. Rom. 5:9). Nevertheless, such a definition of righteousness does not do justice to Paul's use of it in Philippians 3:9. Imagine submitting "not guilty" for "righteousness" in that passage; it just doesn't make sense, i.e. and be found in him, not having a "not guilty" verdict of my own which comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the "not guilty" verdict which comes from God and rests upon faith. A "not guilty" verdict of my own? Eh?
The pesky subjective genitive. Piper doesn't hold to the subjective rendering of pistis Christou i.e. the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. But he acknowledges that if this rendering is correct, then it strengthens the case for the IAO and ties back to chapter 2:5-11 in the most remarkable way. Imagine, 3:9 paraphrased: that I may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of the Christ who was obedient even to the point of death, the righteousness that comes from God and rests upon faith. Wow! That is powerful. It also strikes a blow for righteousness as 'covenant faithfulness' albeit within a covenantal setting of moral and God honouring responsibility. Perhaps Wrightian insights needn't be demonized but can be made to serve the truths of Reformational Christianity.

All in all, Piper makes a powerful case for the IAO. Give it a listen.

vern poythress and new covenant theology

2009-12-28T10:27:00.000-08:00

It's interesting, in the light of my recent discussions over the traditional Reformed view of the law, to see a Reformed theologian articulate a position not all far away from a New Covenant Theology paradigm:

...no simple and easy separation between types of law will do justice to the richness of Mosaic revelation. As we have observed (chapter 8), obviously moral principles are articulated outside the Ten Commandments (Lev. 19:18), while conversely some of the Ten Commandments contain at least minor "ceremonial" or "culturally specific" elements connected with the specific situation of the Israelites. The focus and implications of the Ten Commandments are mostly fully and properly understood only when we read them in the context of the more specific laws elsewhere, and then the ceremonial element can be separated less than ever. In the context of the Books of Moses, the Ten Commandments, the other laws, the priestly institutions, and the events of the exodus and wilderness wandering necessarily interpret one another. And all of these must now be interpreted in the light of their fulfillment in Christ. The entirety of this Mosaic revelation simultaneously articulates general moral principles and symbolic particulars: it points forward to Christ as the final and permanent expression of righteousness and penal substitution (with moral overtones), but is itself in that very respect a shadow (with ceremonial overtones). (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, Vern Poythress, Chapter 17b)

is the bible anti-gay?

2009-12-24T06:34:00.000-08:00

Superb article from John Richardson on the bible and homosexuality:

Ultimately...the Bible's position on sexuality cannot be defined by listing those things to which it is notionally "opposed". Rather, we need to see it arises from an overarching understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with his creation.The Ugley Vicar: Is the Bible anti-gay?

John has a cracking book on the issue, What God has made clean...

Office Hours - Christ and Culture

2009-12-21T13:16:00.000-08:00

The latest offering from the Office Hours team at Westminster Seminary California is a discussion with Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen about the upcoming WSCal conference Christ, Kingdom and Culture. If, like me, you've ever been bamboozled about the differing Reformed emphases on culture, the 2 Kingdoms, Kuyperian politics, etc, this is a great starting place.

evangelical burdens part 3 - golawspel

2009-12-21T12:38:00.000-08:00

The law/gospel distinction is out of fashion. Some Reformed academics dismiss it as 'Lutheran' (as if that's a bad thing!), despite the evidence that the distinction was a staple for all of reformational Christianity. Others see it as an old fashioned idiosyncrasy of the reformation that can be quietly dropped. Yet the Reformers to a man believed that blurring the law/gospel (L/G) distinction was the chief way to corrupt the gospel.

What is the L/G distinction? If one was to express it in a snappy, soundbite, one might describe it thus, in true White Horse Inn style:

The Law is everything that God requires of us. The Gospel is everything God gives us. God gives us everything in the Gospel that he requires of us in the Law.

Yet since such a definition does not do justice to the wide variety of passages in Scripture that speak of "the law" (Gk. nomos), and those who hold to the L/G distinction are aware of the subtle nuances surrounding the phrase nomos.

Mike Horton, in his barn storming, Covenant and Salvation, believes that the term "law" can be understood in two ways, depending on context. Firstly, the law can be understood in its redemptive-historical sense. That is, it can be seen as a body of writings containing promises that point forward to the Lord Jesus Christ. In this sense there is no tension between law and gospel as we move from promise to fulfillment. Indeed the apostle Paul, in this sense, can describe the law as "glorious" (2 Cor. 3:7). Nevertheless:

...when the question was justification and the way a sinner can obtain salvation, law was regarded as a principle or method of salvation in antithesis to promise or gospel - a question of ordo salutis. Such gear shifting [between redemptive-historical and principle] far from arbitrary, is simply a way of interpreting the same term (nomos) in different texts and different contexts. (p89)

So as a covenantal principle, we are under grace not law. The two are mutually exclusive to the extent that the apostle Paul says that "the law is not of faith" (Gal. 3:12). The L/G distinction is merely another way of expressing the works/grace contrast (Rom. 4:4). Too many evangelicals are ignorant of this sharp distinction. It brings clarity to confused minds and results in consolation to bruised hearts. When one recoils as Christ thunders his "but I say to you's" from the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel According to Matthew, we hear the Law in all it's condemning power. When we read of Christ's bloody death for his people at the end of Matthew, we see the Gospel, i.e. (Christ taking upon himself our failures to live the Sermon in the Mount) in all it's gracious, life giving power. Let's pray that more evangelical preachers become gripped by this powerful hermeneutic.

Oral Roberts

2009-12-18T13:26:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting piece on the late Oral Roberts in Christianity Today. Of particular note is mention of his success in "pentecostalising" mainstream evangelicalism in the US.

HT: Trevin Wax

evangelical burdens part 2 - personal evangelism

2009-12-18T12:33:00.000-08:00

You're sitting at the back of your evangelical church and you're sweating. The guest-speaker from the para-church mission organisation is laying it on thick and you're feeling the weight of conviction. "How many people have you led to Christ in the past year?" he intones. You can hear a pin drop. He continues "The past two years? Three years? Are you hiding the light under a bushel?" And then he prophesies(!): "Maybe God isn't using you because you need to sort out your lust problem." It's at that point all the men realise that, if this is the case, then they'll probably never lead anyone to Christ. Doh!

Sound familiar? If you're an evangelical then you've probably had something approaching this experience. Yet is it fair, if I may employ the crudest of metaphors, to expect every Christian to have multiple notches on their evangelistic bed posts? A "close the deal" mentality grips many evangelicals to the extent that they are walking around under a heavy load of condemnation because they believe they are failing as witnesses to Christ in the workplace.

Is every Christian called to "close the deal" evangelism? No; that is a specific duty of the church. In Matthew 28:18-20 Christ says:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (ESV)

If baptising is not the vocational calling of every Christian (1 Cor. 1:17), isn't it safe to assume that evangelism isn't either? Sure we should be ready to offer a reason for the hope we have and we should know our faith well enough to communicate it (1 Peter 3:15). Sure our conduct should mark us out (Phil. 2:15). Sure God may providentially guide lay Christians into "close the deal" situations (Acts 18:26). But it ain't God's ordinary means. Let's generally just leave "conversions" to the work of the preached word. And another thing, when Mr. Para-Church missionary get's his ecclesiology sorted, then I'll sit down and talk evangelism with him.

PS: In the interests of full disclosure, I shamelessly cribbed the Matt. 28:18-20 insight from Darryl Hart in his astonishing interview with Mark Dever, available for download here.

Cordovan Calfskin ESV Study Bible

2009-12-18T12:28:00.000-08:00

J. Mark Bertrand's pictures of the new Cordovan Calfskin ESV Study Bible had me salivating. Check them out!

definite atonement gangsta style

2009-12-18T12:12:00.000-08:00

For whom did Christ die? Shai Linne explains:

reformed christians and the church calendar?

2009-12-17T13:01:00.000-08:00

Darryl Hart discusses this peculiar phenomenon.

John Thomson

2009-12-15T12:39:00.000-08:00

My co-blogger John Thomson has launched out on his own over at Cave Adullam. John is a former elder at Greenview Evangelical Church, and IMO the most gifted, most theologically articulate, and learned lay preacher I've ever heard. He writes with a strong biblical theological base and while not confessionally Reformed, John is soteriologically Calvinistic, baptistic and brethren. Well worth a look.

evangelical burdens part 1 - the quiet time

2009-12-14T04:51:00.000-08:00

Throw off every weight that hinders; so writes the author to the book of Hebrews. These "weights" are things, not necessarily evil in themselves, which stop us living the Christian life to the full. I've been thinking that sometimes evangelicalism, i.e. evangelical churches, pastors, books, attitudes can contribute to the weighing down process in some way. I plan to do a series of posts on certain teachings, attitudes and assumptions that permeate evangelicalism and that result in the weighing down of those trying to live the Christian life.

Something that has caused Christians great stress/trouble is the evangelical doctrine of 'the quiet time'. Here's my problem with the quiet time mentality:

1. It has become an unchurchly means of grace
If you were to ask your average evangelical to describe how to grow in grace, what do you think the average answer would be? I suspect it would go along the lines of the kids' chorus: "Read your Bible, pray every day and you'll grow, grow, grow!" Isn't it amazing that when a question like this is asked, how few of us mention that gathering with the people of God to have his presence mediated through word and sacrament is most important?

I used to wonder why I needed to go to church when I was "getting much more out of" my private prayer and bible readings. Why not just have a quiet time instead of gathering with those I had so little in common with? Now I've got no doubt that this misconception was 99% my fault and down to my thickness, but I would venture to suggest that some of the influence was from many of the books I'd read as a young believer and perhaps the counsel of equally ignorant peers. So this pietistic assumption prevailed, not just in my mind, but in the minds of friends and family; unless you've got the quiet time 'down', you're not growing.

Yet the amazing thing is that there is no text in Scripture, OT or NT, commanding that we have a daily bible reading. There are texts admonishing that we meditate on God's word day and night (e.g. Psalm 1), but as R. Scott Clark noted in this talk, when these texts were written, none of the hearers had access to Bibles. They either had to gather round the mountain to hear Moses speak God's word or make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to hear the priest teach. Even in the NT, when believers were commanded to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, they didn't have access to bibles. They were dependant upon what they heard....in church.

Meditation and prayer should arise out of what we hear and experience predominately on a Sunday as the word is preached, eaten, drunk and splashed! I could say more on this, but I must try to keep this short...!

2. It feeds a works-righteousness ethic

Another problem is the rank legalism that can accompany the quiet time ethic. To see an example of this, look no further than this bumbling blogger. I remember reading "Why Revival Tarries" by Leonard Ravenhill. He said something like "any elder that doesn't pray for 2 hours a day isn't worth his salt". I reasoned that since I wasn't an elder I, nevertheless, needed to pray for at least one hour daily! When I couldn't keep it up, I doubted my salvation. When my friends didn't live up to this, I doubted their salvation (did I mention that I was a total muppet?) Can you identify with any of this?

Being regaled in books by anecdotes of prayer giants didn't help my inner-Pharisee either. Why are we always being told stories about prayer heroes? How about a series on prayer zeros? Every example on prayer I'd ever read about concerned some super-saint who wore out his knees as he began the day with 7 hour prayer times in tearful intercession for those who farted on his face the day before. By the time many of us fail to live up to the high standards set by these prayer warriors, we feel like we've abandoned the faith and that we should just plunge headlong into sin; in for a penny in for a pound after all.

I'm just thankful that my pathetic, prayer-less life is hidden with Christ in God. To have his righteous status stamped over mine is all I'll ever need.

3. It reflects superstitious attitudes.

Every missed a morning prayer time and worried that your day would be 'wrong' as a result? This is a consequence of point 2 above. God ain't a slot machine. He doesn't need my crappy prayers to pacify him. What he needs is the blood of his son.

Is there a way through this sorry state of affairs? Well, let me first confess that I'm writing this as a prayer zero. I'm not very good at daily prayer or bible reading. Nevertheless, the Lord has been gracious to this numpty by showing him the importance of a focus on the public means of grace. When I see the word and sacrament as my spiritual refreshment I am taken out of myself and forced to look towards God's provision in Jesus. It keeps me from tying myself in emotional knots as I wonder if I have gotten enough peace from my quiet time. Second, just pray. Don't focus on a time or place as much as just doing it. Pray all the time, i.e. driving to work, sitting at your desk, lying on the couch, etc. Third, don't worry about duration. Don't compare time spend watching TV with time spent praying for example. We don't have to give God hours and hours to keep him satisfied. He just wants our hearts. Fourth, don't trust in your prayers, trust in Christ for justification - simple but very effective.

sacraments - symbolic eating or actual participation?

2009-12-12T10:50:00.000-08:00

I mentioned in a previous post my dissatisfaction with the common evangelical/baptistic interpretation of the efficacy of the sacraments with a particular focus on baptism. My argument was that the language of 'symbolism' and 'teaching tools' were too bland to do full justice to the biblical data on water, bread and wine.

