The forgotten Father

I've just written in a comment: "I get to know Jesus as the one who loves us so much that he laid down his life for me". This is not wrong, but it is unlike most NT language. Spot the difference...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all" (Romans 8:32)

"God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ" (Ephesians 2:4-5)

"the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10)

The difference is that the NT emphasis (perhaps anticipating people like me) is on the Father's love for us in sending his Son, not the Son independently coming to us. Although other passages explain that Jesus loved us too (e.g. Ephesians 5:2). As if that was not enough, the emphasis in the NT is on the Son's death reconciling us to the Father and revealing him (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18).

I am either harbouring a view of the death of Christ that deserves the name 'cosmic child abuse' or a monistic view of God who is occasionally called by different names (Jesus, God, Father, YHWH etc).

The parable of the prodigal son as incomplete gospel

The parable of the prodigal son is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. So I thought I'd share a taster of PT Forsyth on the passage:

There are those who say you have the whole of the gospel really in the parable of the prodigal son, that that was the culmination of Christ's grand revelation of God...But you have not the whole gospel in the parable of the prodigal son...

Now the one ruling idea in the parable of the prodigal son is the idea of the centrality, the completeness, the unreservedness, the freeness, fullness, whole-heartedness of God's grace - the absolute fullness of it, rather that the method of its action. But however a parable might preach that fullness, it took the Cross and all its train to give it effect, to put it into action, life, and history, to charge it with the Spirit...Hence as to the method of God's free and flowing grace the parable has nothing to say. It does not even say that the father was seeking the prodigal. The seeking grace of God we find there as little as the redeeming grace....

[The prodigal can only be sure of the father's forgiveness if] the father not only says but pays. His mere repentance could not make him sure, could not place him at home again, could not put him where he set out. His mere repentance could turn his heart to his father, but it could not break the bar and fill him with certainty of his father's love and forgiveness. And that is what the sinner wants, and what the great and classic penitents find it so hard to believe. Now, the parable tells us of the freeness of God's grace, and its fullness, but the Cross enacts it and inserts it in real history. It shows to what length that grace could go in dealing with a difficulty otherwise insuperable when we turn from a single prodigal to a world...the act of Christ's Cross - is not simply to produce individual repentance, but it has its great effect upon the relation of the whole world to God. And the judgment, the payment, was on that scale. (The Work of Christ, pp.106-111)

I am not ashamed to ask the question

At work I have a colleague who asks me, again and again, why it is that God did not create human beings incapable of sinning. He is obviously far from satisfied with my answers, and I can't blame him. What would you say? You must have been asked the question.

Cur Deus Homo has a brief aside about the question. In contrast to the rest of the book this section is as clear as mud to me. Nevertheless Anselm's answer manages to shut up his dialogue partner...

Boso: given that God is capable of creating such a man, why did he not make the angels and the first two human beings such that they would likewise be both incapable of sinning and worthy of praise for their righteousness?

Anselm: Do you understand what you are saying?

Boso: It seems to me that I understand it, and that is why I am asking why he did not make them like this.

Anselm: This was because it was neither right nor possible for it to be brought about that any one of them should be identical with God, as is the case, so we are saying, with this man [Jesus, who is righteous and incapable of sin 'independently']. And if you ask why he does not bring this about for as many such human beings as there are persons of God, or why he did not at least do it for one of them, I answer that reason did not at all demand that this should be done: rather, since God does nothing irrationally, it prohibited this.

Boso: I am ashamed at having asked this question.

(Cur Deus Homo, Book 2, Chap 10)

Now I don't want to shut up my friend so completely, but want I do want him to be pointed to him who does make us incapable of sin. So I'm not ashamed to ask such a question of my intelligent readers, in the hope of fresh insight.

Top ten films I saw in 2008

This list is more for me than anyone else. But I would strongly recommend that everyone see number 1 on the list. I really do believe it is a genuine masterpiece. (Watch it on a big screen if you can.)

1. There Will be Blood
2. No Country For Old Men
3. Wall-E
4. Juno
5. The Dark Knight
6. Changeling
7. The Duchess
8. Sweeney Todd
9. Burn after Reading
10. Iron Man

Why am I not blogging?

To be honest I'm not really sure. Perhaps it is because I'm busy... but that has never stopped me before.

I think it has to be due to the fact that I'm doing a decent amount of reading. I've recently read, or I'm in the middle of:

• The Work of Christ by PT Forsyth. Amazing to read an entire book on the atonement again. He is an engaging writer who thinks really deeply and originally. I don't think I really got it till the end, but he is very thought-provoking. I greatly enjoyed it, although I wouldn't agree with all of it.
• The Shack by William P. Young. The book of Job if it had been written by a 21st century Christian who has a problem with authority.
• Dogmatics in Outline by Karl Barth. Beautiful, moving, massive yet concise. Lots of questions but I'm beginning to understand why his impact was so huge.
• Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics by G E M Anscombe. Interesting lady, but crazily hard to understand. Is she right or wrong... I simply can't compute.
• The Road by Cormac McCarthy. A dying world with a total lack of hope and humans that lie to themselves about their future and their present. Wonderfully written. I read it in a single evening. Thanks Steve.
• Cur Deus Homo by Anselm. A clear and simple walk through reasons why the atonement had to be substitutionary, with less weird asides than I'm used to in ancient Christian books.

Next on my list: Rowan Williams, TF Torrance, and John Murray.

What I'm trying to say is that because of my request for recommendations and other factors I've been reading more widely than usual and I feel like I am so far from getting my bearings that I cannot manage even my usual half-baked thoughts which I pass of as posts.

I'm sure you are not missing me.

As an aside I have just come across a bunch of excellent looking MP3 lectures by some top-notch scholars from a recent conference on 'Reading the Decalogue through the Centuries'. I've listened to Timothy Wengert on Luther's view of the Decalogue which was very good. I'm looking forward to listening to some more.

Mental illness and the Gospel

About one in four people in the UK suffer from a mental illness (source). Probably the most challenging thing that has happened in the last two years of my life has been to discover its destructive power over so many people's lives.

I am extremely grateful to Steve Timmis and Tim Chester in particular for making me see how the Gospel is relevant to this as with any area of life - hard though it is to apply it. Tim Chester has just posted on depression, and there is more from Steve Timmis here. I encourage you to read/listen and absorb it.

Bavinick on the Lutherans and the Reformed

I'm supposed to have loads of free time at the moment but for some reason haven't had time to do much thinking recently, and hence no blogging. But as usual I return to blogging when I need to get down a quote for future reflection...

I found the quote from Bavinick below quite helpful in my continuing quest to get a handle on Lutheranism. It was mentioned in a comment here which follows an interesting post and discussion.

The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God.

For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all against paganism - idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism - works-righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the "wherefore" of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the "that" and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained. (Reformed Dogmatics 1:177)

The temptation in such discussions is to start getting partisan and claim superiority over the other. I think that is difficult position to maintain. As John H comments 'Vive la différence'!

