Don Carson on domains of discourse

For clarity of thought and expression, it is important to distinguish between two domains of discourse, viz. exegesis and theology. Of course, for those who want the “norming norm” of their theology to be Scripture, the links between the two disciplines must be much more than casual. Nevertheless, not only their respective methods, but even their respective vocabularies, can be very different.

Carson then discusses the different ways in which the Bible and Systematic/Historical Theology uses the words sanctification and reconciliation. He believes that the Bible teaches that sanctification is progressive, and God is reconciled to humanity, even if it never uses the terms sanctification and reconciliation to describe it.

He concludes, applying it to the doctrine of imputation, although its application is broader:

The bearing of these reflections is obvious. Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence to substantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed? And if such a case can be made, should the exegete be encouraged to look at the matter through a wider aperture than that provided by philology and formulae? And should we ask the theologian to be a tad more careful with texts called up to support the doctrine?

('The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields')

Who adminsters baptism?

Probably one of the biggest questions to ask about baptism is:

• Is baptism primarily an act of, or upon, the person baptised?

Interesting to hear what a Baptist scholar may say about that based on the evidence...

Some Jewish groups practised 'proselyte baptism', i.e. proselytes were baptized in the process of converting to Judaism. In the monastic community at Qumram, members invoked passages such as Ezekiel 36:25 to justify their daily baptism... But in both instances baptism was self-administered. Candidates baptized themselves... One of the things that characterized the baptism of John the Baptist is that he himself administered it. It may even be that the authority implicit in such an innovative step triggered the assumption in the minds of at least some Pharisees that John's baptism was an end-time rite administered by an end-time figure with great authority.

(italics original, p.145, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John)

Carson notices that if baptism is primarily something done by one with authority to the person baptised there is a secondary question of who has such authority. John Calvin suggests an answer in commenting on John 4:2 where the Evangelist says that Jesus baptised, and yet also clarifies that it was only his disciples who did the action:

He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God.

PS I am sorry. I know that Christmas Eve is probably not the time to riding one of my hobby-horses.

Do everything to the glory of God

"whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31)

So how exactly do you do that?

Perhaps its by constantly having God in mind as you munch on your fish fingers and thanking him for providing you with this food. Perhaps its not quite as 'spiritual' as that and simply enjoying munching on that marmite on toast as it fills a hole. But perhaps its not even as conscious an activity as that.

The sermon at church this evening was on Psalm 148 where the Sun and Moon are called on to Praise God.

Our pastor pointed out that given all creation is called to worship God, there is a problem with a definition of worship which limits it to human beings (e.g. Don Carson who defines worship as: "the proper response of all moral sentient beings to God, ascribing all honor and worth to their Creator-God", p.26, Worship by the Book).

But given that all creation should worship God, have you ever thought how the Sun and Moon worship God? I don't think I really have. I think I've always just skimmed over those statements as hyperbole, but you do come across it remarkably often in Scripture don't you? I can understand how the Sun and Moon witness to his magnificent creative power and so give him glory that way; but praise him? A bit too far perhaps?

It struck me this evening that the only way God can be praised by a lump of stone hanging in the vacuum of space is by it being what it is. It not only doesn't have intelligent thoughts, you couldn't even say it has feelings. It simply exists. It is what it was made to be.

I suppose our worship is the same really. Our worship is just living life as we were made to live life as human beings made in the image of God. God designed us to eat and drink to sustain ourselves, so we eat and drink and that is worship. Of course we are also made to be in relationship with him, to serve each other, etc. But the act of eating and drinking is pure worship in and of itself. It doesn't need anything else adding. Similarly, sleeping is worship, it doesn't become worship because its sleeping in order to do something in the morning. So having already eaten and worshipped God that way, in a couple of hours I'm going to go to sleep to worship God.

That all seems banal perhaps. But I think its actually quite important.