I thought I'd offer some rather random thoughts on the Lord's Supper:

Firstly, how should we interpret the language of "participation" 1 Corinthians 10:16? ("The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" ESV) It is quite interesting to look further down 1 Corinthians 10 to verse 18, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" (ESV) The NT practise of eating bread and wine is analogous to the Israelis eating at the altar in that it too is a "participation". Fee notes that Paul is "referring to the meals prescribed in Deut. 14:22-27." (p470) The Jews actually ate portions of the sacrificed food. Yet Fee goes on to make the claim that, since "there is not the remotest hint in Judaism that the sacrificial food represented God in some way" (p470) we can safely discount any sacramental reading of this text. Now I'm not fit to lace Fee's exegetical boots, but surely he's missing the woods for the trees? Could not this Old Covenant eating of the sacrifice be a shadow or type of New Covenant believers actually eating of the bloody NT sacrifice? Far from militating against a sacramental reading, perhaps verse 18 actually strengthens such a reading?

Secondly, isn't it weird that in 1 Corinthians, the only place where Paul talks about the Lord's Supper, the great Apostle makes no qualifying statements regarding the efficacy of the Eucharist? Here's his big chance to say, "Hey you guys and gals, culturally influenced by superstition and mindless paganism; don't read too much into the bread and wine - they're merely symbols." On the contrary, Paul tells them that through the sacraments they "participate" in the body and blood of Christ. "Ah but" interjects Mr Baptist Pastor, "But nothing" answers Paul. In fact, Paul goes further to say that if you eat the Supper without "discerning the body of Christ", you eat and drink judgement on yourself (11:29, 30). As Oor Wullie would say, "Help ma boab!"

Thirdly, while this may or may not appeal to evangelicals, a sacramental reading is the majority report in church history. The Augsburg Confession gives an example of an exposition of John 15 by Cyril of Alexandria (376-444):

Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation, etc.

Fourth, as John Thomson noted in the comments to the first post on this subject, isn't it peculiar that those churches with a supposedly "lower" view of the sacraments (e.g. Brethren - weekly) tend to celebrate the Lord's Supper more frequently than those with the "higher" view (e.g. Presbyterians, Lutherans - monthly)? Why so?

These are just some rambling thoughts. Although I am obviously leaning towards a sacramental view of the supper, I consider my view on this one a work in progress.

Mark Dever in Edinburgh

2009-12-12T09:41:00.000-08:00

Charlotte Chapel are hosting a 9marks Conference with Mark Dever from Friday (evening) 12th February to Saturday 13th February. The theme will be, surprise surprise, 9marks of a healthy church. It will be a useful event for elders/ potential elders/ deacons/ ministry leaders to attend. The cost, £20, includes breakfast, lunch and refreshments. You can book online here.

sacraments - merely symbols?

2009-12-09T12:00:00.000-08:00

I remember hearing Billy Connolly justifying his use of profanity by saying, "Sometimes 'go away' just isn't enough." I've been thinking along similar lines with respect to the traditional baptistic interpretation of the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the sacraments. Sometimes the language of symbolism just isn't enough.

Taking baptism as an example, I read in the NT epistles that baptism actually 'does' something. Consider the following verses.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:3, 4 ESV)

...you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:11)

"...let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 ESV)

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27 ESV)

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4, 5 ESV)

Baptism... now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

These passages seem to suggest that baptism really accomplishes something, leaving many evangelicals to struggle with the sheer lack of qualifying statements in any of these verses. Imagine your average evangelical re-wrote some of these passages. Romans 6 might read "when we were born again, we were incorporated into Christ's death and this is symbolised by baptism." Galatians 3:27 might read, "those who have clothed themselves with Christ, symbolise this through baptism." 1 Peter 3:21 might read "baptism doesn't save anyone." What makes us evangelicals so nervous about the force of these passages?

Maybe these passages are being squeezed to accommodate our soteriologies. Now I know that God is not bound to use water to accomplish his purposes (e.g. Cornelius' household received the Spirit before baptism). Nevertheless, I believe baptism is ordinarily God's means of grace to either accomplish or seal his regenerating purpose.

Another possible reason for this evangelical/baptistic nervousness is unease about God actually using something 'physical' to accomplish something 'spiritual'. This unease is not shared by Mike Horton:

Throughout church history, "baptism" has always meant one and the same thing: The sign (water) and the thing signified (regeneration by the Holy Spirit). But in our day, many who otherwise insist on taking the Scriptures literally and "at face value" will argue that passages such as this one and others, like Titus 3:5 ("He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously . . ."), refer merely to a spiritual baptism and not to water baptism. One must beware of a gnostic dualism that separates spirit from matter, as if it is somehow less than spiritual for God to bring people into his family through a common, everyday liquid. To be sure, there is a danger is attaching superstition to rituals and material signs, but God reveals himself and saves us through matter, not in spite of it. God "became flesh," wrote a book with ink and paper, and confirms it with water, bread, and wine. He does communicate his heavenly grace through the earthly creations that he sets aside by Word and Spirit for sacred use. (God's Grandchildren: The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism, (c) 1995 Modern Reformation Magazine/ACE)

Robert Kolb, responding to baptist Thomas J. Nettles in Understanding Four Views on Baptism (ed. John H Armstrong), writes:

Finding baptism to be no more than a "teaching tool" (p. 31) seems to me to deny that God is at work, effecting his will to save, not just picturing it, when he comes at us with his word in all its forms - oral, written, and sacramental. Relegating forms of his word to the role of only pointing to heavenly realities seems to me to reflect the ancient Greek philosopher Plato's definition of a great gap between spiritual or heavenly reality and the material created order....Baptism consists of the word of God joined with water. The water is placed within the setting of God's command. (p49)

Perhaps the Bible doesn't share our squeamishness over sacramental efficacy.

religious movies

2009-12-09T11:47:00.000-08:00

A good blog on the top ten religiously themed films of the decade. Was unaware of the abortion one.

why blogs fail

2009-12-08T12:23:00.000-08:00

Lutheran pastor and Executive Director of Editorial Division at Concordia Publishing House, Paul T. McCain, offers some penetrating insights as to why some blogs fail. More than once I had the sense that he'd been reading the rubbish here before he decided to vent! A couple of reasons offered are:

They offer little more than constant axe-grinding and carping on a particular subject. This is one of the more spectacular ways blogs qualify for “epic fails.” I’ve seen it over and over again. If a blog site is nothing but a litany of rants, whines and complaints, particularly about one given topic, they generally dwindle away after the temper-tantrum is over and the emotional zeal wears thin. Now, this is not to say a blog devoted to a broad social concern is not going to work, and it may often be offering critiques. What I have in mind here are blogs that come off as whining. I’ve not seen many of these blogs stay around for long.

....They lack focus and purpose. Blogs that do not pick up and run with a main theme or interest tend to die a slow death. An initial enthusiasm for blogging, with frequent posts, slowly fades as the person struggles to know what to say. A sure symptom of impending demise are the posts that begin, “Well, I have not posted anything for a while…” or “Sorry it’s been so long since I’ve posted something.” If a blog does not have a unifying “meta narrative” or does not understand what its niche is, it will fizzle.

Since I discovered Paul's blog, CyberBrethren, it has become one of my daily clicks. It has certainly helped inform this previously ignorant Reformed-ish blogger on all things Lutheran.

Office Hours - David VanDrunen

2009-12-07T12:22:00.000-08:00

The latest podcast from the dudes at Westminster Seminary California looks promising. David VanDrunen, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics talks to RSC about all things Reformed/ A must listen and a worthy addition to your podcast subscription.

The Faith of Jesus Christ Again

2009-12-07T04:58:00.000-08:00

An interesting post by Loren Rosson gives arguments against the subjective genitive.

HT: John Thomson

The Faith of Jesus Christ

2009-12-06T12:54:00.000-08:00

Being a layman I'm dependent on experts in Greek linguistics when it comes to translating the phrase "pistis Christou" in various passages of Scripture e.g. Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, etc. There is a bit of a scholarly dingdong abroad regarding whether we should interpret the phrase "faith in Christ" or "the faithfulness of Christ". Aparently the phrase, literally "faith of Christ", can be interpreted either way.

What interests me about those who tend to advocate the latter reading (e.g. N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III) is that they tend to deny the imputation of Christ's active obedience (IAO). On the other hand, the staunchest defenders of the traditional former rendering, (e.g. D.A. Carson) tend to affirm IAO. Weird! Why so?

Well, firstly, I'm not suggesting that we adapt our exegesis/translations in order to cater to our theological shibboleths. Nevertheless, I'd have thought that those partial to the IAO would see the force in being justified through "the faithfulness of Christ". In my opinion, if the phrase, "pistis Christou" is best translated "faithfulness of Christ" then the arguments for IAO are settled in favour of said doctrine hook, line and sinker.

It seems Michael Horton agrees. In his, excellent, Covenant and Salvation, he writes:

What makes all the difference is whether one is legally incorporated into a promise-covenant or a law-covenant. What is transferred to the believer, therefore, is not the inherent person of God or Christ, but the record of a perfectly acceptable life that has been lived, offered up, received, and raised again for us. It is a verdict declared because of Christ's faithfulness to the covenant....While it is far from nomistic, such a representational view of justification is surely, from beginning to end, covenantal.

...Longenecker thinks that, in Paul's view, Christians participate in Jesus' covenant fidelity by faith. This is why Paul says in [Gal.] 2:16b: 'We believed in Christ Jesus, in order that his covenant faithfulness might be effective for us'" - as also 3:22. "Paul's 'faith' language in these verses is fundamentally language of participation." So justification (i.e. covenant membership) is based for Paul now not on the law but on Jesus' covenant faithfulness, which he receives by faith. His faithfulness is "rubbish"; "only Christ's faithfulness [is]....the mark of his covenant membership before God." (p112)

Powerful stuff. I can't imagine any more debates over IAO if we read Romans 3:22 saying "the righteousness of God is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe."

reading the bible for all it's worth

2009-12-04T12:30:00.000-08:00

Many evangelicals have a grasp of their faith that leaves a lot to be desired. It is not that they do not read the Bible. They do, or most do. They read a few verses or even a few chapters, probably daily, yet are still, despite years of reading, still fairly insecure about what the biblical perspective and message really is. The problem is how they read.

J I Packer has commented well on this.

'Let us read the Bible then — if we can. But can we? The truth is that many of us have lost the ability to read the Bible. When we open our Bibles, we do so in a frame of mind which forms an insuperable barrier to our ever reading it at all. This may sound startling, but it is not hard to show that it is true.

When you sit down to any other book, you treat it as a unit. You look for the plot, or the main thread of the argument, and follow it through to the end. You let the author's mind lead yours. Whether or not you allow yourself to "dip" before settling down to the book properly, you know that you will not have understood it till you have been through it from start to finish, and if it is a book that you want to understand you set aside time to read it in full. But when we come to Holy Scripture, our behaviour is different. In the first place, we are in the habit of not treating it as a book — a unit — at all, but simply as a collection of separate stories and sayings. We take it for granted before we look at the text that the burden of them — or, at least, of as many of them as affect us — is either moral advice or comfort for those in trouble. So we read them (when we do) in small doses, a few verses at a time. We do not go through individual books, let alone the two complete Testaments, as a single whole. We browse through the rich old Jacobean periods of the Authorised Version, waiting for something to strike us. When the words bring to our minds a soothing thought or a pleasant picture, we feel that the Bible has done its job for us. It seems that the Bible is for us not a book, but a collection of beautiful and suggestive snippets, and it is as such that we use it. The result is that we never read the Bible at all. We take it for granted that we are handling Holy Writ in the truly religious way; but in truth, our use of it is more than a little superstitious. It is the way of natural religiosity, perhaps, but not of true religion.'

How do we read the Bible? Do we read it as a 'dip and pick'? Do we read it as a 'promise box' looking for a 'pick-me-up' to get me through the day? Or do we seek to read it like we read any book, as a unit, with a view to grasping its big picture? Only by reading it in this latter way is it possible to gain a mature understanding of our faith.

Transformers

2009-12-02T07:15:00.000-08:00

In Christ we come face to face with God. Jesus is God revealed - not a shadow of God or a part of God but the very essence of the self existing 'I am' who created and sustains the universe. To be a Christian is to be involved in a life changing encounter with the Triune God.

The life of the Christian is linked to the life of God through Christ. I am not the person I would have been had I not encountered God in Christ [though of course it was God who reached down to me in sovereign grace]. I am not just talking about the benefits of Christ's death, which amaze me, but the transforming power of his life and Resurrection. To be a Christian is to be a changed person. I am far from perfect but everything I believe and everything I do has Christ as its reference point. God will not leave me be. His life invades every part of my being – my hopes, my beliefs, my ambitions and my actions.

God not only transforms individuals but He transforms relationships. I can no longer ignore other people or dismiss their needs, for God has reminded me that I am part of His creation and part of His people. I do not stand alone, autonomous. I am under God and part of something bigger than myself. That means I must strive to apply NT principles in every circumstance.

I Corinthians 13
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Not that it is easy to ruthlessly apply the standards of Christ. MLJ used to talk about Christians living a 'D Day' life [sorry, I teach history]. As soon as the Allies had established the beach heads in France the war was effectively won - the enemy would fight ferociously, like a cornered animal, but the Victory celebrations were just around the corner.

I have hope. Even if I fail - Christ is always my standard. Perhaps I am naïve, but if I settle for less - in my personal life, my home life, my work, my church, my bloging - then I have surrendered and stopped thinking and acting as a Christian. There are no exceptions or get out clauses.

God is the Transformer. He changes people, relationships, institutions and cultures. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I studied Moral Philosophy. One of the first lectures focused on ‘the moral ought’ or the ‘is/ought’ fallacy. It is always wrong to argue from the way things are to the way they ought to be. Because something is the case doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. Christians are a people of the moral ought. They are always putting ‘is’ under the moral spotlight. Or perhaps it is better to say that God puts our ‘is’ – the way we live, think and act – under the spotlight of His holiness. It is no excuse to say that ‘this is simply the way things are’ or ‘this is the way I am’. The Christian always asks if it is the way it ought to be – if I am the person I ought to be.