Incidental notes:

1. I like Kletos Sumboulos' comment that '"Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved?" should read "Among the latter it is: What has Christ done for us?"'
2. I wonder how this links to Melanchthon's famous comment 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' which I am still trying to properly understand.

How we grow

I'm feeling the force of this hymn right now...

I ask’d the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek more earnestly His face.

‘Twas He who taught me thus to pray,
And He, I trust, has answered prayer;
But it has been in such a way
As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favour’d hour
At once He’d answer my request,
And by His love’s constraining power
Subdue my sins and give me rest.

Instead of this, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart,
And let the angry powers of hell
Assault my soul in every part.

Yea, more, with His own hand He seem’d
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Cross’d all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourd, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this: I trembling cried,
Wilt Thou pursue Thy worm to death: ‘
‘Tis in this way,’ the Lord replied,
‘I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ
From self and pride to set thee free;
And break thy schemes of earthly joy
That thou may’st seek thy all in Me.’

(John Newton. Olney Hymns (1799), Book III, 36)

We have a strange God.

Obedience of faith

I've been away on holiday in the Lakes so sorry for the lack of posting. I have not got much to post right now but the books I ordered on peoples recommendations have arrived so I'll start having a go at them soon.

While I'm here though I'd just like to note down a parallel before I forget it.

A much disputed phrase in modern Pauline studies is the phrase 'the obedience of faith' which is particularly important as it appears at the beginning and end of Romans (1:5 and 16:26):

Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations

...Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

I've just realised that Paul seems to be seeing in his ministry the fulfilment of Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49:10:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Who says Paul doesn't talk about the Kingdom of God?

From a lover of love...

PT Forsyth:

I was turned from a Christian to a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace

(somewhere in p. 281ff of Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind)

Taking sides

In faith, one takes the side of God in his claim against one's self, giving God justice. At the same time, one takes hold of God's gift in Christ, whom he has 'put forward' as an atonement and in whom he has taken the side of the sinner. In Christ and in faith, the justification of God the Creator meets the justification of the godless.

(Mark A. Seifrid, p. 18, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

PS. I'm still hoping for book recommendations...

Random Law and Gospel things

1. Hosea

Reading Hosea 1 last night I was painfully aware of my whoring after other gods. That I didn't believe Jesus was the source of all good and went looking for it elsewhere. That word of judgment felt so real, and so final, because I could see that the rest of my life I would just not stop repeating. But then God said "I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People 'You are my people'" (2:23). That word would have no comfort if you were not called Lo-ruhama ('No Mercy'). If God has mercy on you before then there is no word of mercy for you now. That is law and Gospel in action.

2. The cross drawing threads together

One thing that has always struck me about the OT is the finality of many of the pronouncements of punishment. So often it seems that this is not just discipline, this is judgment. It is not a warning of what may happen, but it is a dark promise of what is going to happen. And yet contradictions to these dark words always surface. This has always caused me a little bit of a problem. The doctrine of law and Gospel has helped sort this out for me. Mark Seifrid tends to put it better than most when he comments that there are different and contridictory words from God in the bible to us, but no resolution of them apart from in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. For example in commenting on the Sander's characterisation of Second Temple Judaism as Covenantal Nomism he argues that Sanders' has actually reduced Second Temple Judaism to Covenantalism without the Nomism. In contrast in the past scholars have focused on the Nomism without the Covenantalism. "In other words in the rabbinic materials, 'covenantalism' (Sanders' 'covenantal nomism') stands alongside 'nomism' without the overarching synthesis which Sanders has proposed". "Rather than striving to produce a system in which all contradictions were eliminated, the rabbis view salvation from (at least) these two independent perspectives". Only in Jesus is there synthesis when "the election of Israel and the demand of the Law meet in Christ, the crucified and risen. The tension within early Jewish thought between grace and demand was resolved in an event, not a higher idea" (pp. 5-6, 'The "New Perspective on Paul" and Its Problems', Themelios, Issue 25-2

3. Law and Gospel as uses or effects

Something that has also helped me understand the doctrine of law and Gospel is the realisation that the same words in scripture can function as both. Stephen D. Paulson provides some helpful examples in a great essay (if you can get hold of it):

The two classic examples of this in Luther are his use of the first commandment and the proclamation of the cross and resurrection. "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" produces both fear and love, and in one word or phrase gives both law and gospel grammatically. Its function will depend upon the receiving of faith or the hearing apart from faith. One hears the "I am" as the basis for the "you shall," and the other vice versa.

By the same token, the proclamation of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, though one sermon or word, has very different effects. When Peter says, "let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36), the hearers "were cut to the heart." A short time later, and in very different circumstances, the same sermon is preached and, "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44), and the hearers were heard extolling god in tongues.

(p.174, 'Law and Gospel: Two Preaching Offices", Dialog, Vol 39, No.3, Fall 2000)

4. Barth's Gospel-Law

One thing I have gathered in my limited reasoning is that Barth famously reversed the traditional order of law and Gospel. I have for the first time come across a hint of why, in his brilliant little book Dogmatics in Outline that I am reading:

Gospel and law are not to be separated; they are one, in such a way that the gospel is the primary thing, that the glad tidings are first in the field and, as such, include the law. Because God is for us, we may also be for Him. Because He has given Himself to us, we may also in gratitude give Him the trifle which we have to give. (p.19)

So the reversal comes from one of Barth's primary concerns that God reveals himself to us, and before that we can have nothing to do with him. God is gracious to reveal himself and so obviously before he does that the law doesn't come into it.

I am glad that I have the first inkling of what Barth was trying to get at.

Any recommendations?

After 4 years of studying law I now have at least 10 months without having to decipher a case report, so have a quite a bit of time on my hands. At the same time I'm feeling unusually unexcited about the books on my waiting-to-be-read list.

The comments box is open. What are your must-read books that I should read this winter? I will buy and read at least one from every comment.

Total Church Conference Audio

Audio from the North American Total Church Conference including Tim Chester and Steve Timmis is now available here (HT Tim Chester).

Some problems with Luther's theology

Just in case you were beginning to think that I think Luther is perfect...

If I had to do without one or the other - either the works or the preaching of Christ - I would rather do without the works than without his preaching. For the works do not help me, but his words give life, as he himself says [John 6:63]. Now John writes very little about the works of Christ, but very much about his preaching, while the other evangelists write much about his works and little about his preaching. Therefore John's Gospel is the one, fine, true and chief gospel, and is far, far to be preferred over the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

("Preface to the New Testament" (1546), in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 357)

Can we blame Luther for two of the problems that have continued today? An emphasis on the didactic rather than narrative parts of the Bible, and a approach that listens only to what it already agrees with.

I think we can but I also recognise that these two issues come out of some of the strengths of Luther's theology. Firstly, the Bible is not a book of examples for us to follow, but God speaking to us. Secondly, the recognition that the Bible points beyond itself to Jesus. However, I think they are still serious problems... I need to think more about this.

