Self-control and lent

John Piper reminded me powerfully of the stress the NT puts on self-control.

[Self-control] is so essential in Christian living that Paul made it part of his one-time sermon to Felix (“he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment,” Acts 24:25); he made it part of the fruit of the Spirit (“faithfulness, gentleness, self-control,” Galatians 5:23); he made it part of the qualifications for overseers (“self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined,” Titus 1:8).

...It’s the sort of thing that athletes do. “Every athlete exercises self-control in all things” (1 Corinthians 9:25). Paul had very little trust in the desires his body threw at him daily: “I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27). That’s an innocuous translation. Literally: “I give my body a black eye (hupopiazō) and make it a slave (doulagōgō).”

...Is this Christian Hedonism? Yes. Why does Paul live like a self-disciplined athlete? Simple: Greater joy. “Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable” (1 Corinthians 9:25).

I've been thinking about self-control a lot recently because I feel I have very little. It's all over the Bible and nowhere in our culture. But, how do we hold self-control together with grace?

I have quite a few thoughts, but find Martin Luther helpful (as so often). He was quite strong on the importance of fasting and self-discipline (at least in the early days - his later girth suggests things changed). But, he placed it firmly within the doctrine of two kinds of righteousness. Disciplines such as fasting that build self-control have no effect on our righteousness coram deo because only God's creative Word can change our hearts. However, they have benefit for our neighbour (coram mundo) if they train us in righteous acts of giving, patience, etc.

My lack of self-control is a destructive force in my life and in other people. I want to control my selfish desires, and fasting in lent maybe a way to do that. But God already sees me as his Son who was so in control of his selfish desires that he refused the devil's invitation to bread in the desert and died on a tree because he was a Christian Hedonist who found his joy set before him in the redemption of a people and the pleasure of his Father.

Theocentric or anthroprocentric?

Reading Tom Torrance is great because he gets how exciting and shocking it is that God became man in Jesus Christ. He has taught me to see that this is central to everything, while never losing what PT Forsyth says is 'the true seat of Incarnation — a Christ made sin' ("Immanence and Incarnation"). This post is a bit of an application of that...

Listening to a recent discussion on Wright and Piper's debate I was reminded about how both see much contemporary Christianity as too anthroprocentric, and not theocentric enough. I've never been completely happy with drawing a sharp distinction between the two as humanity is made in the image of God. Therefore to be truly anthroprocentric is to be theocentric.

But we can go further in rejecting this dichotomy.

Both Wright and Piper are part of the Reformed tradition and so this also reminded me of John Halton's post quoting Herman Bavinck saying that 'the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically' (RD 1:177). John says that he would like to say that 'the Lutheran thinks Christologically' and to be Christocentric is to combine the two in the God-man.

In Christ the true God is revealed, but we are less familiar with the idea that he also reveals our true humanity. For some reason we have focused on all the NT statements that Jesus is the image of God (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3, cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9) as just referring to his divinity and missed the implication that this shows his humanity as well.

As Tom Smail comments:

Christ is both the divine prototype that is stamped on to our humanity and so imparts to it the divine image, and is also the human being who has received that image and is the perfect expression of it. In the rest of us, in our over-flexible human nature, that image has been eroded and distorted but in Christ it is fresh and new, authentic and complete.

(p. 59, Like Father, Like Son)

So if we want to be free to be ourself we have to look to Christ. But not by following his example, because we cannot be the image of God, but by being in the image of God by his gracious identification with us in our sinful twisted humanity.

Adam is, as is said in [Romans 5:14], the type of Him who is to come. Man's essential and original nature is to be found, therefore, not in Adam but in Christ. In Adam we can only find it prefigured. Adam can therefore be interpreted only in the light of Christ and not the other way round.

(p. 29, Karl Barth cited in Tom Smail, Like Father, Like Son)

Trinitarian theology and the offence of God's passion for his glory

Dan Hames has contributed to a recent flurry of blog posts about Christian Hedonism (see Dave Bish's post). Dan Hames observes that there is "a massive question over all of Piper's work (and the work of others in this vein) in the minds of many people" and that is how we can "rescue God's concern for His own glory from narcissism". Dan Hames thinks the best defence in John Piper's armoury is Trinitarian theology. However I'm less than convinced. The main reason for my doubt is that I'm not sure that Dan Hames' Trinitarian theology is John Piper's Trinitarian theology. To my poorly educated ears Dan Hames' Trinitarian theology seems quite idiosyncratic [UPDATE: probably a poor choice of word] in a similar way to the way Mike Reeves talks on the Trinity seemed when I listened to them (although I thoroughly enjoyed them).

My concerns about the way Mike Reeves and Dan Hames articulate their Trinitarian theology is that:

1. It downplays the unity of God to such an extent that I am unclear whether the unity of the Trinity is solely in their 'thoughts' (of love for each other, of their shared purposes etc).
2. It seems that for them there is no 'priority' within their relationships although there are differences. I know subordination (whether eternal, economic, ontological or functional [!]) within the Trinity is a contested subject but I think it is there in the NT, and I think John Piper agrees.