I have met God and He has changed me forever. Thank God. I am by nature selfish, amoral, sarcastic, angry, though I can sometimes be kind or patient. Grace has changed me from the inside so that the voice I hear first now urges me to follow the example and teachings of my Lord though I can sometimes be selfish, amoral, sarcastic and angry. I still have a fight on my hands but the outcome was decided before the world was formed when the Sovereign God determined to redeem me.

Don’t believe the enemies propaganda. They can pass laws, attack the gospel and mount advertisement campaigns. But they cannot win the war.

Therefore, [in the words of Dylan] ‘I'm pressing on -To the higher calling of my lord.’

om

2009-11-28T06:53:00.000-08:00

An interesting article at Newsweek shows how Hindu assumptions influence beliefs and culture in the West nowadays more than Christianity. An acute observation is how cremation has gained ascendancy as Judeo-christian beliefs on the significance of the body have declined.

preaching keller

2009-11-28T06:37:00.000-08:00

Here is an excellent blog by Keller on the need for preachers to be pastors,and not just preachers.

Another Doctrine of Justification = Another Religion

2009-11-27T15:54:00.000-08:00

Darryl Hart has the following Machen quote over at Old Life:

. . what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul’s lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believe that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer’s own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical – not even, perhaps, the temporal – order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern “practical” Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him . .

Paul saw very clearly that the difference between the Judaizers and himself was the difference between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the difference between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. . . . Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.

From J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (1923)

I challenge you to find even 5 evangelical churches in Glasgow preaching from a conviction like this.

depart from me, I never knew you

2009-11-27T07:06:00.000-08:00

Our churches, by this I mean our evangelical churches, may well be full of false believers who will be eternally lost. I am not trying to be melodramatic or controversial. I write with heaviness of heart.

How can I know I am saved? How can I be sure I am not eternally lost? Both biblical words and biblical questions.

The answer is, I must have a faith in Jesus and his saving work that turns me away from sin and enables me to wholeheartedly repent if it does, through carelessness, erupt in my life. Saving faith enables me to hate sin and love holiness.

The gross sins of the flesh simply do not belong in a believer's life. They are alien and incongruous. If they are habitually present I can have no confidence that I am a believer and require to urgently deal with the matter. This may mean speaking to church elders and seeking help.

Paul says unequivocally,

1 Cor 6:9 '... the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.'

In Galatians we are reminded of some other blatant sins that are quite inconsistent with any claim to be a believer.

Gals 5:19-21 'Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'

If you are a sexual sinner, get drunk, are envious, jealous and coveteous of others, or greedy do not be sure you are a Christian, you may well not be.

If you feed a need to be better than others, are abusive to others (wife, children, colleagues, church members) do not assume you are saved for Paul tells us people like this do not inherit the Kingdom of God. Uncontrolled erupting temper is no trivial matter that can be blamed on genes or upbringing; it is a sign of a seismic spiritual problem of eternal life proportions.

We cannot afford to be casual about such sins in our lives. Indulged and continued they will damn us, of this we can be certain. And all the religious enthusiasm in the world will not compensate.

You cannot authentically sing for Christ while serving the flesh. You mock the gospel and the very God you profess to worship. You cannot proclaim Christ (in word or song) and parade in your life the ugly realities of the flesh. People who are not Christians will mock such hypocrisy. How do you think God will reract when you blaspheme his name?

These are serious matters. Of course we may fail in any of these matters and be forgiven. But forgiveness involves turning away from them. It means putting these practices off. It means being ruthless with sin and staying far away from those sins in particular we know we are susceptible to.

The Christian life is not a garden party. It is a fight and a fight to the death; either we kill the flesh or the flesh will kill us.

How terrible to have been one of the busiest people in church and on the day of judgement to hear the cosmically final words, 'Depart from me, I never knew you'.

gospel old and new

2009-11-25T04:27:00.000-08:00

There is a 'must read' on the difference between the 'old and new gospel' over at Kevin de Young's blog.

I wish this wasn't in the bible but....

2009-11-23T12:27:00.000-08:00

How many times have we heard well meaning preachers, when confronted with exegeting a passage on the eternal punishment of the wicked, say something like "Now I wish this part wasn't in the Bible. I wish it wasn't true, but it's there, and I have to preach it." Such an expression is ungodly and wicked.

It is ungodly because it betrays unbelief in the righteousness of God. The eternal punishment of the wicked is absolutely just. It is just, because our father Adam longed for eternal life without the giver of life (Gen. 3:10). It is just, because Adam believed the devil rather than God (Gen. 3:6). It is just, because we are Adam's children (Gen. 5:3). It is just, because God has continually showered the good gifts of natural creation upon his ungrateful creatures who have continued to hate him (Matt. 5:45). It is just, because every expression of the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). It is just, because even our best deeds (never mind our idolatry, murders, genocides, rapes, lies, adulteries, occult practises, gossipping, greed) are like filthy tampons (Isi. 64:6). God's eyes are so pure (Habb. 1:13) that even when he looks upon our best deeds, our humanitarian efforts, our charity work, etc, all he sees is actions dripping with menstrual blood. It is just, because we killed the second Adam, God's dear Son, for daring to challenge our sin (Luk. 20:13). It is just, because God could have annihilated creation long before now, but he didn't. In his great mercy he has prolonged the day of salvation and still mankind rages on in rebellion (2 Cor. 6:2, 2 Pet. 3:9).

Not only is such a sentiment ungodly, but it is wicked. It fails to love what God loves and hate what he hates. When God's people are born into the new covenant, he writes his laws upon their hearts (Heb. 8:7-13). No longer is the law booming from outside to fearful sinners who can't keep it (Heb. 12:18). Now, having been fulfilled in Christ, it becomes the heart of the new believer through the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). To hate final judgement is to be ambivalent about sin and therefore, about God and the agony Christ suffered. It is to hate the law that is supposedly engraved on the believers' heart. No, the Christian loves the law; even the sentences against sin that it pronounces (Rom. 1:32).

So when the Christian reads of God's judgement in Scripture, he finds with Ezekiel that even God's words of 'lament and mourning and woe' (Eze. 2:9) taste 'as sweet as honey' (Eze. 3:3). Indeed, when God judges the earth, the cry of God's people isn't, along with Brian McLaren, a pietistic lament that attempts to sound more compassionate than God. No, they sing hymns rejoicing in the righteousness and goodness of God's judgement (Rev. 19:1-3). Can you imagine one of our boyband worship leaders penning a hymn about the destruction of the whore of Babylon with a chorus going: "Oh Babylon, gonna get some shocks. God's gonna dash your babies heads on rocks." (Ps. 137:9)?

While the Christian never takes delight in the death of the wicked (Matt. 23:37, Eze. 18:32), and while he yearns for those who don't know Christ and are headed for destruction (Rom. 9:1-5), he still has a correlating sense of sweetness and joy in the doctrine of eternal punishment.

holy ground

2009-11-21T14:44:00.000-08:00

Chris Castaldo, a converted Roman Catholic who has written a book, 'Holy Ground - Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic' is interviewed by Doug Phillips at his blog. Here is an extract where Chris expresses his concerns about the average Roman Catholic.

'Of more immediate concern to me is the penetration of the biblical gospel—the message of divine grace accessed through faith alone—into the hearts of Catholic people who haven’t a clue why Jesus died, much less how salvation is appropriated. Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft describes this problem:

“There are still many who do not know the data, the gospel. Most of my Catholic students at Boston College have never heard it. They do not even know how to get to heaven. When I ask them what they would say to God if they died tonight and God asked them why he should take them into heaven, nine out of ten do not even mention Jesus Christ. Most of them say they have been good or kind or sincere or did their best. So I seriously doubt God will undo the Reformation until he sees to it that Luther’s reminder of Paul’s gospel has been heard throughout the church” (Peter Kreeft. “Ecumenical Jihad.” Reclaiming The Great Tradition. Ed. James S. Cutsinger. [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997]. 27).'

Romans Seven

2009-11-21T10:16:00.000-08:00

Romans Seven has been and will no doubt continue to be a chapter in Scripture over which controversy will rage. Who does it describe?

Does it describe a Christian? But how can it? In the light of Ch 6:14, how can a Christian possibly say, 'For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin'? Does it describe someone who is not a Christian? Seems highly unlikely. What non-Christian is described in Scripture as someone who, 'delights in the Law of God in the inner man'?

The key to Romans Seven is 7 v 6.

'But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. '

Paul's concern is not distinguishing between two anthropologies (Christian or non-Christian) but between two epochs (Law and grace). His concerns are redemptive-historical, that is, he is describing the difference between life under the old covenant of law and life in the new covenant of grace. It is, as 7v6 makes eminently clear, a question of 'how we serve'. Romans Seven describes service under 'the old way of the written code'. It is equivalent to Gals 3:23-4:3. It is a service of effective slavery. Romans Eight describes service 'under the new way of the Spirit'. It is Gals 4:5,6. It is the freedom of sons.

The key to the transformation between the slavery of Ch 7 and the freedom of Ch8 is 8:1-4

'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For jGod has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son nin the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.'

In the parallel passage in Galatians the key to the transformation between the infancy (effective slavery) of Gals 3:23-4:3 and Ch 4:5,6 is 4:4

'But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'

The decisive change lies in the death of Christ. There a key redemptive-historical act takes place. The old age of flesh finishes and the new age of the Spirit arrives.

Romans Seven describes OT believers under the old covenant of Law. Romans Eight describes NT believers under the new covenant in the Spirit.

Do you agree?

redeeming culture

2009-11-20T06:15:00.000-08:00

I'm still gnawing away at this 'redeeming culture' notion. In part it's a semantics issue but underlying the semantics is an important matter - what is the church's responsibility to society and what can it hope to achieve.

The Kuyperians (not a Star Trek race but followers of A. Kuyper a dutch calvinist) believe the task of the church is to transform the structures of society and through this advance the Kingdom of God cosmically. Some use language about 'redeeming' culture.

I have big problems with this. The first is a singular lack of emphasis on such a mission in Scripture. We read the epistles in vain for Christians to renew, redeem or rescue culture. Redemption in the 'already' of the Kingdom is emphatically of individuals. It is the church who are described as 'the redeemed' and no one (and nothing) else. In fact they are described as 'redeemed from the earth' (Rev 14:3).

Even for believers redemption is presently partial. For example, they await the 'redemption of the body'.

There is to be sure a 'day of redemption' still to come. It is a reference to the consummation of the Kingdom when God's people will be fully rescued from all that oppresses and the creation itself will be 'set free' from its bondage to corruption (Roms 8:21). However, Scripture carefully distinguishes between God's liberating of creation and his judging of culture.

Human culture in a fallen world is, in Scripture, the world in opposition to God. It cannot be redeemed nor does Scripture give any encouragement to try to redeem it. God does not intend to redeem it but judge it; it is Babylon that will 'fall in one day' (Rev 17,18). The best that Christians can do for culture is a kind of 'law-work'. Indeed, a law-work is all that God himself does. In common grace God institutes structures and authorities to limit evil and punish wrongdoing (Roms 13). Christians, acting as salt, can be part of this law-work. They can work for fairer structures in society and be involved in humanitarian causes. But these, we should never forget, are bandages not a cure.

We should never confuse these with 'redeeming society'. In fact what they do, with greater or lesser insight and effectiveness non-Christians do to and non-Christians are certainly not redeeming society.

God is not redeeming society or culture or the world. He is redeeming a people 'out of the world', 'ransomed from every tribe and tongue and people and nation' (Rev 5), to be his chosen 'peculiar' people, and he does so by the gospel.

It is important to use biblical concepts carefully. When we get too loose and cavalier we end up with a skewed theology and a church with a skewed agenda. It is not our job to christianize culture. Nor is there such things as a Christian economics policy; a Christian political policy; a Christian Social policy. There is only Christians active in culture seeking to stem evil and promote good according to their sanctified abilities.

Sometimes the myth is sold that if only Christians forgot doctrine and concentrated their energies on societal reform they would be united. But it is a myth. For, in practice, when Christians try to agree such policies they end up in much greater disagreement than they even do over matters of the gospel. The reason is simple; the Bible tells us what the gospel is (which at least limits disagreement) but it says nothing about political, economic or social theory at all (therefore grounds for difference are boundless).

Let biblical words bear their proper biblical weight and intention. God is presently redeeming for himself a people out of the world; he is not redeeming culture. Let the church preach the gospel of redemption and let redeemed Christians not forget as they evangelize to 'do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith'.

Sarx - Flesh or Sinful Nature?

2009-11-19T06:58:00.001-08:00

I am neither a C1 Greek scholar, nor the son of a Greek scholar, so when it comes to NT bible translation issues, I completely at the mercy of the translators. One issue that has kept me awake at night is how different translations render the Greek word sarx (lit. flesh).