Viewing the church with the eyes of faith

Martin Luther writes:

This article, "I believe in the holy Christian Church," is as much an article of faith as the rest. This is why natural reason cannot recognize it, even if it puts on all its glasses. The devil can cover it over with offences and divisions, so that you have to take offence at it. God too can conceal it behind faults and shortcomings of all kinds so that you necessarily become a fool and pass false judgment on it. Christendom will not be known by sight, but by faith. And faith has to do with things not seen

("Preface to the Revelation of St. John [II]" (1546), in Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 410)

This connects with the Magisterial Reformers understanding of the marks of the church. Calvin writes:

Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20)

[...]

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God.

(Institutes 4.1.9-10)

The reason that the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments were identified as marks of the church was because of faith that these would not be without effect. God had promised that his word would not go forth without achieving his aim, so that must be the case. We may see evidence to contradict this but we have faith in God and his promises.

I need to do some thinking on how this relates to the renewed interest in the church as community. We are rediscovering that we are not independent souls that do not need each other but were saved as a body. However, this seems to be happening while we at the same time we judge that the Church is something we can define, see and touch. Today we rarely hear about the Reformers' marks of the Church, although we often hear about the mark being love.

I see both viewpoints as true to the Bible and experience, but I am concerned that I don't know how to relate them to each other. I suspect it has to do with eschatology.

On trusting authority

The wise author of nature hath planted in the human mind a propensity to rely upon human testimony before we can give a reason for doing so. This, indeed, puts our judgment almost entirely in the power of those who are about us in the first period of life; but this is necessary both to our preservation and to our improvement. If children were so framed as to pay no regard to testimony or authority, they must, in the literal sense, perish for lack of knowledge. I believed by instinct whatever they [my 'parents and tutors'] told me, long before I had the idea of a lie, or a thought of the possibility of their deceiving me. Afterwards, upon reflection, I found they had acted like fair and honest people, who wished me well. I found that, if I had not believed what they told me, before I could give a reason for my belief, I had to this day been little better than a changeling. And although this natural credulity hath sometimes occasioned my being imposed upon by deceivers, yet it hath been of infinite advantage to me upon the whole; therefore, I consider it as another good gift of Nature.

(Thomas Reid, "Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man", in R. Beanblossom and K. Lehrer (eds.), Thomas Reid's Inquiry and Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), pp. 281-82, cited in "Pyrrhon, Pyrrhus and the Possibility of the Past: A Response to David Henige" by Iain Provan, JSOT 27.4 (2003) 413-438)

Having quoted that because I think it is quite wise, I hasten to add that my faith is not that of my father's, in a great many different ways.

Random law fact from my 2 weeks of law overload:

• "George Bernard Shaw left money in his will on trust to develop a 40 letter alphabet (Re Shaw, Public Trustee v. Day [1957] 1 WLR 729)". The trust was held to be invalid.

The NT witness

From a great post from Glen Scrivener summing up the philosophy behind some of his recent posts on the parables

New Testament does not mean 'gospel'. It doesn’t mean 'gospel' any more than Old Testament means 'gospel'. Rather, both are witnesses to Christ.

You see it’s not the New Testament that fulfils the Old

No. Jesus fulfils the OT, not the NT. There’s a difference. It’s He that stands above both Scriptures.

[...]

The Old is in need of fulfilment in Christ yes. But so is the New. To understand Old or New demands that we read them as witness to Jesus.

It reminds me a little of The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

the term Gospel is not always employed and understood in one and the same sense, but in two ways, in the Holy Scriptures, as also by ancient and modern church teachers. For sometimes it is employed so that there is understood by it the entire doctrine of Christ, our Lord, which He proclaimed in His ministry upon earth, and commanded to be proclaimed in the New Testament, and hence comprised in it the explanation of the Law and the proclamation of the favor and grace of God, His heavenly Father, as it is written, Mark 1, 1: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And shortly afterwards the chief heads are stated: Repentance and forgiveness of sins [...] So Paul, too, calls his entire doctrine the Gospel, Acts 20, 21; but he embraces the sum of this doctrine under the two heads: Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] Furthermore the term Gospel is employed in another, namely, in its proper sense, by which it comprises not the preaching of repentance, but only the preaching of the grace of God, as follows directly afterwards, Mark 1, 15, where Christ says: Repent, and believe the Gospel. (source)

Although I'm also thankful to Glen for reminding me to make what I think the Gospel is fit Christ, and not Christ fit what I think the Gospel is (see his excellent post "Jesus, not some Christ-principle").

Rejecting reconciliation not revelation

Most modern Christian apologetics is a response to the Enlightenment and its apparent rejection of Christian revelation in favour of rationalism.

[...]

This reading of the history of Western thought has been challenged by Stephen Williams in his book, Revelation and Reconciliation. Williams argues that modern atheism has its roots elsewhere. The rejection of revelation is only a symptom of an underlying problem. The real problem is the rejection of the idea or reconciliation and all that is implicit in that idea: moral accountability to the Creator, human helplessness, and reconciliation with God through a substitutionary sacrifice. The underlying issue was not a rejection of the possibility of revelation, but a rejection of the actuality of revelation.

(pp.159-161, Tim Chester & Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)

I think it is right that the Enlightenment was not firstly a rejection of supernaturalism and so revelation. I think it had more to do with rejection of authority (rather than reconciliation). Having said that, God's saving action is where his authority is most clearly demonstrated (that was what the OT writers thought, e.g. Exodus 7:5, and NT writers followed when they said that 'Jesus is Lord').

Back to the internet

You will be pleased to know my revision is going well, but I'm allowing myself an evening of Internet after 5 days without it. The Desiring God Conference has been going off and lots of people are linking to the talks. I think I may skip them this year and listen to Still Deeper Conference talks which has some interesting titles and interesting people speaking.

Interestingly Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis is one of the Desiring God Conference recommended books. I've recently finished it and may even get round to a proper review at some point (probably another empty promise!) but I'm really pleased DG have recommended it. It deserves a wide readership.

No hero but Christ

So you are doing an overview of the bible. The covenant with Abraham has to be one of the first events you choose to tick off. Perhaps you will start with Genesis 12:1-9 where he is called to the promised land, to be made a great nation, and to be a blessing to the whole world. Would you then carry on to look at verses 10-20?

Session 4 of The World We All Want does go on to look at those verses, and I am now convinced that you should do. Not only do you see the first partial fulfilment of God's promise that 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse', but you see the sin of his people, and the overcoming grace of God. Great stuff!

Doing theology with non-Christians

...and new Christians.

I find time and again that talking to non-Christians forces me to take my theology to another level. 'I pray', says Paul to Philemon, 'that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ' (1:6). Unbelievers are not satisfied with the pat answers and unexplained terminology that Christians all too readily accept.

(p. 152, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)

Recent examples from my life:

• Free will
• Satan

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

A question for allegorical interpreters of the Song of Solomon

How do you deal with the refrain that first occurs in Song of Solomon 2:7? It reads:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 2:7; cf. 3:5, 8:4)

I can understand this phrase as an interjection into 'a poem celebrating human love and sexuality' (p. xiii, Song of Songs (NICOT), by Tremper Longman III), but why would we not stir up love for Christ?