If the Trinity is of 'one substance' (and I know Mike Reeves doesn't like that term for good reasons) and there is some kind of subordination, or even differing origins, within the Trinity, then I think that Trinitarian theology does little to remove the offence of God's passion for his glory. Although undoubtedly Trinitarian theology demonstrates the love of God and makes God's passion for his glory beautiful, God's concern is still totally self-centred because God is one, and because all the mutual glorification is asymmetric and seems to find rest in the glory of the Father that the Son and Spirit reflect and share.

I haven't the stamina to produce one well-written post on this subject so will probably just throw together a few posts full of quotes over the next few days which will hopefully provide some resources to think about subordination within the Trinity in the bible and in John Piper.

UPDATE: Dan Hames has responded to this post here. Well worth reading.

Even more on Justification

• A gentleman called Mark Garcia has written a very helpful review article of two books with different views on justification. It argues that both make the mistake of assuming that there is one Protestant understanding of justification. It's very well written, and can be read here. Many moons ago I posted some quotes by Geerhardus Vos which seem to back up Mark Garcia's argument.

• John Piper has a book coming out on Tom Wright's theology of Justification and a 30min interview with him on the subject of the book can be accessed on Jacob Paul Breeze's blog. Piper seems to echo Howard Marshall in saying that Wright is correct in what he affirms but wrong in what he denies. I agree with Piper on this, although I had some concerns of my own about Piper's expression of the doctrine of justification. But when it comes down to it I'm with Jacob Paul Breeze...

  if you want to talk about who is "right"...that's fine. But, I eventually want to talk about the larger issue: how do we for the sake of unity and mission to the world, work together when we have different interpretations of Scripture (yet because of Justification by Faith [ironically] we are both full participants in God’s family?

Yet more on justification

I'm still thinking about justification a lot trying to get things straight. I've still got some reading to go. I've just started Justified in Christ which is promising looking collection of essays. Sinclair Ferguson wrote the introduction and seemingly contradicts the viewpoint of Bill Dumbrell which I quoted in the first post documenting my 'quest'. Sinclair Freguson says that:

[For Tom Wright and Jim Dunn] when Paul speaks about justification he is not in fact talking about "the way in" but describing [I think they would say 'declaring'] the status of those already in [... in contrast] evangelicalism has always maintained that the "way in" is justification by faith.

I don't know what to make of this. I would presume that if you think justification is 'forensic' (as Ferguson does) then the natural understanding would be that it is declarative. So the question is when does this justification happen? - in the past (around the time of the new birth) or about the time of the bodily resurrection? But, is this is a false question.?Can it not be both? We are justified 'in Christ' and specifically in his resurrection (cf. Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16). When do we participate in Christ's resurrection? In part following our new birth and fully when Christ comes again. Wright probably focuses too much on the justification of the church in the eyes of the world and so looks almost (perhaps only) to the future. However I don't think it can be an either/or, it is a past(in Christ), present (in the breaking in of Christ's life in new birth), and future (in the raising of the dead) event.

But Ferguson is also suggesting that justification occurs before salvation, and the quotation from Calvin on the cover says the same:

those who were lost have their sins buried and are justified before God, because, as he hates sin, he can love only those whom he has justified.

But what does Paul have to say? Here are a few verses that may help:

'as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.' (Rom 5:18)

'And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.' (Rom 8:30)

'For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.' (Rom 10:10)

'so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.' (Titus 3:7)

It is clear that justification and salvation/glorification/life are all so wrapped up together so as to be inseparable which seems to make this discussion seem slightly pointless (and after reading Seifrid I now recognise that the reason for much of the theological hair-spliting is because what God is doing is being downplayed at the expense of a human perspective of what is happening with us). Romans 8:30 is particularly interesting though. According to Don Carson 'calling' in Paul means 'effective calling' not just the free offer of the gospel. Therefore, justification happens between new birth and glory. So after you are through the doorway but before the mud has been shaken from your feet and you have been given some clean clothes (although that's only the best of a bad load of illustrations).

Through all of my thinking on this issue though I am sure of one thing. It is God who justifies and our concern should not be the seeking of justification as an abstract thing - and sadly it is sometimes put forward in that way. Our concern should be hearing the word and responding with faith. Our concern is that the gospel that 'Jesus is Lord' is declared and God is made known for his mercy and his judgment. As Seifrid says, first and foremost it is God that is justified in our justification and it is God's justification that ought to be our obsession and delight. Let us not seek to be justified (and if we are seeking justification by our faith then we are turning faith into a work I believe) but seek God and his glory (in which we participate when we are glorified - like everything it is not something that we own but something we share in as we share in Christ).

So those are my preliminary conclusions at this juncture. I hope I've expressed them well.

PS on related matters Piper's forthcoming book on Tom Wright's doctrine of justification is forthcoming and getting very positive reviews from some sensible people (the latest is here). I'm really thankful to God because his last foray on imputed righteousness was a an awful piece of writing. I read the book before it was published in the UK because I was looking forward to it so much but he was out of his depth and it showed. In focusing in narrowly on Tom Wright alone, and putting in the hours seems to have paid off this time. If anyone can be trusted to put God's glory at the centre in a discussion justification it must be John Piper.