Now according to Doug Moo, in The Challenge of Bible Translation, sarx has a range of meanings depending on the context. I'm more interested in how to translate it in instances when the NIV renders it 'sinful nature'. Many Greek scholars are unhappy with this kind of rendering (including Moo himself). Moo, in the aforementioned publication, mentions James D.G. Dunn:

He [Dunn] argues that the meanings of sarx in Paul do not fall into separate, watertight categories but occupy a spectrum of meaning. In contrast to scholars who suggest that Paul may have derived his more neutral sense of sarx from the Old Testament and the Jewish world and the more negative sense from the Greek world, Dunn, along with many others before him, traces the spectrum o Paul's usage to the Hebrew basar, with its sense of "human mortality." One implication of this conclusion is that a certain negative nuance often clings to sarx, even when Paul uses it in apparently neutral senses. (p369)

Most of the scholars who have protested against the NIV/TNIV rendering "sinful nature" would probably agree with James D.G. Dunn: "A much more satisfactory rule of translation would be to recognise that sarx is an important and technical linking term in Paul's letters and is therefore best translated consistently by the same term, 'flesh.'" (p374)

I am sympathetic to this view. One need only see what is lost to TNIV readers when they compare Romans 8:1-4 with the ESV/NRSV/NASB/HCSB in this regard. Nevertheless, more often than not, when I hear preachers teaching from a formal translation and they come to the word 'flesh' they end up explaining it using 'sinful nature' type language. For example, Hywel R. Jones in his article 'Justification by Faith Alone' in the magnificent 'Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry' says:

What is flesh? The term has more than a physical connotation in Scripture. It is more than a body....It is..associated with deeds and words of the body but also with its "desires," even strong ones (Gal. 5:16-17, 24). Flesh is therefore the unrenewed nature of the justified believer. (p303)

So perhaps for readability and comprehension, "sinful nature" ain't too bad. Yet re-reading Jones' quote leaves one with the impression that perhaps the "sinful nature" language fails to encompass that sarx means much more than strong desire, but also includes the idea of a mortal body. Hmm.

Office Hours - The Law is Not of Faith

2009-11-18T13:09:00.000-08:00

The latest podcast from the Westminster Seminary California 'Office Hours' team is a peach. RSC interviews J.V Fesko, David VanDrunen and Bryan Estelle on the work they edited 'The Law is Not of Faith.' They discuss the sheer Reformed-ness of the idea that the Mosaic law was a republication of the covenant of works. Gripping stuff and well worth your time.

transforming culture

2009-11-17T09:17:00.000-08:00

Some evangelicals believe that the task of the church is to transform culture. They believe the church is called to 'redeem culture'. Nature, they say, is restored by grace.

There are a number of mistakes in this analysis it seems to me. I want to focus only on one. I think the idea that nature is restored by grace is flawed. It implies that what the gospel ultimately achieves is merely a return to Eden. This is far too limited a perspective. The gospel is about 'new creation'. New creation is not simply the old restored it is the birth of a new plane of being and existence.

Nowhere is this distinction more clearly and succintly made than in 1 Cor 15

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

The First Creation is energized by the 'soulish', the earthy the Second is energized by the 'spiritual', the heavenly. Adam, even in pre-fallen condition, was not the ultimate; the ultimate is Christ in resurrection, the Lord from Heaven.

Eschatology precedes everything. God's first plan was always the Second Man, the Last Adam. God's goal for humanity is not the reinstated image of the earthly Adam but the 'image of the man from heaven' His is the spiritually energized life that truly images God in righteousness and holiness.

This world in its unfallen state was transient, and in its fallen state is condemned. It is passing away. God's vision from before the beginning was a new creation and that vision gives to his people. They live here as pilgrims looking for a city built without hands whose builder and maker is God. They pant as aliens for a better country, that is an heavenly one. They look by faith to 'a new heavens and new earth' that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading. That is their vision, their goal, and their home.

Of course, this does not mean they selfishly neglect the world in which they live. Rather the opposite. They seek the welfare of the city in which they live as aliens. They seek to show compassion to its citizens. They help them where possible and more, strive to introduce its citizens to the world to come that will never pass away. But they are under no illusions. They know this world and the fashion of it is destined for destruction. Their primary and most urgent task is to call others to flee from the City of Destruction, Babylon the Great, and begin a pilgrimage to the Celestial City, the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, that comes, not by redeeming culture, but 'comes down out of heaven from God'.

God's plan is not that grace may restore nature but that grace will birth from the death of the old a new creation unspeakably more glorious and vibrant where the former things are no more. Grace does not restore nature, or transform nature, it transcends and eclipses nature in its vision of the future. A vision summed up by John in Revelation when he says,

'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away... the former things have passed away. And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."'

Should We Divide Over 1 Timothy 2:12?

2009-11-16T12:03:00.000-08:00

You hear from time to time in conversation and from articles in the blogosphere that Christians need to unite around the 'essentials', whatever they may be (BTW in many cases you'll find that one man's essential doctrine is another's expendable inconvenience).

One issue that rears its ugly head as an 'expendable' is that of women's ordination/preaching/leadership. "There's a world out there that needs the gospel," goes one argument, "and it's tragic that Christians are divided over such trivialities as women in leadership." As such, churches that hold to opposing views on female ordination are encouraged to put aside their petty differences and work together in evangelistic rallies, political endeavours, social justice campaigns, etc, for the good of the gospel.

Here again, we see the twin headed beast of egalitarianism and modern tolerance trumping the text of Scripture. I believe that the biblical writers would affirm the contrary, that for the good of the gospel, churches should not work with others that are in error in this matter. One may ask, why this tight ass approach? Well, with long broom stick protruding from my bottom, I simply reply that female ordination betrays an attitude to the word of God that, given time, will spew it's unbelieving vomit all over even those 'essentials' we've united over.

Lig Duncan once remarked that if there was a text in Scripture which stated, "I do not permit you to baptise infants" then the whole paedobaptism argument would be settled. Yet we have such a text in 1 Tim. 2:12 regarding female ordination and many in the church still find ways around it. It's phenomenal to read the exegetical hoops some commentators jump through in order to make the text say, "I utterly affirm that women should teach and have authority over men. In fact, I think it's splendid."

If one can make black say white in 1 Tim. 2:12, why not do it elsewhere? Why not make 1 Cor. 6:9 say that "fornicators, gossips and homosexual offenders WILL inherit the kingdom of God"? Why not make Isaiah 53:5 say that "punishment wasn't necessary to bring us peace. There is no central motif in the Messiah's death"? Why not make Rev. 22:18 say, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: don't see these words as timeless truths. Try to hear what the Spirit is saying in your own faith community"? Why not make John 1:1 say, "the Word wasn't God"? Why not make 1 Cor. 15:14 say, "And if Christ has not been raised, it shouldn't effect whether you believe in God or not. Rob Bell says the Christian faith is a trampoline to enjoy, not a brick wall preserving doctrine"? Why not make Gal. 1:8 say "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, give him a fair hearing. Truth after all is plural and he's probably bringing a fresh perspective"? Why not make Rom. 4:5 say, "However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, that person should be more concerned about social justice"?

The hermeneutic which affirms female ordination in 1 Tim. 2:12 is a ravenous beast that is not content to let sacred truths abide unscathed. If we are to guard the gospel we must be willing to make hard choices regarding those individuals and denominations who affirm female ordination. We must not commune them, fellowship with them, share a platform with them, or work with them. And if this hurts their feelings so be it.

casino faith

2009-11-16T08:06:00.000-08:00

Christians have a right standing with God by faith. Faith is both objective and subjective, that is, it is as much about what we believe as believing itself. Who and what we trust is as important as the fact that we trust. Sometimes the 'who and what we trust' is referred to as 'the faith'. Jude, the brother of Jesus, refers to it as 'the faith delivered once and for all to the saints'.

What I find remarkable is how many people seem to be willing to push the boundaries of this 'faith delivered to the saints'. Folks who call themselves Christians, even evangelical Christians, seem quite cavalier in what they dismiss or distort in the Bible. They boldly champion 'beliefs' that plainly conflict with clear statements of gospel faith revealed in the Bible.

For example, we find people claiming to be Christian who 'believe' that God is all love and has no wrath, despite the Bible's unequivocal and regular statements about God's wrath and judgement. Some claim there is no hell, others that all will be saved. Some suggest that there is saving truth in other religions, even in no religion. Some evangelicals believe and teach that homosexual stable partnerships are acceptable to God. All these 'beliefs' fly in the face of 'the faith' as revealed in the Bible.

The question is just how often can one 'believe' what is contrary to the Bible before these beliefs constitute 'unbelief' and make one an 'unbeliever'.

Many seem blithely prepared to believe and advocate what the Bible condemns and risk perdition. They seem willing to drive close to the edge and even with wheels spinning over the edge. Theirs is a foolhardy faith, a profligate faith. It is an irresponsible casino faith that gambles recklessly with the most expensive chips of all, their own souls.

Saving faith is not faith itself, not even faith in Christ since we are all too accomplished at creating Christs that suit us; it is faith that submits to the Christ revealed in the Bible and what God has revealed in Christ. It is faith in 'the faith delivered to the saints.'

The Porpoise Driven Life

2009-11-15T06:13:00.000-08:00

This is hilarious.

HT: Paul T. McCain

moderate love

2009-11-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

Rev 2:1-5 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: 'The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent."

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation. I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

Moderate love is a sin. Maybe a damning sin.

preaching that ensures failure

2009-11-13T01:26:00.000-08:00

D A Carson on Parables

'There are some audiences to whom you preach where the preaching of the word guarantees that they will not hear. Cf. John 8:45: “Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!”'

can you say 'shibboleth'?

2009-11-12T06:53:00.000-08:00

Cultures are defined by their history and their language. In fact, their history creates their language and their language preserves and explains their history. Thus a culture is a community of people who share in a common history and language.

Language is powerfully cohesive (and divisive). When God wanted to scatter peoples across the earth he simply divided their language. People groups are language groups. Indeed all subcultures within a main culture find their identity in a common language. There is the language of the dancer, the footballer, the lawyer and so on. Without their own ‘language’ these community groups would have no real identity, could not function and actually would cease to exist.

Where is all this going?

It is simply to observe that the Christian Church must of necessity have its own language. To be a Christian is to share in a common community history. It is to be part of a ‘peculiar’ people, part of a story that has generated its own language and vocabulary. This language expresses all that is rich and valuable in its heritage. Without its language the Christian Church loses its links with its past. It loses its understanding of the past. It loses its distinctiveness. In fact, it loses its gospel.

If the Christian Church discards for the sake of cultural engagement its own vocabulary and so history it will become so culturally assimilated that it loses its identity. This is what happens to communities that assimilate.

Thus, the church must preserve and protect its language and heritage, just as other communities seek to do. It must make its members familiar with its biblical history and with its distinctive language for in this language and history lie its identity, its cultural richness and its very existence. It is important that Christians understand words like justification, reconciliation, redemption, creation, providence, the fall, sin, Messiah, Son of Man, and so on for these are its life blood. Phrases like ‘the stone the builders rejected’ are meaningless to outsiders but to those in the Christian heritage they are culture- rich.

Christians are often eager to rid themselves of ‘in-house’ language. More about this in a moment, but for now I want simply to observe that this is mistaken for all the above reasons. More, we should not be embarrassed by a degree of ‘oddness’. Every alien culture seems odd to a resident culture. And Christians are ‘resident aliens’. They belong to a country with a different heritage and different values and so different language to the one in which they live and as a result will always be ‘different’.

Now a word of balance is needed here. This is no plea or excuse for unnecessary eccentricity unrelated to the gospel heritage. Nor is it an excuse to avoid engagement with an alien culture. We cannot excite others about the Christian heritage, nation and commonwealth to which we belong unless we engage with them. If we live in a foreign country we must learn its language. However, learning its language is one thing, losing our own is another. When we lose our language, we lose our history and so we lose our identity. We are culturally assimilated. We lose the gospel.

Do you speak the Christian language? Are you familiar with its vocabulary? Does it identify you? Can you say shibboleth?

humiliating the gospel

2009-11-12T00:57:00.000-08:00

Good post at Evangel by Ray Ortlund Jnr. Here is a flavour.

'Imagine the evangelical church without the gospel. I know this makes no sense, for evangelicals are defined by the evangel. But try to imagine it for just a moment. What might our evangelicalism, without the evangel, look like? We would have to replace the centrality of the gospel with something else, naturally. So what might take the place of the gospel in our sermons and books and cassette tapes and Sunday school classes and home Bible studies and, above all, in our hearts?

A number of things, conceivably. An introspective absorption with recovery from past emotional traumas, for example. Or a passionate devotion to the pro-life cause. Or a confident manipulation of modern managerial techniques. Or a drive toward church growth and “success.” Or a deep concern for the institution of the family. Or a fascination with the more unusual gifts of the Spirit. Or a clever appeal to consumerism by offering a sort of cost-free Christianity Lite. Or a sympathetic, empathetic, thickly-honeyed cultivation of interpersonal relationships. Or a determination to take America back to its Christian roots through political power. Or a warm affirmation of self-esteem. The evangelical movement, stripped of the gospel, might fix upon any or several of such concerns to define itself and derive energy for its mission. In other words, evangelicals could marginalize or even lose the gospel and still potter on their way, perhaps even oblivious to their loss.

But not only is this conceivable, it is actually happening among us right now.

Whatever one may think of the various concerns noted above as alternatives to the centrality of the gospel—and some of these matters possess genuine validity and even urgency, especially the family—not one of them is central to our faith. Not one of them is the gospel or deserves to push the gospel itself to the periphery of our message, our agenda and our affections. But the gospel of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ is today suffering humiliation among us evangelicals by our conspicuous neglect of it.'

every picture tells a story

2009-11-11T07:41:00.000-08:00

Are the Post-millenialists right. Has the Kingdom renewed the animal creation?

apologetics - words or life?