I've looked up Matthew Henry and John Gill who follow the allegorical interpretation and they seem to be using the reading do 'not stir up or awaken my love' - i.e. do not bother Christ or the church (depending on who you think is speaking). Is this a valid translation?

Longman seems to admit of two meanings of the warning:

One suggestion is that the phrase has the force of a “do not disturb sign.” Don’t disturb us until our love (the love of the man and the woman) has had its fill. Yet this seems an odd way to express the idea. More naturally, the verse is a warning of the woman to other women who may look on the relationship and want to experience something similar; she is, in essence, telling them not to force it. Wait for love to blossom; don’t hurry it. In a sense, then, the daughters of Jerusalem are surrogates for the reader. We too are to learn the same lesson: Wait for love to blossom; don’t try to stimulate it artificially…. She warns the others not to arouse love until they are ready to meet its rigors, both physical and emotional. Love is not a passing fling but rather a demanding and exhausting relationship. (pp. 115-116)

In addition to what Longman says I can see how a longing for the love you see in happy couples can actually lead to lust, and the idolatry of that kind of relationship.

So I cannot see how such an important verse can be made to fit the allegorical interpretation, for all its other strengths. At the moment I remain an unfashionable literalist, but please try and pursuade me.

PS I realise 6 posts in 2 days is not very good for a person only 3 weeks away from a very important exam... but I have a lot of stuff going round my head. I think it is all out though now!

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Questions to ask about your practice of the Lord's Supper

This is reflection on my previous post.

• Do we 'devote' ourselves to the Lord's supper (cf. Acts 2:42)? How often is it celebrated? How prominant is it in the service structure?
• Do we express the unity of the body in our practice of it? I am not suggesting that we all slavishly ensure that we use one loaf, one cup, or indeed that we eat round one table, but we should be doing all we can to express this. Perhaps all the congregation could eat/drink at once if one cup/loaf is not being used. Perhaps children should participate. Perhaps it should not be tacked on to the end of a service with an oportunity for people to leave in between.
• Do we look backwards at Christ's death? Is this reflected in the actions or just in the words?
• Do we look forward to Christ's second coming? It particularly struck me in reading the passages that all look forward to the coming consumation of the Kingdom of God. It is also interesting that in current discussion the realisation that the Lord's supper looks forward to the Messianic banquet, where as traditionally it has usually been seen to 'remember' what has already happened. We need to do both.
• Do we judge ourselves truly to avoid being judged? Is it something that we approach fearfully in the knowledge that it can bring death as well as life?
• Do we believe that there objective benefits obtained by participating?
• Do we believe that Christ is truly present in/with the bread and wine? I'm not getting into debates about bodily presence etc but all sides should be in agreement that Christ is present in some way. Do we really believe it though?

Notes on NT accounts of the Lord's Supper

Elements of the Lord's Supper according to the four biblical accounts of its institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26):

• In the context of a meal (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23; 33-34)
• Thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Blessing of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22)
• Identification of the wine as the (new) covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the wine with Jesus' blood (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the bread with Jesus' body (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Breaking of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Done in rememberance of Jesus (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• Anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of God or Jesus' second coming (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:15, 18; 1 Cor 11:26)
• Immediate context of betrayal (Matt 26:14-16, 21-25; Mark 14:10-11, 18-21; Luke 22:3-6, 21-23; 1 Cor 11:23)
• 'For forgiveness of sins' (Matt 26:28), 'for you' (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24), 'for many' (Mark 14:24)
• Bread first (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:24), or wine first (Luke 22:17)
• One loaf eaten (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:17)
• One cup drunk from (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17)
• New passover (Matt 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15)

Benefits:

• Forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)
• Participation in Christ, particularly his body and blood, so particularly his death (1 Cor 10:16)
• Unites the church (1 Cor 10:17)
• Proclaims 'the Lord's death' (1 Cor 11:26)
• Jesus is remembered (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• We are covenanted with (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• We are fed (obviously physically but presumably spiritually as well)

The real unity of the Bible

I love biblical theology. But I do think it has limitations, and it should not be made an end in itself. There is someone more fundamental than a story.

Mark Seifrid gets it:

It is worth reminding ourselves that just as Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, and four Gospels. The Psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations, are the differing ways in which God encounters his people.

[...]

The narrative is held together, not by a "strong historical continuity" as [Tom] Wright claims, but by the love and power of the Creator alone. That brings us finally, and decisively, to the human encounter with the God who, out of unconditioned love, forgives sin, promises salvation and blessing, and in Jesus Christ has brought his promises to fulfillment. In the gospel, God reveals himself to us beyond all other encounters with him as our loving, forgiving, and saving Creator.

(pp.24-25, "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright", Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 72:1, January 2008)

You can change

...but just wanted to say that You can change: God's transforming power for our sinful behaviour and negative emotions, Tim Chester's new book, is exceptionally good and may just be my book of the year so far. I read it very quickly, but I think it is best read slowly so I'm going to do that with the extra material on the IVP website.

You really should buy it now.

I've tried a few times to adequately put down a paragraph long review but don't feel like I am doing it justice. So I will brutalise Paul Tripp's endorsement:

• This book is 'brutally honest'. It is real not just in Tim being honest about his struggles to change, but in forcing you to be honest about your own heart and motives both to change and to sin. You cannot sit on the sidelines when reading this book.

• This book is also 'carefully theological'. Not in a dry or detached way. It is soaked in the bible and theology because of a conviction that it is truth that will set us free. Change comes through hearing the word and believing it.

• And finally, this book is 'gloriously hopeful' because it shows that you can change. Not on your own strength, not easily, and not completely this side of death, but certainly because of God's promises.

If there was just one thing I will take away from this first reading it is that if I am serious about change then I have to be serious about confessing to, loving and engaging with the Christian community I am a part of. A community deeply involved in each others lives and itself is changing is the best place to change personally.

Anyway...

Dave Bish has already reviewed it, and liked it so don't believe me, believe him. Also read extracts and endorsements here and here.

Here is a video of Tim introducing the book:

Finally, I will just add that it hasn't come as a surprise to me that this book is so good. I have read most of Tim Chester's output and it has all been brilliant. Other titles I will happily recommend you read include:

• The Busy Christians Guide to Busyness
• Delighting in the Trinity
• Good News to the Poor
• The Gospel-Centred Church (co-authored with Steve Timmis)
• From Creation To New Creation: Understanding the Bible Story
• The Message of Prayer (Bible Speaks Today Series)
• ...I still need to read Total Church which he co-authored with Steve Timmis. It's sitting on my shelf.
• Oh yes, I shouldn't forget The World We All Want: A Course on How the Bible Really Works which I'm currently going through with a friend and is so far proving a hit.

You can buy them all from his Amazon.co.uk store here.

Happy reading.... now back to the OU study I should be doing.

Total Church Conference Videos

The Total Church North America Conference happened last month. Some videos are starting to come up on Google Videos and will go up on the website soon (HT D Goodmanson).

You don't need to be a church leader to benefit.