2009-11-11T07:24:00.000-08:00

Mike Horton comments on the demise of apologetics.

'Apologetics has a place in every Christian's life, but ministers should have a more specialized knowledge of it. Ministers are called to proclaim the gospel in a way that is distinct from the calling that every Christian has to be a witness. This means that they need special training for that vocation. It's really amazing how many seminaries, including evangelical ones, are now doing without apologetics. There seems to be an anti-apologetic mood around at the moment. I suspect that part of it has to do with a retreat from the confidence of modernism (the ‘I have all the answers’ approach) to postmodernism's more sceptical attitude toward people like that. Nowadays, a lot of people are saying non-Christians don't want people coming to them with a lot of arguments. They want people to come to them and show them a Christlike life.'

The last two sentences highlight the false antitheses we evangelicals seem to so often adopt. Christian apologetics consist not of 'faith arguments or Christlikeness' but 'faith arguments AND Christlikeness.'

Horton of course agrees with this.

all truth is relative... except liberal truth

2009-11-09T10:20:00.000-08:00

Over at BLOG and MABLOG Doug Wilson is reviewing John Franke's book on truth, 'Manifold Wisdom: plurality of truth'. Franke is a leading postmodern 'emergent' theologian.

Franke apparently (as we might expect) is attempting to make a case for a seriously relativized truth, by significantly relativizing our interpretation of truth.

Wilson quotes:

"In order to do this, I suggest a simple thesis: the expression of biblical and orthodox Christian faith is inherently and irreducibly pluralist. The diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some approaches to church and theology might seem to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome" (p. 7)

Plurality in Christian beliefs, Franke apparently avers in true postmodern form, is not only a self evident fact but a fact to be celebrated.

Yet, having vigorously made his case Franke steps back and insists there are as Wilson writes, 'certain fixed principles, certain absolutes, that cannot be altered, come wind or tide.'

Franke writes:

"Some claims and assertions about Christian belief and practice are wrong, such as those that support discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender" (p. 8).

I must confess, reading this I almost laughed out loud. The absolutes of the Christian Faith, according to Franke, are those that align with modern leftist liberalism.

Should I have laughed or wept?

good works

2009-11-09T06:15:00.000-08:00

Mike Horton quotes a good line from Luther:

'God doesn't need your good works; your neighbour does'.

eschatology precedes everything

2009-11-07T04:14:00.000-08:00

In theology eschatology comes first. That is, the End precedes the Beginning. Or, if you like, the End decides the Means.

God's eternal plan to head up all things in Christ frames everything that goes before.

Thus new creation precedes and explains creation; the New Jerusalem precedes and explains the Garden; Christ precedes and explains Adam.

Adam is 'the type' of 'the One who is to come'.

Everything is explained from the vantage point of the End. Christians truly live by faith when they see things eschatologically, that is, from the vista of the End. Faith is future hope.

Heb 11:1 'faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.'

thank God for seeker-hostile churches

2009-11-06T04:21:00.000-08:00

I rather like Mark Driscoll's description of his 'Mars Hill' church as being, 'seeker-hostile' or 'seeker-unfriendly'. Of course it is an overstatement, a provocative soundbite, a reaction against 'seeker-friendlyism' and the danger of a namby-pamby no-scandal message that offends no-one.

Driscoll is not revelling in being personally offensive. He is revelling in the 'offence of the cross'. He is advocating a plain-speaking gospel. The kind of gospel Peter preached in Acts 2, that Paul preaches in Acts 17, indeed that Jesus regularly preached incurring the wrath of the establishment and rejection by the common people. The gospel that includes,

'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again... If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul. If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.'

redeeming people or cultures?

2009-11-05T13:17:00.000-08:00

I'm looking just now at the church and culture question - a perennial one. This quote from D A Carson, found here is as usual wise and helpful.

'Redemption terminology in the NT is so bound up with Christ's work for and in the church that to extend it to whatever good we do in the broader world risks a shift in focus. Not for a moment do I want to deny that we are to serve as salt and light, that exiles may be called to do good in the pagan cities where Providence has appointed them to live (Jer 29), that every square foot of this world is under Christ's universal reign (even though that reign is still being contested), that the nations of the world will bring their "goods" into the Jerusalem that comes down from above. But many of those who speak easily and fluently of redeeming the culture soon focus all their energy shaping fiscal and political policies and the like, and merely assume the gospel. A gospel that is merely assumed, that does no more than perk away in the background while the focus of our attention is on the "redemption" of the culture in which we find ourselves, is lost within a generation or two. At the same time, I worry about Christians who focus their attention so narrowly on getting people "saved" that they care little about doing good to all people, even if especially to the household of God. Getting this right is not easy, and inevitably priorities will shift a little in various parts of the world, under various regimes. Part of the complexity of the discussion, I think, is bound up with what the church as church is responsible for, and what Christians as Christians are responsible for: I have argued that failure to make this distinction tends to lead toward sad conclusions.'

too many rules

2009-11-05T03:26:00.000-08:00

An extract from an article by Mike Horton on the church's call in the world.

'Pastors aren’t authorized to create their own blueprint for transformation, but are servants of the Word. Where Scripture has clearly spoken, he must speak. Where it is silent, he must keep his personal opinions and perhaps even learned conclusions to himself. Of course, pastors are called to preach the whole council of God... That’s enough to occupy our prayerful action in the world, without piling up commands that God never gave. We’re never called to transform the world (or even our neighborhood). We’re never called even to bring millions to Jesus Christ. We’re called to be faithful in our vocations at work, at home, in our neighborhoods and in our witness to those individuals whom God brings across our path in ordinary ways every day.'

free to offend

2009-11-05T02:47:00.000-08:00

BBC News Scotland

'Transsexual Jesus sparks protests

About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual.

The protest was held outside the Tron Theatre, where Jesus, Queen of Heaven - in which Christ is a transsexual woman - is being staged....

...Festival organisers described the banners as "fairly provocative" and said they could be viewed as inciting homophobia.'

The irony is palpable.

Yet I would add, in a country which champions freedom of speech, Gay movements have the right to express their views even if these offend. Similarly Christians have a right to express their views even if these offend. Freedom of speech implies the right to offend by what we say.

pilgrim politics

2009-11-03T09:48:00.000-08:00

'It is a contradiction in terms for Christian people to be giving so much of their energy to this world. Church conferences and assemblies spend most of their time in considering ‘this world’, passing resolutions about this world. But our first business is to prepare for that other world! This world is doomed. It is under the condemnation of God; it will never be made a better place. Recall how men have tried in the last hundred years to reform it, and how ministers of religion and leaders in churches have given themselves to politics. But look at the state of the Church and the world! The men who have been the greatest benefactors to this world have been such people as those in Hebrews 11 who realized that they were ‘strangers and pilgrims’ and kept their eye ‘upon the recompense of the reward’

Whose words? A search of Adrian Warnock's blog will supply the answer.

better to travel hopefully than arrive????

2009-11-03T09:39:00.000-08:00

' “In the music scene it’s really cool to search for God. It’s not very cool to find Him.”

That line has stuck with me ever since as an apt summary not just for the world of entertainment, but for spirituality in the West. The destination matters little. The journey is the thing.'

Quote from 'Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be.

This is a great book to read. If you have not read it yet you should.

Divisions in the Church

2009-10-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. (1 Cor. 11:19 TNIV)

Divisions in the church are a result of sin. Ever since Babel, mankind has been cursed with a sectarian spirit. Even the church in C1 Corinth, under the influence of the blessed apostle himself was riven by sectarianism. You'd have thought they'd all unite as a body under such infallible Scriptural teaching, but no. "I am of Paul" cried some, "I am of Apollos" shouted others, and still others "I am of Cephas".

How does Paul deal with such sinful division? In chapter 1:10-28 he appeals for unity under the message of the gospel.

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.(v10)

Yet later in the same epistle in verse 11:19, Paul concedes that divisions, sinful though they are, serve a purpose in the mysterious providence of God. These divisions serve to show "who have God's approval."

To highlight his point it's helpful to look at what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say something like "In all your divisions you are each providing a different perspective on truth and piety. When all these perspectives come together, they form a wonderful, rich and varied tapestry highlighting God's truth." In other words, not every sect has something relevant to say. It's kind of trendy today to speak of the different denominations of the church as providing a manifold witness to the truth of the gospel. Yet such gobbeldygook rests upon a hermenuetic of uncertainty and an overly chastised epistemology.

For instance, how do the various strands of the church provide a different perspective on the truth of justification? Rome says faith plus works, Geneva and Augsburg say the opposite. Are both sides right? Rome speaks of two streams of revelation, Geneva and Augsburg speak of only one. Are both sides correct? Pentecostals affirm the continuation of supernatural prophecy, while those bound by the Westminster Standards deny this. Are both camps providing different perspectives on truth? Oh please. This type of crap is just a watered down version of postmodernism's maxim that all roads lead to God.

Or take church worship as another example. The Reformed believe in singing only inspired texts, while the rest of evangelicalism will sing anything but inspired texts. Are they both correct? Rome believes in the sacrifice of the Mass, while Protestants see it as a horrible blasphemy. Are they both following the leading of the Spirit? If the Spirit leads me to pray to Mary, while He leads you to embrace the exclusivity of Christ, is He playing games? Is he Bi-polar? Clearly not.

The purpose of divisions according to the apostle is to highlight those who are genuinely blessed by God (v19). The apostle believes that the validity of certain church practices should be self-authenticating. For instance, it's obvious that getting drunk during communion isn't pleasing to God, so those who abstain from booze during worship are obviously approved.

So to sum up, first, divisions in the church function as a mysterious providence as to who has God's approval; they don't all witness to different aspects of an unattainable truth. Second God's approval of certain parties among the divided is self evident. Third his approval rests upon those who uphold the purity of the gospel through right preaching of the word and proper administration of the sacraments.

sincerity the new saving faith

2009-10-27T06:25:00.000-07:00

It appears that to many, including some evangelicals, God will open the doors of heaven to all who were sincere in life, even if they were sincerely and profoundly wrong.

However appealing such an idea is at a disneyesque level, it is wishful thinking. The Bible never views sincerity as a basis for eternal life. Those who crucified Christ were 'sincere' in their intent. Paul, the Apostle, with zealous sincerity persecuted the early church.

Jesus reminded his disciples that the days would come when, 'anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.' (Jn 16:2).

Indeed, Paul speaks of the sincere but misguided zeal of C1 Israel for God; 'they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.' (Roms 10:2)

However, Israel's sincere zeal and the sincerity of those who would persecute the church was anything but a saving sincerity or saving zeal. Paradoxically, their 'sincerity' stemmed from a failure to 'submit to the righteousness that comes from God' (Roms 10:3).

Sincerity does not save; in fact all 'sincere' belief that does not flow from trust in Christ, is sincere rebellion against God. Sincerity in itself is of limited worth. Fascists are sincere. Islamic terrorists are sincere. Pro-abortionists are sincere. Atrocious acts are perpetrated by sincere people.

Jesus came to save, not the sincere, but sinners. Sincerity cannot save, but it may well damn.

Justification: Understanding the Reformed Doctrine - Part 16 Does Premillenialism Corrupt the Gospel?

2009-10-26T13:37:00.001-07:00

It's been a while since I dipped into Fesko's tome on Justification. I don't know if you're like me, but when I read a long book, sometimes I just need a break in order to re-new my enthusiasm. Well, a Godfrey book on Calvin, a Zaspel/Wells book on New Covenant Theology and four DVD box-sets of The Wire later I'm ready to resume watching Fesko take up the cudgels in defense of our beloved doctrine.

Boy does Fesko float my boat in chapter 12 when he relates justification to the final judgement. How does one reconcile justification sola fide to the final judgement? It is Fesko's contention firstly, that Christ's resurrection is "paradigmatic for believers" (p300), and he cites support from passages along the way like 1 Cor. 15:20b which describes Christ's resurrection as "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep". Fesko goes on to argue that Christ's resurrection is a forensic event where God both declared Christ 'just' and inaugurated a new status of sonship-in-power.

Bearing in mind the forensic nature of Christ's resurrection, and the fact that it serves as a pattern for the resurrection of believers, serves to support Fesko's thesis that the resurrection and final judgement are one and the same thing. ZOWIE BATMAN! Let that sit for a bit. Fesko supports this thesis by considering:

(1) being raised with Christ according to the inner and outer man. Fesko here stresses that the resurrection is a revelation of a present status believers only enjoy inwardly (Rom. 8:10), while the outer body wastes away (2 Cor. 4:16-5:5). Believer's are already raised with Christ (Col. 3:1-4). Resurrection does not imply a two-stage justification however. It is a publication of what already is.
(2) the immediacy of the resurrection transformation. The above passage from Colossians states that when Christ appears we will immediately appear with him in glory. Another passage says we shall be changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:52). It is when we see him that we shall become like him (1 John 3:2). There is no evidence of our waiting before Christ conducts an analysis on 'the whole life lived'.
(3) the extent of the resurrection. Fesko convincingly shows that the resurrection of the righteous to life is glorifcation just as the resurrection of the wicked to death is judgement (see Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29)
(4) the ground of judgement. Whereas the wicked are judged according to works the righteous are judged by faith alone. In the judgement scene in Rev. 20:11-12, there is a book of deeds and a book of life, referred to previously as "the book of the life of the Lamb that was slain" (Rev. 13:8). Attempts to see Romans 2:1-3:8 referring to the judgement of Christians fails to take into account the conspicuous absence of the word 'faith'.

Fesko is clear, the cross of Christ is the only judgement the believer will face. Eschatological theories which ignore the symbol laden structure of Revelation and separate the eschaton into distinct stages of resurrection-judgement-glorification lend themselves to undermining justification sola fide. The glory of amillenialism is that, rather than seeing the the eschaton in these distinct stages, it sees them as an organic unity. Who said eschatology was a secondary issue? ;)

freedom of speech

2009-10-26T11:39:00.000-07:00

Matthew Parris's article on freedom of speech in the wake of QT debate is so good I must draw attention to it. Read it here

A taster

'... what made tears well to my eyes was ... I saw an entire national intelligentsia, in a time of relative peace and stability, unthreatened by any serious challenge to the values they hold dear, and in the face of no more than a gnat of a man leading no more than a rag-tag party with no more than a dishcloth of a manifesto, flinch — seriously flinch — in its commitment to free speech.'

A great article, full of moral authority, from someone who had good reason to remain silent.

saints or sinners?

2009-10-26T04:52:00.000-07:00

By all accounts the book on marriage by Harvey Dave, 'When sinners say I do' is first class. I have not yet read it but people whose judgements I respect and have read it recommend it highly, not least my wife, who insisted on quoting little snippets to me while I was trying to read something else.

Perhaps it's a latent animosity to the book generated by wifely interruptions that prompts this criticism. I don't like the title. Oh I know why the writer has chosen it. He's pointing out that flawed people marry and so it demands lots of effort and lots of forgiveness and lots of trusting in God. For these reasons his title makes good sense.

Well what's my problem? My problem is that Dave uses a title for Christians that the Bible seldom if ever does. Have you noticed the NT is not in the habit of referring to believers as 'sinners'? Christians are saints not sinners. When Paul writes his letters to various churches he does not say 'To the sinners in Christ who live in...', instead he says, 'To the saints in Christ who live in...'.

Paul wants the believers to whom he writes to think of themselves as saints (God's holy ones) not sinners. Why? Well, when we think of ourselves as sinners there are two likely outcomes. One, we are likely to live up to our title. Give a dog a bad name... . Two, we are likely to excuse ourselves for our sins: 'after all, I'm only a sinner'.

Paul insists that we recognise the difference grace has made. Writing to the Corinthians he says:

1 Cor 6:9-11 Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

There is never an excuse for sin. We can never fall back on our background, our habits, our nature, our circumstances or anything else. We are washed, sanctified, justified. We are saints, God's holy people and we ought to live, we ought to be inspired to live, according to who we now are.

Tell a drunk he's just a drunk and he will live as a drunk. Tell him he is a human being and ought to know better and it may make a difference.

The NT approach to Christlikeness is always, 'Be what you are'. You are washed, live as someone washed. You are sanctified, live as sanctified. You are a saint, live like a saint. This is no counsel of despair, it is an incentive to live all the potentiality of the new creation we are in Christ in a fallen world.

Will we fail. Yes we will. But we will pick ourselves up and start again. How will we do this? We will look at our failure and say to ourself, 'this is not the true me, I don't need to be like this, I don't need to lie in the gutter, I am a new person, I have died to this life and have a new life, I am a saint and will live up to my calling by God's grace.' This is the biblical way of triumphing in faith.

Am I nit-picking about the title of the book, yes I am. Buy the book and read it, the author would no doubt amen what I have just written. But I am not nit-picking about the main point. Think like a saint not a sinner. Think of yourself as a saint and not a sinner.

Every time you fail talk to yourself and say,

Rom 6:1-11 What shall I say then? Am I to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can I who died to sin still live in it? Do I not know that I have been baptized into Christ Jesus and this means baptized into his death? I was buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, I too might walk in newness of life. For if I have been united with him in a death like his, I shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. I know that my old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that I would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if I have died with Christ, I believe that I will also live with him. I know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So I also must consider myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

question time

2009-10-23T02:48:00.000-07:00

I watched Question Time last night. I have no truck with Griffin or the BNP. I was glad some of his agenda was exposed. By all accounts he and they support some very nasty policies.

Yet I worry.

Both the scenes outside the BBC and the approaches of many in Question Time reveal how hostile and intimidating the liberal establishment is when its cherished beliefs are questioned. I have observed similar animosity to conservative Christian beliefs by liberals on programmes like 'The Big Questions'; liberals soon reveal just how 'liberal' they really are in their feral responses.

I worry about the hypocrisy of the main parties. Their self-righteous desire to take the moral high ground and make political capital at Griffin's expense is as patent as it is pathetic. Ironically, they accuse Griffin of cynically tailoring policies to make them acceptable. Which of them has not adapted their policies to suit the electorate and which would not impose lurking ideologies if they thought they could get away with it.

At the moment, the threat to society is the liberal leftist secularism of the establishment not the far right. It is liberal secularism that is attacking democracy and freedom of speech as it prepares to sanction directives by non-elected European commissions that seriously threaten freedom to express views. The threat to my freedom to practise my Christian faith comes from Brussels and Westminster, not the BNP

I worry because cross-party liberalism is wilfully blind to the threat of Islamification. I wish to give my Islamic neighbours the freedom to practise their faith. A Christian country rightly grants Moslems the right to believe and disseminate their faith. However, Islam does not prove itself so generous in return. When Islam is the dominant faith and wielding political power it regularly denies religious freedoms and shows little concern for the rule of law; religious minorities are often oppressed, persecuted and denied equality. Islam in power regularly shows it is an oppressive ideology. Mainstream politicians seem resolutely unwilling to face this self-evident reality and until they do nasty parties like the BNP will no doubt flourish.

It is time to question and show as wanting the tenets that drive liberal secularism.

substitutionary atonement

2009-10-19T04:04:00.000-07:00

Both Moses and Paul expressed the desire that they be 'cursed' (blotted out of God's book or cut off from Christ) for the sake of others (Israel). Cf. Ex 32:32; Roms 9:3.

Clearly both believe that in some sense the 'anathema' of the one substitutes for the many. They are not saying they wish to be 'cursed' alongside Israel but 'cursed' instead of Israel. If possible, they could wish to be 'accursed' in the place of the nation.

They were not so cursed, nor, for them was curse-bearing possible. Yet, the curse would be borne by one fitted to bear it. Paul is clear, Jesus took the curse.

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

His curse bearing is not simply alongside Israel but instead of Israel, bearing the curse to redeem those cursed, in order that they be no longer cursed.

Surely this is substitutionary atonement. Praise God for the curse-bearer.

freedom of speech

2009-10-18T05:19:00.000-07:00

'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear'.'' George Orwell

theological interpretation

2009-10-17T08:57:00.000-07:00

'The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.'

This is but one of ten theses on theological interpretation from Vanhoozer found here.

Is triperspectivalism the panacea?

2009-10-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

Tri...what? Triperspectivalism. Try saying it aloud. It is virtually unpronounceable, pretentious, angular and ugly, and just the kind of word a theologian may invent. Which is exactly what happened. It is the brainchild of Calvinist theologians John Frame and Vern Poythress..

Truth, Frame affirms is multiperspectival and the more perspectives we can see the better our understanding. God, who can see all perspectives, has perfect understanding.

We, however, have finite perspectives and Frame explains, 'all finite perspectives must, to attain truth, “think God’s thoughts after him.” So in one sense, all perspectives coincide. Each, when fully informed, includes all the knowledge found in every other. There is one truth, and each perspective is merely an angle from which that truth can be viewed.'

He continues,'We will never achieve perfect knowledge of that one truth, but we advance toward it step by step. That advance always involves enriching our present perspectives by referring to those of others. The work of attaining knowledge, therefore, is always communal. And inevitably it involves reference to the perfect, exhaustive perspective of God, insofar as he has revealed it to us.'

So far so good.

Frame goes on to affirm that for finite people all knowledge is essentially triperspectivally received. He develops what he means by this, however, for the purposes of this blog we need not try to grapple with this. Simply to observe that Frame believes grasping the principle of triad perspectives may help to deal with apparent imbalances and potentially divisive hot spots in evangelicalism.

He writes, 'So I think that perspectivalism is an encouragement to the unity of the church. Sometimes our divisions of theology and practice are differences of perspective, of balance, rather than differences over the essentials of faith. So perspectivalism will help us better to appreciate one another, and to appreciate the diversity of God’s work among us.'

Again little to disagree with here. Most of us recognise this and wrestle with questions of what is merely a difference of perspective and what is more seriously a difference in fact.

Frame's triperspectivalism has been adopted by Church Growth groups to explain different emphases within evangelicalism. One model gaining currency notes that Christ had three offices - prophet,priest and king and these three 'perspectives' of his work can be seen in the present evangelical church. His kingly role (organizational) is seen in the mega-church emphasis on structure; his priestly role (community and relationships) can be seen in the emerging churches; and his prophetic role (proclamation and truth) in the reformed circles.

The implication is that the differences between the three groups is simply one of emphasis (or perspective) but not substance. All three contribute profitably to the body of Christ.

At first blush this seems attractive. TriPism (triperspectivalism) appears a unifying paradigm. However, it is not quite as simple as that. For the issue in orthodoxy is not simply what perspective you champion but also which perspectives you reject. Heresy, after all, is normally one perspective taken to an extreme and rejecting the balance and input of others.

Yes, unity is possible where one perspective is embraced a little over-enthusiastically without jettisoning the others. However, where one perspective becomes all consuming, dismissing even despising the others, something is seriously amiss.

To frame (no pun intended) the point another way - the issue for mega-churches, emerging churches and reformed churches (and any other perspective) is not their perspective but whether they have gospel clarity. Do they protect and proclaim the apostolic gospel.

Frame's TriPism has a place if it reminds us we all think within limited perspectives, if however, it is made a vehicle to simply baptise evangelical pluralism then it is dangerous. After all, as Scott Clark points out, the Papacy could be constued as 'kingly' and Catholic convents, monastries etc as 'priestly'. Does this make them acceptable or biblical?

Evangelical unity rests on a basis much more objective than these descriptors. It rests on the apostolic gospel. Where this is shared there is unity, where it is missing no unity exists.

What was wrong with Judaism?

2009-10-14T12:21:00.000-07:00

What was wrong with C1 Judaism? Was anything wrong? There must have been something wrong since Israel rejected her Messiah.

About what was wrong, scholars are divided. Surprise, surprise! The traditional answer (the old perspective) is Judaism was legalistic; it taught salvation by works. The modern answer ( the new perspective) is it was nationalistic; it saw salvation in Jewish ethnicity.

We should be grateful for scholarly research but never in thrall to it. The final and certain resource for a Christian is Scripture. There we find, surprise, surprise, that both legalism and nationalism blinded C1 Judaism.

John the Baptist warns the religious leaders not to trust in their ethnicity (do not say, we have Abraham as our father Matt 3;9) and Jesus tells the parable of the pharisee and taxcollector against the pharisees (who trusted in themselves that they were righteous Lk 18:9-14).

They did not grasp that 'not all Israel are of Israel'. Nor did they realise that Law was a covenant of works that condemned rather than justified.

They had a false confidence in both their lineage and their Law. Tragically, because of this, they failed to recognise their Lord.

I, Myself, and the Gospel

2009-10-13T04:38:00.000-07:00

Justin Taylor has the following quote from MLJ on his website. It is a quotation from a book I read years ago. The book and the quote have been very useful to me in the struggle to live by faith. I think all elders and pastors should read the book. It is as helpful today as when first published. A vital pastoral resource.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression, pp. 20-21:

Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself? Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning. You have not originated them but they are talking to you, they bring back the problems of yesterday, etc. Somebody is talking. Who is talking to you? Your self is talking to you. Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this: instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” he asks. His soul had been depressing him, crushing him. So he stands up and says, “Self, listen for moment, I will speak to you.”
What better excuse can you have when caught talking to yourself.

the idol factory

2009-10-12T13:07:00.000-07:00

There is but one God, the God who is the Creator of all things and has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. But there are many idols and they are false and damning.

In the ancient world idols were fairly obvious. Religious temples were full of them. Today such idols are still integral to some world religions. In fact, Christians believe that the worship of any god other than the true and only God who has made himself known in Jesus is idolatry.

Our secular world fondly thinks it has moved beyond primitive idolatry. This is a great self-deception. Idoltry is as rampant in secular society as was in the ancient world. Idols are the gods of the heart. Idolatry is the turning of (often) good things into ultimate things. More specifically, it is the worshipping of created things rather than the Creator.

Tim Keller, in his new book, 'Counterfeit Gods', exposes many of our heart gods. One telling comparison is between the ancient gods and modern gods. He cites four examples of gods in the Parthenon in Athena where Paul the Apostle preached (Acts 17).

There was found Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty; Ares, the god of war; Artemis, the goddess of fertility and wealth; and Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship.

It takes little mental effort to see that these gods have many worhipping at their shrine today. The gods of beauty, power, money and achievement are worshipped today as devotedly as ever they were in the classical world. The only real difference is the place of worship. Keller observes, the shrines are no longer in the Parthenon, but are the spas and gymns, the Office Tower, the Shopping Mall, and the stadiums.

Ancient gods were hard to please and today is no exception. Men (and women) regularly offer everything they have on these altars - health, character, family, and life itself. False gods are deadly and destructive.