... I'm away at the moment

Sorry for the lack of blogging people. Unfortunately this is likely to continue till 13 October when I have my final law exam. Not much time for reading and even less time for blogging.

On the bright side I get to listen to lots of good music while studying.

The revealed Word leading you to the hidden God

Luther says in a Table Talk:

"consideration must be given to the revealed God on the one hand and to knowledge of the unrevealed [hidden] will of God on the other. Of the latter nothing at all is known to us. We must confess that what is beyond our comprehension is nothing for us to bother about. [...God] says in effect: "Let me remain hidden. Otherwise you will fall into the abyss of hell, as it is written, 'He who inquires into the majesty of God shall be crushed by it.' [Prov26:27] In this place leave me untouched. Carnal wisdom shall here have its limit. Here I wish to remain unrevealed. I shall reveal your election in another way. From the unrevealed God I shall become the revealed God. I shall incarnate my Son and shall give you one who will enable you to see whether you are elected. do this: Give up your speculations which are apart from the Word of God, thoroughly root them out, and drive them to the devil in hell. ' This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him'.["...] Christ says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." [John 14:9] Christ will lead you to the hidden God."

(pp.132-133, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert).

Further reading on the hidden and revealed will of God can be found in Calvin's Institutes in book 1 chapters 17 and 18 (especially in the first few sections of each chapter)

Helpfully this is when Calvin is dealing with God's providence which includes him being in some way behind evil acts, whilst his will is clearly for good acts. Predestination to salvation really follows from this less contested teaching.

Elisha's miracles

Elisha performs astonishing miracles and one of the highlights is when he raises the Shunammite's Son (2 Kings 4). But he doesn't always find miracle-working straight forward. He sends his staff to be laid on the dead son but it does not work. He then has to go to house, shuts out the crowd from the room, and lays on the child, 'putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands'; but that only makes the child warm. He then has a short break and repeats the process before the child wakes up coughing and spluttering. Later in the same chapter Elisha also feeds a hundred men with 'twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack'.

In Mark 5 Jesus also is brought to someone's home to raise their child from the dead. He also shuts the door behind him and a couple of others but simply holds the child by her hand and speaks words to her and she immediately is risen and able to walk around. In the next chapter Mark records how Jesus feeds five thousand people with five loaves and two fish.

Killing and making alive

The Lord kills and brings to life;
  he brings down to Sheol and raises up. (1 Sam 2:6)

Some religions, and indeed some versions of Christianity, sound to me like God kills those that are out and does not kill those who are in. That is not the path of Jesus though, and it is not the Christian's path either.

Law and Gospel again

Sometimes I don't like the way law and Gospel can sometimes be used to chop the bible up into bits where some are law and some are Gospel. A nasty temptation when that is done is to ignore the law and only talk about those parts containing the Gospel (c.f. Hummel, Horace D. "Are Law and Gospel a Valid Hermeneutical Principle?" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982) no. 2-3:181-207). I have commented before (here and here) that the same passage can in some ways be both law and Gospel. Wengert gives an example below:

the brokenness of election in Lutheranism - as foolish as it appears to human wisdom - already contains great comfort. We can thereby announce this electing promise to anyone and everyone ("God chooses you") and watch as that declaration acts as law and gospel in justifying the sinner. As law, God's choice destroys and puts an end to all our choices. As gospel, we can finally relax and let God's grace carry the day.

(p.190, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations, by Timothy J. Wengert)

...BTW I'm not sure that I agree with all of the quote.

Melanchthon on the Qur'an

Did you know that in 1543 Martin Luther had a significant role in the publication of a Latin edition of the Qur'an? He wrote the preface and Philip Melanchthon wrote a 'warning to the Christian Reader'. Melanchthon had a number of points to raise, one of which was to 'compare types of teachings' between religions. This is what he found:

• Mohammed 'says nothing in favor of the forgiveness of sins'.
• 'He spews forth blasphemies upon the Son of God'.
• 'He does not teach what sin is'.
• 'nor does he demonstrate the causes of human misfortune'
• 'He is incapable of saying anything about true prayer in faith'.
• 'Finally, he completely rejects that teaching which belongs to the Gospel'.

I really need to get round to reading the Qur'an at some stage, but I suspect if I did I would come up with a different list. Nevertheless I think Melanchthon's list is better than one that I would write. I probably would never have thought of observing the lack of an explanation for 'causes of human misfortune' (how important is that for living life?) or teaching on 'true prayer in faith' (what a blessing that is!).

(Quotes from "Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Publication of the Qur'an" by J Paul Rajashekar and Timothy J. Wengert, in Lutheran Quarterly Vol 26 (2002) pp. 221-228)

The other restoration of Peter

"go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." (Mark 16:7)

"now Peter is singled out and included in the group who are commanded to follow to Galilee: it is not yet too late for them to become disciples once more. The message is thus not simply a command, but an assurance that the death and resurrection of Jesus bring forgiveness and the opportunity to begin again" (p.66, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ by Morna D. Hooker)

Justification: one metaphor among many?

I've often been one of those people trotting out that phrase of the moment in criticism of some exegesis that it is 'importing law court language' into passages where it doesn't belong. Behind that oft heard criticism of exegesis of individual passages and peoples theology in general is the assumption that the law court (justification, righteous, acquittal etc) is just one metaphor among many for describing our relationship with God. I have had that challenged recently in reading Oswald Bayer. He argues in short that the law court is just a heightened and formalised version of something that is all encompassing:

We cannot reject the question that others put to us: Why have you done this? What were you talking about? Might you not have done something else? In the other's view of us, and also in our own view we always find ourselves to be the ones who are already being questioned and who have to answer [...] We are forced to justify ourselves, and as we do so, we usually want to be right. Before the court of law, what constitutes our whole life is disclosed with particular clarity. The world of the court is not a special world of its own, but just a particular instance - a very striking one - of what is being done always and everywhere.

(p.1, Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification (Lutheran Quarterly Books) by Oswald Bayer, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Distractions

I was challenged as a regular cinemagoer by Ray Ortland's recent post about entertainment. Although I am not sure I agree totally. He has followed this up today with an interesting quote from Francis Schaeffer.

"People today are afraid to be alone. This fear is a dominant mark of our society. Many now ceaselessly sit in the cinema or read novels about other people's lives or watch dramas. Why? Simply to avoid having to face their own existence. . . .

No one seems to want (and no one can find) a place of quiet -- because, when you are quiet, you have to face reality. But many in the present generation dare not do this because on their own basis reality leads them to meaninglessness; so they fill their lives with entertainment, even if it is only noise. . . .

The Christian is supposed to be very opposite: There is a place for proper entertainment, but we are not to be caught up in ceaseless motion which prevents us from ever being quiet. Rather we are to put everything second so we can be alive to the voice of God and allow it to speak to us and confront us."

(Francis Schaeffer, "Walking through the mud," in No Little People, pages 86-87; HT Ray Ortland)

The only thing I'm unsure of in that comment is that it is only something that has started happening 'today'. Carl Trueman relates how Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) wondered about the same issue.