The rebellious human heart needs something to worship. It is an 'idol factory'. The big question is how far we who are Christians worship at these modern high places, these pagan shrines.

We need to hear John, the Apostle's words today just as much as believers did in C1, 'Little children keep yourself from idols'.

Is pre-evangelism biblical?

2009-10-10T06:16:00.000-07:00

Pre-evangelism is the notion of building up relationships with non-christians before introducing them to the gospel. It seems reasonable. However, the problem is that many of us get 'stuck' in pre-evangelism and rarely actually reach the 'evangelising' phase. It makes me wonder if pre-evangelism is really just a cop-out for no-evangelism.

Actually it is questionable how biblical such a concept is. I am not suggesting it is unbiblical, more that it is non-biblical. Certainly we get no inkling Jesus spent time building up relationships with folks before confronting them with the demands of the Kingdom. Nor does Paul spend time in a community building up a network of friendships before evangelizing; he evangelizes from the word go. The disciples are sent by Jesus to various surrounding towns and instructed them that if people did not receive them then they are to leave the town and move to the next.

Now, I am not saying we should immediately jump in evangelistically in every relationship of life. I am simply cautioning against creating a default dogma called friendship pre-evangelism that may be an excuse for interminally evading gospel embarrassment or even poo-pooing 'cold evangelism', the most evident method in the NT.

What light's your fire?

2009-10-09T16:07:00.000-07:00

It is said of many American mega-churches that they are driven by the three 'b's' - buildings,bucks and butts.

God forbid that these drive UK churches.

The Disciplining God

2009-10-07T14:43:00.000-07:00

“We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be”

C S Lewis

How much do you put in the bag?

2009-10-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

Many years ago I came to realise that most precious commodity I have is - energy. I am not normal [anyone who knows me will tell you that]. There have been times when one draining activity has left me exhausted for weeks – when attendance at one Church service has demanded more than most folk can imagine.

Mark 12

41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Some people give a lot and some have a lot to give. This is true of money but it is equally true of other resources God has given us. Unfortunately, we usually judge by the amount given rather than the cost. After all, what else can we judge by?

One of the most important resources we posses is energy. There are a few individuals blessed by God with almost boundless energy. However, most of us have to choose how much of this limited resource we give to various daily demands: work, family, friends, fun, church, prayer etc.

Perhaps, we need to think more about our priorities. Many Christians today [men and women] end their working day exhausted with little left to give. That can happen for different reasons – it might not be a matter of choice. But it might. More money, promotion and more influence usually demand more energy.

Do we spend our energy wisely?

Over the last few months God has given me some extra energy to spend and I have had to think very carefully about how to do that. I can do more [though still limited] – possibly at less cost than in the past. There are many Christians who struggle with this problem. We can be too quick to judge others on the basis of what we see them giving, unaware of what it costs. I can imagine the day might come when I will blush because I dismissed someone as uncommitted or unspiritual and then Jesus points out that they gave far more that I ever gave because they gave out of their poverty – it cost them more than I imagined.

First Things First

2009-10-05T10:07:00.000-07:00

I hope those who have glanced at the previous 'First Things' blogs will have got the point. In my first, I asked what counsel a retiring leader would give to younger leaders. I hope that the answer would be 'Protect and Proclaim the Gospel' or words to that effect.

The two follow up blogs were an attempt to reinforce this. Paul's final message to Timothy in 2 Timothy was to protect and proclaim the gospel. Jesus' instruction to his followers before ascending to heaven was to go into all the world and 'preach the gospel'.

In other words that which is of first importance is 'the gospel'. I say this because it is so easy for leaders to lose sight of this. At a local church level elders, swamped by all kinds of bureaucratic concerns, can easily lose sight of priorities. The temptation is to see the great need of the church in terms of a hundred and one other things, other, that is, than the gospel.

Leaders at an itinerant level eager so often for recognition and to leave their mark invent all kinds of success packages that we are confidently told is what this generation needs to hear and do. Jesus had but one. Paul had but one. True leaders will have allegiance to but one: preaching (to christians and non-christians) the gospel. The gospel and the gospel alone is 'the power of God unto salvation'.

The Suicide of the West

2009-10-04T11:12:00.000-07:00

'The Big Questions', a BBC religious programme worth watching, discussed this Sunday the suicide of a young woman the previous week. The young woman swallowed poison and then phoned for an ambulance to take her to hospital. However, she did not want doctors to prevent her suicide but simply oversee her suicide. The doctors, fearful of some national laws, acquiesced.

On 'The Big Questions', the main reason posited for approving the doctors decision was 'the basic human right to take one's life'.

Much discussion followed and a number of good points against accepting the 'right to suicide' were made. Some of these by two Christians on the panel. However, objections were largely predicated on the assumption that the 'human right to suicide' was correct. The main reason for preventing suicide was that suicide signalled a distorted reason. It revealed a mind unqualified to make a rational decision. Despite the Catch 22 nature of this argument, I agree, of course, that thoughts of suicide signal a diseased mind that needs protecting from itself. However, this does not address the fundamental premise of the pro-suicide lobby, that the right to suicide is a basic human right. In fact, it kind of assumes the right to take one's life if one is in one's right mind.

It was left to a Muslim to expose the basic flaw in the 'human rights' argument, namely, that life is a gift from God, and it is not ours to discard at will. In a world where God reigns, there is no human right to take one's life, nor to support others who wish to do so.

The 'doctrine' of human rights is full of pitfalls. Perhaps it is for this reason that the bible rarely deals in rights but focusses on responsibilities. The Bible stresses responsibility to our Creator, as he has revealed himself in Christ. This provides a much surer basis for societal morals than so-called inalienable human rights which increasingly seem to contribute to the suicide of the West.

Collision Movie

2009-10-03T04:16:00.000-07:00

A movie following the debate between atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson will be released at the end of October. The film, called Collision, was discussed between John Piper and Wilson at a recent Bethlehem Conference. I just love the following quote from Wilson:

There are two tenets of atheism. One, there is no God. Two, I hate him.

First Things (3)

2009-10-02T12:53:00.000-07:00

You are one of the eleven disciples about to hear Jesus last words of counsel before returning to heaven. What counsel do you think he will give?

Answer found in Matt 28.

First Things (2)

2009-09-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

You are Paul, the apostle, passing the baton of leadership to the next generation. What is your counsel?

No rewards here. A scan of 2 Timothy supplies the answer.

Justified by Faith and Judged by Works

2009-09-29T04:03:00.000-07:00

This blog follows from Nick's below. It is not a statement but a question, intended to further focus the dilemma.

If asked at the gate of heaven (throne of judgement), 'Why should you be allowed entrance to Paradise', the conventional evangelical answer would be, 'because I am trusting in Jesus Christ as my Saviour'. If, however, the final judgement is about our works (which Scripture certainly teaches), is the evangelical answer mistaken?

Or, to frame the dilemma another way, how do we reconcile the following texts.

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

Rom 2:6-10 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Schreiner on Faith and Obedience in James

2009-09-28T12:17:00.000-07:00

The apparent contradiction between Paul and James on justification is a perplexing one. Paul states that one is justified by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5) whereas James states that one is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). There have been a variety of methods employed by exegetes to get round this. The Roman Catholics and more recently, New Perspective advocates, have explained the apparent difference by insisting that Paul and James use the word "works" differently. While James is talking about moral works, they insist, Paul is talking about ceremonial works (circumcision, food laws, etc). Yet this does not do justice to the way Paul uses the term "works" as a summary glance at a variety of passages (e.g. Romans 4:4, 5, Ephesians 2:8-10) demonstrates.

Others have insisted that while Paul is talking about justification salvifically in the divine court, James is talking about justification demonstrably in the human court. Yet this does not fit the evidence either. James frames the question of justifying faith salvifically in 2:14 (i.e. can such faith save them?). Further in verse 21 when speaking of Abraham's justifying faith, James nowhere mentions a 'human court'. In his epistle James presents justification always with reference to God (e.g. 2:23).

I have found Tom Schreiner's New Testament Theology very helpful in this regard. Schreiner doesn't look for traditional "pat" answers and, certainly in this instance, seems to let the text of Scripture breath without imposing a framework on the passage. According to Schreiner the apparent tension can be resolved by seeing Paul and James responding to different circumstances and situations. While Paul is concerned to demonstrate the extra-ordinary gift of righteousness that comes to sinners, James is more concerned with the problem of antinomianism. It is a mere difference in emphasis; while Paul emphasises gratuity, James emphasises obligation.

Further, the apparent tension can be resolved in a proper definition of faith. While faith and works can (and must!) be conceptually distinguished, in practice they cannot. One can conceptually distinguish between the sun's rays and the sun's heat, but in reality they are never separate. For James, God honouring works are so bound together with true faith that it's almost impossible to distinguish the two. Living faith is a faith that "works". Thus James can say, "You see that people are justified by what they do and not by faith alone" (2:24, TNIV). Thus Paul can say, "You are not saved by works. Nevertheless, you are saved FOR works." (Ephesians 2:8-10) To the extent that we miss James' emphasis, we also get justification wrong. I wonder how many Protestant denominations would haul James before a disciplinary committee to explain his remarks? I conclude with Schreiner:

The faith that saves, according to Paul, embraces Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, placing one's life entirely in his hands. James criticizes a "faith" that notionally concurs with the gospel but does not grip the whole person. In other words, James does not disagree with Paul's contention that faith alone justifies, but he defines carefully the kind of faith that justifies. The faith that truly justifies can never be separated from works. Works will inevitably flow as the fruit of such faith. Faith that merely accepts doctrines intellectually but does not lead to a transformed life is "dead" (James 2:17, 26) and "useless" (James 2:20). Such faith does not "profit" (ophelos [James 2:14, 16 RSV]) in the sense that it does not spare one from judgement on the last day. Those who have dead and barren faith will not escape judgement. True faith is demonstrated by works (James 2:18). James does not deny that faith alone saves, but it is faith that produces (synergeo) works and is completed (teleioo) by works (James 2:22). The faith that saves is living, active and dynamic. It must produce works, just as compassion for the poor inevitably means that one cares practically for their physical needs (James 2:15-16). (p602, 603 New Testament Theology, Thomas R. Schreiner)

First Things

2009-09-27T16:44:00.000-07:00

You are a Christian leader of indeterminate age. You realise that your responsibility to lead is almost over and you must shortly pass the baton of responsibility to a new generation.

What, in a few sentences, is the counsel you give to the ensuing incumbents?

Correct answers will be rewarded in heaven.

New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel Part 3 The Law of Christ

2009-09-26T06:35:00.000-07:00

Wells believes that the New Covenant Community is governed by the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2) and not directly by the law of Moses. If Christ is the God-man and all authority in heaven and earth belongs to him, then the Christian church must hold to the logical priority of Christ (p67).

This means they [Christians] have no moral and ethical allegiance to anything, including the OT and its laws that is logically prior to Jesus Christ.(p68)

This means in practice that we must read our Bibles with the NT having the final say on every issue it addresses (p6) and giving it logical priority over the OT. There are numerous problems when we give the OT a logical priority. Wells illustrates:

What will happen if we start at Genesis and build our doctrine of the people of God from consecutive readings of the OT? Among other things, we will have a pretty thorough and extensive idea of who the people of God are, long before we come to the NT. The people of God is Israel, the physical descendants of Jacob and, before him, Abraham.

...What would be the consequences of this reading?...We might easily assume that since there is one people of God, God would only have one covenant with them and one sign of the covenant, circumcision. When we arrived at the Major Prophets, if we were particularly perceptive, we might make some small adjustments. Of course the NT, when we came to it, would change our convictions on these matters, but we would have a predisposition to find as little change as possible. After all, we know there is one people, one covenant, and one covenant sign. (p9)

What would then follow would be the inclusion of the Gentiles in Israel; a flattening out the two covenants so that they become two administrations of the same covenant; and finally an identification of the old covenant sign (circumcision) with the new (baptism). A similar problem is faced when Sabbath observance becomes a binding ordinance for Christians, despite the NT insistence to the contrary (see Romans 14:5).

Despite efforts by Reformed theologians, the Decalogue cannot function as a compact summary of all moral law. The contrived efforts of the Westminster Divines to shoe-horn an implicit command for obedience to every human authority under the fifth commandment is an example of this (see Shorter Catechism q64 and 65)

No, the law that governs Christians is the 'law of Christ' i.e. the teachings, warnings and commands of Christ embodied in the New Testament writings (gospels and epistles). The law of Christ must have absolute priority in the church and even OT commands must not be read apart from it's authoritative glory. What of the OT? Wells recommends:

...the re-examination of the OT with the idea in mind of finding those things that are moral laws in the light of the NT and that are in keeping with the explicit demands of the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT. (p75)

In the light of what's been said about Israel and the law, Wells defines what he means by the New Covenant:

The New Covenant is the bond between God and man, established by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, under which all who have been effectually called to God in all ages have been formed into the one body of Christ in NT times, in order to come under his law during this age and to remain under his authority forever. (p75,76)

Next, what about not one jot or tittle passing from Moses in Matthew 5:17-20?