He can understand, he says, why poor people might enjoy the odd dance to distract them from the miserable drudge of their daily lives, but why should a king, glorious, powerful, surrounded by proofs of his own greatness need trivial entertainment? The answer is that, left to himself with nothing to distract him, he will think about himself and the reality of the death that awaits him.

(cited in The Wages Of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism, p. 177)

Passing judgment

Reflections on Romans 2

Romans 1:18-32 seems characterised by the words ‘they’, ‘their’ and ‘them’. ‘They are without excuse’, ‘they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images, ‘God gave them up’, ‘they were filled with every kind of wickedness’. God’s wrath seems to be ‘against those people over there’, but Paul is just setting us up for chapter 2.

Roman 2:1 begins with a big ‘therefore you’! Catching us while we are in the process of joining God in his judgment on ‘them’ he swings round the spotlight on us. We do ‘the very same things’ as them, so if we can judge them then we must judge ourselves the same.

God is kind to us now, but we cannot presume that will last when ‘God’s righteous judgment is revealed’. We cannot rely on past kindness because circumcision can become uncircumcision (2:25). God’s past kindness was not faithless but was meant to be lived out going forward in repentance (v.4). Not only was the past to be lived out going forward, but also the external was to be lived out internally in our heart (v.28). God's judgment is thorough and impartial. We cannot stand before the judgment of a God who judges the ‘secret thoughts of all’ and sees impenitent hearts.

Suddenly we who felt so complacent in judging others are fearful of the coming ‘righteous judgment of God’ which ‘will be revealed’. But then we remember that ‘the righteousness of God’ has already been revealed (1:17; 3:21-26). By faith we saw it at the cross where Jesus Christ was crucified. There our pride was put to death, and our ability to lord it over others in judgment. But three days later Jesus Christ was raised and was justified, and if we saw our death in his we also see our justification in his.

Universal justification - a definition

Phil Walker has just commented on an earlier post saying that one place that he would really not want to go with Lutheranism is 'universal justification'. As someone who is quite new to Lutheranism I was pleased for someone to give me a name for something that I had already detected as lying behind much of the discussion of baptism I have been reading. Phil probably should not get too concerned just yet, but a brief bit of internet surfing has brought up this helpful definition which I post here so I can refer to it later when I have time to properly think about it.

By "objective" or "universal" justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ's sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God's unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man's response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)

(Theses on Justification, Part I, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, May 1983)

Sounds like universal salvation, but it's not. Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it.

I suspect selfish posting like this is what means I will never get very high in Technorati rankings, so it is a good thing I reconciled myself a long time ago to using this blog as a electronic notebook which other people can read if they wish.

The Threat of Grace

Tim Keller recalls recalls how he once met a women who found the promise of free grace 'scary'. When he asked her why she replied:

If I was saved by my good works, then there would be a limit to what God could ask of me or put me through. I would be like a taxpayer with "rights" - I would have done my duty and now I would deserve a certain quality of life. But if I am a sinner saved by sheer grace - then there's nothing he cannot ask of me.

(The Reason for God, p.183)

On not being able to return the favour

Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

I have recently been thinking about all the good gifts I receive from people I know, in particular my church and my family. This has been prompted by a recent splurge of gifts due to various sudden needs. I have found that grace is a difficult thing to accept as humans. If someone gives me something I feel compelled to return the favour. I find it really, really hard to accept gifts that are not part of a reciprocal relationship. I think we all do because we don't want to dependant people. That's part of why people commit suicide rather that 'be a burden', why British people are obsessed with rounds of drinks, and why we feel compelled to buy a birthday card for someone if they bought us one last year.

I see grace most often in my parents. Most of us have received a crazy amount from our parents who have given up so much for us. I find it almost crippling in my relationship with them to realise this. To realise I will never be out of their debt. I can never return the favour.

Kids often try and ignore the reality of their parent’s grace by claiming that it is a parent’s 'job' to do something, or that it is part of the circle of life because we will do the same to our children (and so on). These are pathetic attempts to avoid the reality of our debt. As adults we are more sophisticated. We accept that we have received much but draw a line over it at 18 (or whatever) and pretend that it never happened as we begin to live as equals giving in a strictly reciprocal way.

It is obvious to me that how we think and act towards our parents is usually mirrored in our relationship with our heavenly Father.

The weight of condemnation is weighing on me at the moment, but I don’t have to be burdened… the trouble is I perversely prefer to shift the burden around with me than accept that I need help.

Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy

Random facts about Calvin and Calvinism

I found them interesting. But then perhaps I ought to get our more.

1. 'Archbishop William Whitgift whose distaste for Puritanism was legendary, remained a staunch Cavinist in his views on predestination, as the Lambeth Articles of 1595 amply demonstrate' (p.4).
2. 'Calvin regarded Zwingli as a second-rate theologian and ridiculed the esteem in which he was held at Zurich. though Calvin read and cited Zwingli's important treatise, the Commentary on True and False Religion, he confessed that he was put off by Zwingli's reliance on philosophy, he excessive use of paradox, and his confusion of the universal concerns of the gospel with the parochial interests of the Swiss' (p.173)
3. Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession while at the Regensburg Colloquy in 1541 (p. 172).
4. Relying 'only upon the index of the Corpus Reformatorum as a guide to Calvin's knowledge of the Fathers, one would conclude that Calvin referred in his commentaries on the new Testament to Chrysostom 105 times, to Augustine 101, to Jerome 38, to Ambrose 23, and to Ambrosiaster not at all' (p. 135).
5. 'Calvin does not use the Fathers in the way a medieval commentator used his ancient authorities. The Father's are not cited by Calvin in his exegesis of Romans 8 because he agrees with them and needs their authority their authority to strengthen his argument [...] in every case, explicit and anonymous, in which Calvin has referred to Patristic exegesis, he has quarreled with it. One ought not to make too much of this quarrel. After all, as we have already seen, there is a wide range of issues on which Calvin is in complete agreement with the Fathers. [...] Calvin, after all, is writing a commentary on Paul, not on Origen or chrysostom or Augustine or Ambrosiaster. Calvin keeps his pages as uncluttered as possible because it is Paul himself and not the commentators he wants to interpret' (p. 136)

All page references are to Calvin in Context by David Steinmetz.

The Dark Knight and Wall-E

Reviews of The Dark Knight to make you think:

• Peter Dray: are we 'able to keep to our own moral frameworks, particularly when placed under intense pressure'? and is vigilantism a moral response to evil?
• Chris Oldfield: action is absurd but everything, chance is fairness. The joker resembles Nietzsche's madman, who has seen the consequences of the death of God.
• Mark Kermode: one moral set piece too many, one character too many.

I'm still waiting for the similarly thoughtful reviews of Wall-E, so I'll try my hand at the film reviewing lark myself.... SPOILERS ALERT.. I'll assume readers have seen the film (because you should).