When Application in a Sermon is Bad

2009-09-25T02:17:00.000-07:00

Kevin DeYoung is on the ball. He was preaching a sermon on Jesus' baptism in Mark 1:9-11 and struggled to think of a fitting conclusion. He writes:

So how would you end a sermon like this? You could say “Look at the idols in your hearts. You need to love this Christ more.” Or, “This Jesus is worthy of all our obedience. Go live for him and keep his commandments.” Or, “Why don’t we share the good news about such a great Savior? Tell your neighbors this week about the Son of God.” All of those are fair points and it would not be wrong to connect the text to these thoughts at some point during the sermon. But if we land the plane on these points I fear we are missing the point of the passage. These three verses are here to give a glimpse of the glory of Christ. My fellow preachers and I should not hesitate to land right there. Are we so afraid of not being relevant or prophetic that we can’t end a sermon by exalting in the person of Christ? No application is needed to finish off this sermon. The last word ringing in people’s hears should be something along the lines of, “Behold your God!”

Maybe we just aren’t as passionate about the person and work of Christ as we are about getting in people's faces (which, trust me, I also do). Or maybe we think people will be bored if they don’t get some good practical advice on their way out the door (and it’s possible they are more eager to hear three points of application than ponder the glory of Christ). Again, I’m not saying no text can end with imperatives. "Repent," "believe," "obey" are all biblical injunctions. But we must let the text determine the mood of the sermon and not tack on honey-do lists at the end of every message. Preachers ought to rebuke when necessary, when the text calls for it. But it makes for bad preaching and beat-up congregations when every sermon concludes with exhortation. Sometimes it’s ok to end the sermon by simply telling the people about Jesus.

HT: Gospel Coalition Blog

New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel Part 2

2009-09-24T12:23:00.000-07:00

If dispensationalists have tended to deny all connections between Israel and the church, while covenant theologians have tended toward an identification of the two as on entity, NCT has sought to forge a more basic typological connection. Wells points out:

...it is evident that the writers of Scripture read the terms of the Abrahamic covenant in two different ways. Old Testament writers often see the promises as fulfilled to the literal nation of Israel while NT writers find their fulfillment in the church. (p60)

Wells contrasts Joshua 21:43-45 with the perspective of the author of Hebrews. The passage in Joshua states:

⁴³ So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there. ⁴⁴ The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hands. ⁴⁵ Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. (TNIV)

Whereas we read in Hebrews 11:39-40:

³⁹ These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. ⁴⁰ God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Such a tension between the authors can be resolved by seeing the typological nature of the land of Canaan. It pictured the larger "country" which therefore was also contained in the promises. (p62) We don't make a precise identification of Canaan and the larger country, just as we would not make a precise identification between the OT prophets, priests and kings and Christ himself, i.e. Christ is not a prophet in precisely the same sense as an OT prophet, and Christ is not a priest in precisely the same sense as an OT priest, and Christ is not a king in precisely the same sense as an OT king. The OT type must give way to the NT anti-type.

Wells however, believes that typology cannot quite exhaust the relation of Israel to the church. (p63) He says in the same paragraph:

Covenant theologians have often insisted on an "organic" relation as well, and in one sense they are right. From the standpoint of eternity future, looking back, the church will prove to have been God's elect individuals from every era.

Wells points us to Paul's olive tree metaphor in Romans 11 as speaking of the creation of the church. The church was formed as God got hold of an olive tree, broke off the unbelieving branches to leave only the true/spiritual children of Abraham, and then added to this tree both believing Jews and Gentiles. I conclude with Wells:

First, ancient Israel with her unbelieving branches was never the church of Jesus Christ. Second, Paul does not contemplate unbelievers being added to the olive tree. If God had intended that, he would have had no reason to strip off the unbelieving branches to begin with. Third, there is nevertheless an organic relation between the church and God's individually elect people from ancient Israel. We who are believers in Jesus Christ are now part, with them, of the olive tree as it exists today, i.e., the "invisible" or "universal" church of God. (p65, 66)

For our next post, what type of law must govern this new covenant community?

New Covenant Theology by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel

2009-09-22T10:50:00.000-07:00

In their book New Covenant Theology, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel present an exegetical challenge to the traditional Reformed approach to Covenant Theology:

In Reformed circles one often hears of "one covenant with two administrations," language that reflects the Westminster Confession (chap. 7, sec. 5) that says, "This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel...." Behind this language lies the idea that in redeeming fallen man, God has made a single covenant, "the Covenant of Grace." Arrangements between God and man that come later than the Fall must be thought of as phases ("administrations") of this single covenant. In the words of the Confession (chap 7, sec. 6), "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations." (p44)

While the authors laud the assertion of the unity of God's purpose through the ages, the "covenant" terminology causes many problems.

The reason for this is simple: in the NT the word covenant is almost always used to assert discontinuity. The evidence for this is overwhelming, as well over ninety percent of the occurrences of covenant in the NT are demonstrably used to assert discontinuity. (p45)

Far better, according to the authors, is an approach which comes to the text seeing two covenants as opposed to two administrations. But even then, the new-ness of the New Covenant must not be reduced to contrasts between the New and the Old, "but between the New Covenant and all that preceded it" (p50).

For instance, in contrast to traditional Covenant Theology which sees the church of God spanning both covenants, NCT sees the church as being specifically founded in the NT. There are many texts which point to the fact that the church was founded in the NT. I'll limit this post to 2 texts cited by Wells. First, when Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18) he was using a future tense verb. Second, if the presence of the church is dependent upon the initiatory presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), then a pre-Pentecost church becomes an impossibility.

What should one make of OT Israel? Rather than seeing OT Israel as God's pre-Pentecost church, NCT views Israel as a type of the NT church. And that will bring me to the discussion in the next post, i.e. viewing the NT as the fulfillment of the typologies and promises of the OT.

New Covenant Theology

2009-09-21T13:18:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have noticed that yours truly has gone somewhat quiet over recent weeks (perhaps months). The last year and a half or so has seen something of a paradigm shift in my thinking as I have come to appreciate the Reformed understanding of justification sola fide. After I had a bad bout of depression, to discover that I'm justified simply by receiving and resting on Christ was like a cold drink of water on a hot day. I needed to discover more of this Reformed stuff and I noticed that the same gents who brought me into the light of full assurance through the gospel also confessed the substantial unity of the covenant of grace. I devoured Reformed literature in the aftermath of this.

Nevertheless, deep in my soul lurked some reservations about some aspects of Reformed theology. I could never completely call this blog "Restless and Reformed" because I had nagging doubts about the following:

The Reformed distinction of the law as comprising ceremonial, civil and moral aspects.
The Reformed emphasis on the Decalogue as the pinnacle of God's moral revelation.

These doubts were further compounded as I picked up a book by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel entitled New Covenant Theology. It is an absolute barn stormer of a book and has halted my march towards embracing a covenant theology as exemplified by the Westminster Standards.

Over the next day or two, I'll be blogging some thoughts on the book. Stay tuned.

Between Two Worlds

2009-09-21T13:12:00.001-07:00

Turns out Justin Taylor, the Don Corleone of the evangelical blogosphere, has moved here to the Gospel Coalition site. Apparently more blogs will be moving to the GC in the near future as the site undergoes a revamp.

The Dangers of Great Music

2009-09-21T02:41:00.000-07:00

Gregg Gilbert at the Gospel Coalition blog gives us a timely reminder of the dangers confronting depraved sinners engaging in worship to 'excellent music'.

Is the Reformation over?

2009-09-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

RC Sproul makes a short but pertinent contribution to the 'Death of the Reformation' debate. Sproul is always worth reading. Check it out.

Is the Reformation Over? by R.C. Sproul

Is the Reformation over? There have been several observations rendered on this subject by those I would call “erstwhile evangelicals.” One of them wrote, “Luther was right in the sixteenth century, but the question of justification is not an issue now.” A second self-confessed evangelical made a comment in a press conference I attended that “the sixteenth-century Reformation debate over justification by faith alone was a tempest in a teapot.” Still another noted European theologian has argued in print that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is no longer a significant issue in the church. We are faced with a host of people who are defined as Protestants but who have evidently forgotten altogether what it is they are protesting.

Contrary to some of these contemporary assessments of the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, we recall a different perspective by the sixteenth-century magisterial Reformers. Luther made his famous comment that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which the church stands or falls. John Calvin added a different metaphor, saying that justification is the hinge upon which everything turns. In the twentieth century, J.I. Packer used a metaphor indicating that justification by faith alone is the “Atlas upon whose shoulder every other doctrine stands.” Later Packer moved away from that strong metaphor and retreated to a much weaker one, saying that justification by faith alone is “the fine print of the gospel.

”The question we have to face in light of these discussions is, what has changed since the sixteenth century? Well, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that people have become much more civil and tolerant in theological disputes. We don’t see people being burned at the stake or tortured on the rack over doctrinal differences. We’ve also seen in the past years that the Roman communion has remained solidly steadfast on other key issues of Christian orthodoxy, such as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and the inspiration of the Bible, while many Protestant liberals have abandoned these particular doctrines wholesale. We also see that Rome has remained steadfast on critical moral issues such as abortion and ethical relativism. In the nineteenth century at Vatican Council I, Rome referred to Protestants as “heretics and schismatics.” In the twentieth century at Vatican II, Protestants were referred to as “separated brethren.” We see a marked contrast in the tone of the different councils. The bad news, however, is that many doctrines that divided orthodox Protestants from Roman Catholics centuries ago have been declared dogma since the sixteenth century. Virtually all of the significant Mariology decrees have been declared in the last 150 years. The doctrine of papal infallibility, though it de facto functioned long before its formal definition, was nevertheless formally defined and declared de fide (necessary to believe for salvation) in 1870 at Vatican Council I. We also see that in recent years the Roman communion has published a new Catholic catechism, which unequivocally reaffirms the doctrines of the Council of Trent, including Trent’s definition of the doctrine of justification (and thus affirms that council’s anathemas against the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone). Along with the reaffirmations of Trent have come a clear reaffirmation of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merits.

At a discussion among leading theologians over the issue of the continued relevance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, Michael Horton asked the question: “What is it in the last decades that has made the first-century gospel unimportant?” The dispute over justification was not over a technical point of theology that could be consigned to the fringes of the depository of biblical truth. Nor could it be seen simply as a tempest in a teapot. This tempest extended far beyond the tiny volume of a single teacup. The question, “what must I do to be saved?” is still a critical question for any person who is exposed to the wrath of God.

Even more critical than the question is the answer, because the answer touches the very heart of gospel truth. In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed at Trent and continues to affirm now that the basis by which God will declare a person just or unjust is found in one’s “inherent righteousness.” If righteousness does not inhere in the person, that person at worst goes to hell and at best (if any impurities remain in his life) goes to purgatory for a time that may extend to millions of years. In bold contrast to that, the biblical and Protestant view of justification is that the sole grounds of our justification is the righteousness of Christ, which righteousness is imputed to the believer, so that the moment a person has authentic faith in Christ, all that is necessary for salvation becomes theirs by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The fundamental issue is this: is the basis by which I am justified a righteousness that is my own? Or is it a righteousness that is, as Luther said, “an alien righteousness,” a righteousness that is extra nos, apart from us — the righteousness of another, namely, the righteousness of Christ? From the sixteenth century to the present, Rome has always taught that justification is based upon faith, on Christ, and on grace. The difference, however, is that Rome continues to deny that justification is based on Christ alone, received by faith alone, and given by grace alone. The difference between these two positions is the difference between salvation and its opposite. There is no greater issue facing a person who is alienated from a righteous God.

At the moment the Roman Catholic Church condemned the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, she denied the gospel and ceased to be a legitimate church, regardless of all the rest of her affirmations of Christian orthodoxy. To embrace her as an authentic church while she continues to repudiate the biblical doctrine of salvation is a fatal attribution. We’re living in a time where theological conflict is considered politically incorrect, but to declare peace when there is no peace is to betray the heart and soul of the gospel.

New Podcast

2009-09-07T11:57:00.000-07:00

I love podcasts. Ye they provide sweet fellowship for me on the half-hour drive to and from work each day. Where would I be without the White Horse Inn? Or Desiring God's stuff? Well folks, there's a new beast of a podcast for you to subscribe to and it comes from the good gents at Westminster Seminary California. It is named "Office Hours" and each monthly episode consists of Scott Clark interviewing the faculty of WSC.

The first 2 interviews with Bob Godfrey and Julius Kim are belters. I love it when RSC cuts to the chase and asks "how did you become Reformed?" If that was the only question he asked then Office Hours would still be worth subscribing to, but of course Scott goes deeper and we get some fascinating biographical stuff from Godfrey and Kim.

The breakdown of episodes goes:

Episode #1 August 31 - Bob Godfrey President and Professor of Church History

Episode #2 August 31 - Julius Kim, Associate Professor of Practical Theology

Episode #3 October 5 - Mike Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics

Episode #4 Nov 2, 2009 - Steve Baugh, Professor of NT

Episode #5 Dec 7, 2009 - David Van Drunen, Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

Episode #6 Jan 4, 2010- R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology (Mike Horton hosts)

Episode #7 Feb 1, 2010 - Joel Kim, Assistant Professor of NT

Episode #8 Mar 1, 2010 - John Fesko, Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology

Episode #9 Apr 5, 2010 - (1) Josh Van Ee, Assistant Professor of OT and (2) David Zadok, A retired major in the Israeli Army, a WSC graduate, and elder in a Reformed congregation in Israel.

Episode #10 May 3, 2010 - Dennis Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology

Episode #11 June 7, 2010 - Bryan Estelle, Associate Professor of OT.

The contact email for the program is: officehours@wscal.edu

Listeners cans subscribe to Office Hours on iTunes and via the website.

Don't know about you, but I can't wait to hear what unfolds!