I love Pixar films and this one is exceptional. In contrast to The Dark Knight it was beautiful in it's simplicity, although it had plenty of ideas of it's own. Bizarrely it had both a very positive and very negative view of humanity. In the future humanity is lazy to the point that they never stand up and communicate with each other only through screens. They drift (literally) through life not creating but only consuming passively what the all dominant faceless corporation tells them to. However, everyone is very polite to each other and the robots, and once forced to question the direction of their lives they come up with the 'right answer' immediately, setting their faces to renewing the world they had abandoned as a garbage heap.

The morality behind the film is not hard to discern and some reviewers have found it to grate a little. Clearly, we should all care for the environment and our bodies. Who is going to disagree with that! However, most reviewers have stopped there and so had problems linking the first half of the film on Earth with the second in space. But to me the two halves are essential to the film as a whole. To have missed out the second half (as Mark Kermode would have liked) would have led to missing out the central theme of the film.

Wall-E after 700 years on earth has exceeded his programming and discovered what is most important. He values other things (as art), other people (or at least cockroaches) and he values himself (repairing himself while all his brothers died). He is really living, but longing to share his life with another. With Eve he finds the love that he has been longing for and doggedly pursues her because of this. This brings Wall-E and Eve together on the human ship where they show the humans how to be truly human. The humans enthusiastically embrace this new (or old) kind of life that they have forgotten and the charming titles at the end show them repeating the creative achievements of the last 2000 years.

By the end of Wall-E the relationships between humans and creation have been healed and humanity is (unconsciously) imaging our creative and caring God again. It is a beautiful, fantastical film. But it is fantastical. Wall-E depicts humans as having drifted out of the way they were made to live, but having now learnt their lesson.

I see much to love in the message of Wall-E. However, I know that our drifting into sin is not entirely unintentional, and our turning from it is not as easy. I also know that as long as our primary relationship to our Father is broken we cannot fix our relationships with each other or creation.

We can't rely on robots to save humanity and then show us the way to live. We need a more powerful saviour, a better example to follow and new heart to enable us to do it. We also need to experience that greater love, and greater relationship that we were made for; and until we do we will be like Wall-E watching old VHS videos but longing for the reality.

Stop me if you have heard this before

Indidividualism is the problem, community is the solution.

Jonathan Leeman (in Modern Reformation, HT Dave Bish) has heard it before. Like most writers today he is no fan of individualism and loves community, however he sees a deeper problem, which requires a solution that reaches right down to the root. For him...

the problem is we hate authority, and the solution is repentance.

A very good article. Well worth reading.

More random notes on Law and Gospel

Note to self: I need to do a review post of John Frame's article "Law and Gospel". I think that would help crystallise many of the helpful things I have learnt from Lutheran theology over the last year. It would also be very topical in the mist of a lot of confusion in the Reformed world (or blogosphere at least) that Lutherans may say has been a part of Reformed theology since the beginning.

I think I would start by clearing the air by copying Don Carson's point in his article "The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields" (in the brilliant Justification: What's at stake in the current debates ed. Mark Husbands & Daniel J. Treier).

I then may point out that characterisation of the traditional dichotomy between law and gospel of law = old covenant, gospel = new covenant, is a caricature (c.f. quote from Timothy Wengert posted previously).

Then I should think about why it is important after all.... I might find this bit hard work to write.

Finally I might think about why Reformed Theology often seems to struggle with conflicting urges in the debate.... this will be where I fall flat on my face because it here it will actually become clear what I may have hidden up till then: my ignorance of historical theology.

Law first, Gospel second

One of the most challenging things to think about in John Frame's article is that it is more biblical to preach the gospel first and then the law, in contrast to what "one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second". I can see his point here, and yet he doesn't deal with what for Luther seems to be the biggest argument for that ordering: as Christ died and then was raised, so we are baptised into the water of death and are raised to life and repent of sin and are absolved by the confessor.

My top 3 books for seekers

Inspired by this.

What would you suggest? Do you think my limited reading/sin has made me make some bad choices? This is a genuine request for recommendations (but you will have to work hard to persuade me of Mere Christianity/Basic Christianity if you were thinking of those).

• A Journey Worth Taking by Charles Drew
• Real Life Jesus: meaning, freedom, purpose by Mike Cain
• The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Tim Keller

I fear that all of these are a bit to nice. Maybe that's because I'm a bit to horrible... I don't know, there is nothing wrong with being nice after all. But you really can feel a difference between those three and John Piper's Seeing and savouring Jesus Christ. I don't think that it is meant to be so much of a 'seeker book' but nevertheless the Jesus presented by Piper is a whole lot more full blooded that the other three... and yet they remain my top 3 books for seekers... go figure.

I think I'm going to read Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears next.

Does anyone else have this nasty dilemma when reading such books, to decide between books which spell out the challenge and the promise of the gospel without neglecting the challenge or putting up unnecessary obstacles (in the form of controversial secondary doctrines) to the gospel?

I still think though that the best thing to do is take someone to a gospel (e.g. with Christianity Explored) or through the bible (e.g. with The World We All Want). Saves all the angst as well, and you can avoid having to add in caveats about how you would phrase things differently!

Problems with comments

Sorry to all of you who commented in the last few weeks and I didn't respond. Usually Blogger emails me to let me know if someone has commented. It hasn't recently. I don't know why.

Online Mark Seifrid resources

[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].

Mark Seifrid is Mildred and Ernest Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Articles

• "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Still Fresher Reading of Paul" 2006 Symposium on Exegetical Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana (17 January 2006) published as "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright" in Concordia Theological Quarterly (Vol 72:1, January 2008)
• "The Gospel as the Revelation of Mystery: The Witness of the Scriptures to Christ in Romans" in SBJT 11/3 (Fall 2007)
• "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: An Introduction to the Distinction between Law and Gospel" in SBJT 10/2 (Summer 2006)
• "Justified by Faith and Judged by Works: A Biblical Paradox and Its Significance" (SBJT Winter 2001) - a revised version of his faculty address
• "The Waiting Church and Its Duty: James 5:13-18" (SBJT Fall 2000)
• "The 'New Perspective on Paul' and Its Problems" (Themelios, Issue 25-2, Feb 2000)
• "Faith, Hope, and Love: Paul’s Message to the Church at Thessalonica" (SBJT Fall 1999)
• "Salvation, BF&M Article 4 Summary" from An Exposition from the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on The Baptist Faith and Message 2000
• "'The gift of salvation': Its failure to address the crux of justification" (JETS, December 1999)
• "Natural Revelation and the Purpose of the Law in Romans" (TynBul, 49.1, May 1998) [pdf] [doc]
• "Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History" (TynBul, 45.1, May 1994) [pdf] [doc]

Audio

• Discussion with Albert Mohler, Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification, video and MP3 (3 September 2009)
• Discussion with Tom Schreiner, Brian Vickers and Denny Burk: "Assessing the Piper-Wright Debate on Justification", MP3, (15 April 2009)
• Sermon: "The Radically Realistic Gospel: Romans 7:7-25", MP3, (1 June 2008)
• Sermon: "The Parable of the Talents", MP3, (1 July 2007)
• SBTS Faculty Address: "Justification by Faith", MP3, (16 February 2000)

Reviews by Seifrid

• The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation by Mark Nanos (Trinity Journal, Fall 2004)
• Leben aus den Verheissungen: Traditionsgeschichtliche und biblisch-theologische Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gottes Verheissungen im Frühjudentum und beim Apostel Paulus, by Gerhard Sass (RBL, 2000)
• Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds by Kent L. Yinger (RBL, 22 June 2000)
• Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings By Jeffrey A. D. Weima (JETS September 1998)

Reviews of Seifrid

• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Simon J. Gathercole (Beginning With Moses / Themelios Vol. 26 No. 2)
• Review of Christ Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification by Kim Riddlebarger (Modern Reformation, March/April 2002 Vol: 11 Num: 2)

Leithart and I on Law and Gospel

To quote Leithart in full:

A strict distinction between law and gospel is offered as a prophylactic against works-righteousness. If it is admitted that law is gospel in any sense, all is lost.

But this view assumes the very same view of law that it contests. A proponent of works righteousness sees the law as demands that need to be kept, and the end of the law is simply its keeping. The proponent of law/gospel segregation has the same view of law.

Both detach law from its purpose, which, as Knight argues, is eschatological. Law exists to correct, instruct, lead to maturity. And to that extent, law is always intended as, and in practice often is, good news.

However is this to misunderstand what is properly meant by Law/Gospel. Charles Arand and Robert Kolb in their conversations on the Book of Concord note that even "Christ died for your sins" can be "Law" rather than Gospel if you hear it as condemning you for the magnitude of your sins rather than lifting you from despair (they said it in a really menacing and accusative way to emphasise the point).

Kolb and Arand don't make the connection but I wonder if the same cannot be true for commandments. Commandments can be good news if they bring life rather than condemnation. I think of the beatitudes which Matthew characterises as Gospel (Matt 4:23) although most people teach them as commandments - do this and you will receive this (be merciful and you will receive mercy etc). However, if read in context they seem to be saying: “rejoice because you who are X are going to be saved”. It does not say be X, but assumes that they already are. Equally though it could be preached as an impossible standard we cannot reach in seeking justification by our works.

So the same words can have the different meanings for different people. God knew this so the Law of Moses was intended to be both life and death to people, just as the Gospel is (2 Corinthians 2:16). This may make interpretation of the different statements in the bible a whole lot easier (although it may be cheating).

Why all Christians need to think about Biblical Theology

How can we read the scriptures like Jesus on the road to Emmaus, Peter at Pentecost, and Paul in Romans, when the word Jesus is so small in a Wordle of the bible (from the ESV blog; what is a Wordle?)?

A start may be made by realising that Jesus is in one way or another also 'Lord', 'God', the Word ('said'), 'Israel', the 'people', and 'king'.

I wish I had time to right this post

Why Tom Wright's theology is distinctively Reformed, even though it is different from most Reformed theologies out there today.

I would talk about their similarities on:

• The importance of union with Christ
• Justification/baptism as declaring a reality that is already present
• Redemption as involving the whole of creation
• Biblical theology
• The importance of covenant
• The emphasis on the goodness of the law
• The doctrine of Sola Scriptura
• ...and more?

I probably haven't read enough to make it coherent and persuasive... still that never has stopped me posting before. :)

A quick search of the internet would give me some quotes to use as illustrations though, e.g.

"I grew up in a Lutheran evangelicalism which left me with a strong antithesis between law and grace. I found this all profoundly unsatisfying until I met Calvin and Calvinism. I began to think, "Whew…the law is a good thing. It is holy and just and good. It is right and it has been fulfilled, not abrogated, in Christ." All of that is right. So, if you are faced with a choice between Luther and Calvin, you simply have to choose Calvin... What I then found, and believe me I tried very hard to do this, was that I couldn’t make the Calvinist reading of Galatians actually work." (An Interview with NT Wright by Travis Tamerius)

"From (at least) Calvin onwards, reaching something of a climax in the Romans commentary of Charles Cranfield, exegetes in the Reformed tradition found in Paul a view of the Jewish law which was far more positive than Lutheran exegesis had assumed. I am not sure that this tradition ever did full justice to second Temple Judaism, but at least it did not start from the assumption that the law itself was basically a bad thing ripe for abolition. (Notice how this works out in exegesis of the notorious crux at Rom. 10: 4: is Christ the abolition, end, completion, goal, or fulfilment of the law? Or what?) After all, in [72] Reformed Theology the Torah was given in the first place within a historical scheme, not to enable the Israelites to keep it and so earn their membership in God’s people, but to enable them, as a people already redeemed through the Exodus, to demonstrate and work out the implications of their membership and vocation. The (at least partial) convergence of Sanders’s reading of Judaism with a Reformed view of the law makes it all the more ironic that the anti-NP movement is today centred not least in Reformed circles such as the Presbyterian Church of America and Westminster Theological Seminary" (Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a Multi-Layered Pauline Theology of the Cross)

Wright: Would you agree with the following analysis of how all this happened? The mainstream of New Testament studies from the Reformation until very recently – certainly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – was being led by German Lutherans who had a very definite law-gospel antithesis. Had it instead been led by people in the Reformed as opposed to the Lutheran tradition, the new perspective would never have been necessary. If you take the theology of someone like Ridderbos or Charles Cranfield, you find exactly the same idea in principle, which is that the law was never given as a ladder of good works up which people ought to climb to save themselves; if anyone ever thought that, that was an abuse of the law, because grace and particularly the covenant precedes obedience.

I find this very ironic, because if you were to go on to Google and were to type in “Tom Wright” +”justification by faith,” you would turn up many American web sites from the Presbyterian Church of America and various other strongly Reformed centers like Westminster Seminary which are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. This is really quite bizarre, because I think that what we have both done in taking forward Sanders’ proposal theologically – Sanders is really not a theologian, he’s more of an historian – I see what we’re doing as actually much more on a Reformed map than a Lutheran map, precisely because of the emphasis on the covenant and grace as basic, and on the Law from the start as being the way of life for the redeemed people. This corresponds to Luther’s tertiary use of it, if you like, but it’s much easier to do it in a Reformed or Calvinist framework. Would you be happy with that?

Dunn: That’s entirely so. I rediscovered, as it were, my Reformed heritage in all this because I was brought up Presbyterian. I was a strong Calvinist in my youth, and one of the impressive things about Calvin is that he sees the continuity of the covenants. The covenant of grace is the dominant category running through the Old and New Testaments.

Wright: Grand narrative, you mean.

Dunn: Well, a motif, shall we say. And likewise, a very important point: Calvin’s work is systematic – Luther was never systematic like that. Calvin is able to integrate better what is typically called now a “participationist” soteriology (“in Christ”) and the forensic emphasis. One of the sad things about this rebuke coming from many in the States is that they want to operate entirely in forensic categories. They haven’t really integrated the en Christo, the “in Christ” motif, which is so fundamental to Paul. The term “in Christ” occurs far more frequently in Paul than justification language.

Wright: Yes.

(An Evening Conversation on Jesus and Paul with James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright)