The Principle of Protestantism

I've just finished The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff. It's a fascinating little book. It was delivered as an inauguration address in German, when Schaff was just 25 and newly emigrated to America from Germany to take up a post in a new seminary with just one other member of the teaching staff. Schaff would become one of the most important Church Historians of the 19th century, and freshly landed in America he had plenty to say for himself.

Most striking to me were three (interconnected) things that run throughout the book:

1. An incredibly positive evaluation of other church traditions then and in the past, coupled with a strong belief in the truth of reformed protestantism.
2. The importance of the church uniting, yet a understanding that protestant distinctives not be compromised in any way.
3. That the church is growing and developing in life and doctrine throughout history.

This Hegelian influenced, absolute confidence in progress is astonishing. As Christians we often hear about how the liberal belief in progress has been destroyed by the two world wars of the 20th century, but I have never read it so strongly held. For Schaff "Protestantism is the principle of movement, of progress in the history of the church; progress, not such as may go beyond the Bible and Christianity, but such as consists in an ever-extending knowledge of the Bible itself, and an ever-deepening appropriation of Christianity as the power of a divine life, which is destined to make all things new" (p. 201, emphasis his).

However, Schaff is no naive optimist as 'it must not be forgotten however, in connection with this that there is a corresponding movement also on the part of evil, towards that which is worse, Light and darkness, the wheat and the tares, grow together till their development shall become complete' (p.222).

This is strange to my ears, and I don't know what to make of it.

This principle of progress runs throughout the book and informs all of his observations on the history of the Church. Protestantism he sees not as the rediscovery of the truth held by the church fathers, but as a development of doctrine (he lists justification by faith, and the authority of scripture, as the material and formal principle of the Reformation) against a church which thought it had the truth nailed down, and the infiniteness depths of God with it. He finds the two 'diseases' of the church of his day to be rationalism and sectarianism. And yet he finds God working in both. The scientific method is a wonderful gift to the church to aid its understanding of the bible and the world - and yet rationalism is still a deadly disease to war against. All the different denominations and nationalities (America as melting pot comes through very clearly) have lessons for each other which must not be reduced to common-denominator Christianity for the sake of unity - and yet the division in the church is a horrendous sin.

The trouble is, I just don't know whether I can accept the idea of historical progress which for Schaff is such a fruitful way of understanding God's working in the world. However, I can't think of an argument against it of the top of my head.

PS Incidentally the other fascinating thing about Schaff, which I have found in many 19th century writers is that he is more than willing to make sweeping generalisations about the character of different nations. In the different nations he is happy to see the strengths (which he hopes will be combined in America), but he is clear that he thinks Germany is pretty great. Here is a taster:

the proper home of Protestant theology is Germany, and hence we may say that those who refuse to take account of German theology, set themselves in fact against the progress of Protestantism...We wish not to depreciate in the least the merits acquired in former ties, by the Dutch and the English in particular, in the way of biblical study...The German is always disposed rather to put an undue value on what is foreign, and has long since appropriated the results of these investigations and worked them into the process of his own cultivation. But what is all this beside the gigantic creations of German theology! All its heresies cannot destroy my respect for it...for only an archangel can become a devil. As England and America would not have been able at all to produce so fearful an enemy of Christianity as David Fridrich Strauss, so must they have been much less able to meet him with a proper refutation; and I shudder at times to think of the desolation his writings must occasion, if they should come to be much read-which may God prevent-in this country. (p.202)

You can't help but smile a little.

The heavens declare the glory of God

...any work of art bears the impress of the artist who made it. The music of Beethoven does not sound like the music of Josquin. The Apostle Paul's writing style is not the same as the Apostle John's. We can hear and detect these differences, even if we lack the particular expertise to explain what accounts for them.

But suppose that the only composer who ever lived was Johann Sebastian Bach. There is no music in this world except that of Bach. Whenever we hear music in this world, it sounds like Bach's music. It maybe played well or badly but the fundamental raw material is always Bach, only Bach, nothing but Bach. Now, since there is no other music to compare this music to, would we be able to "hear" Bach's personality in the music? Or would it be easy for us to forget about Bach, and assume that "music simply is"?

The problem with hearing or detecting God's authorship of the world is just like this. There is no other world to compare God’s world to. There is no "music" except God's. It can be "played" well or perversely, but there are no other raw materials at hand. God's personality is fully displayed in the world, but it is easy for us to become deaf to this fact. (p. 21, James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a biblical view of the world)

What a great illustration of the need for new eyes!

Q: Why do none of the NT books recall the events of 70AD?

The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple must have resounded like an earthquake round the Christian churches in 70AD. Even a cursory reading of the NT makes it clear that the status of the Jews and the Jewish religion were huge issues for the NT church. yet, as far as I know, the only possible references to the events of 70AD see it as a future event.

I can only think of three possible answers to this question:

1. Almost all the NT books were written pre-70AD - contrary to what most scholars of all stripes and all ages believe (as far as I am aware from my limited knowledge).
2. It wasn't as big a deal as everyone thinks it was. The NT Christians knew that the temple of Jesus' body had already been torn down and rebuilt. The physical temple was yesterday's news and nobody cared.
3. There are references to the destruction of Jerusalem all through the NT, but I am just too blind and ignorant to see them.

As God is continually reminding me - you can't understand his Word without his Spirit, so I will be praying about these nagging questions I'm putting down. But as I said before, this is partly an appeal for help from those who have more of the Spirit than I do.

Q: Should the Israelites have rejected the Mosiac Law?

A: Errm...well obviously the answer to my nagging question should be 'no'. But when you hear many people talk about 'the law' you can't help feeling that the answer should be 'yes'.

When Moses came down mount Sinai perhaps the Israelites should have responded "You know what Moses, God already has an unconditional covenant with us as children of Abraham. We know that we are accepted on that basis, without circumcision, by faith alone. Frankly Moses, you are selling us down the river with a works-based righteousness that will not lead to life. We'll stick with the unconditional covenant of Abraham and reject your man-made legalism."

You know your understanding of the Mosaic law is wrong when you cannot pin down why that should not have been the Israelites response to the giving of the law.

... I am pretty sure my understanding of the law is wrong!

"But the law is not of faith..."

By the way, this is going to be the start of a mini-series of nagging questions (not doubts) about the Bible. I don't know the answers to any of them so please feel free to help me out.

Why Tim Chester wrote The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness

A truly brilliant book. As I said on my old blog:

In an age when there are so many Christian books purporting to be relevant to the 21st century, or to the reality of our lives, this is the first book I’ve read that actually delivers ... This is the most beneficial book I have read this year. A perfect mix of big picture Christianity, and day-to-day practicalities... I thank God for this book.

...also my first attempt to post video. Not that complicated really.

A neat little summary of OT sacrifices

I started reading Gerhard Von Rad's seminal OT theology yesterday. I've given up though as it seems so concerned with getting behind the text, rather than listening to it, and I have a load of other books waiting in line. But before I gave up I came across a neat little summary of the nature of OT sacrifices.

• gift
• communion
• atonement

Not profound, but a helpful little framework. I think it only leads to misunderstanding if we overemphasise any one of them.

Article on the Holy Spirit in the OT

• "Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" Themelios 30 (2004), 12-22; by James Hamilton

"The Gospel of John states, 'Unless one is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). Later in John we read that the Spirit will not be received until after Jesus is glorified (7:39). If the Spirit is not received until after the cross, could Nicodemus have experienced the new birth from above prior to the cross? Did the old covenant remnant experience the new birth by the Spirit? Were individual members of the old covenant remnant indwelt by the Spirit? This essay seeks to provide an answer to these questions...."

Judgment in the temple

I was reading Jeremiah today. It is probably testament to my ignorance but while I knew that Jesus quoted from Jeremiah when 'cleansing' the temple I never realised that Jeremiah himself performed a very similar action in his day. Presumably then we should use each passage to aid interpretation of the other.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Stand in the gate of the Lord's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, all you men of Judah who enter these gates to worship the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you dwell in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.'

"For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

"Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered!'—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.

(Jeremiah 7:1-15)

And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came they went out of the city.

(Mark 11:15-19)

The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

(John 2:13-20)

What are the similarities and differences between the two passages?

• Similarity: Both came to the temple with a message to proclaim.
• Difference: Jeremiah didn't enter the temple to deliver his message, but Jesus did.
• Similarity: both the Synoptics and Jeremiah use the term 'den of robbers' although it is clear in Jeremiah at least that robbers are representative of the many crimes Israel is committing.
• Simiarity: In both John and Jeremiah the messages mention the temple's destruction.
• Difference: Jeremiah prophecies that God will drive his people out of his presence in the Temple. Jesus actually does it.
• Similarity: outside the passages, but these acts of Jeremiah and Jesus both led to their persecution by the Jews - Jeremiah was locked up, Jesus was killed.

What does this mean to me?

• We shouldn't consider Jesus to be against the traders in the temple only (put cathedral shops out of mind), rather he was judging the entire nation.
• The judgment that God warned the Jews of was actually brought (symbolically - but no less in reality) by Jesus. Prophecy is fulfilled.
• There is hope in both Jeremiah and John. In Jeremiah, if the people change their ways they can remain in God's temple. In John, God's temple will be judged but there is an opportunity to be included in a new and better temple by participating in Jesus' death and resurrection.
• Repent and believe God's prophet. Don't trust that upbringing, works or anything else ensures your favour - trust in the personal God who saves.
• Finally, to dwell in the presence of God is the promise of the Gospel - cherish it!

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?

Tertullian's legacy to the Western Church

If you have 74min to spare then I highly recommend this mp3 lecture by Gerald Bray on Tertullian (c.155–230AD).

He was extremely strange in his theology... Stranger than you can possibly imagine. But he was far from irrelevant, and the implications of his theology are still being played out in the church.

I don't often go out of may way to recommend an mp3 - it really is worth a listen.

Influential teachers and the academy

Sad news today is that CFD Moule has died aged 98. He was the best kind of biblical scholar, and thoroughly British.

For some reason on my bus ride home today I was thinking of whether I have been seriously influenced in my understanding of Christianity by any lifelong biblical scholars - like Moule. I'm sure other people think about more interesting stuff on their commute but I started making a list in my head of the most influential writers of my life so far. Here it is (in rough chronological order):

• John Calvin
• Don Carson
• John Piper
• Graeme Goldsworthy
• Mark Seifrid
• Lesslie Newbigin
• Tom Wright
• Tim Chester
• Peter Leithart [perhaps to early to say]
• Jim Jordan [perhaps to early to say]

All of them have taught at an institution at some point in their career, and all but one (Mark Seifrid) have had some kind of pastoral ministry as well. So as I was nearing home I tried to wonder why is it that I have been most influenced by these pastor-theologians (as they may be described in the broadest way). Here is my list of possible reasons:

• They are better at communicating to my level.
• Many of them have lots of mp3s on the internet and I listen to a lot of mp3s.
• Academics spend half their time 'interacting' with other academics and not enough time expounding the bible.
• ... Then it was my stop, and I have no more thoughts at the moment.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Swimming

This is a stupid post really. But I just thought I'd post on the great thing that is the The One Year® Bible. Yes it may be a registered trademark but God by his grace has used it to get me into regular daily reading of the bible. There is really nothing like it. If you want to get yourself a bible reading plan for the coming year I'd highly recommend it. I'd also say that take a look at this clever page visualizing loads of the plans out there for people like me who don't feel they have understood anything unless it can be described graphically. But the best thing about The One Year® Bible is that it rearranges the bible into the daily readings. It may seem like the definition of laziness to buy a bible that saves you jumping around the bible for each passage of the day, but in some way it has helped me.

My next plan to get into the bible is to start reading though a few books of the NT with John Calvin and John Chrysostom as company. I hope to do this in the break I have between law courses in the next few weeks. In reading up on John Chrysostom because I don't know much about except what I have picked up through John Calvin, and I found this quote on reading the bible:

"Listen carefully to me, I entreat you…. [P]rocure books that will be medicines for the soul.... At least get a copy of the New Testament, the Apostle's epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If you encounter grief, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from them comfort for your trouble, whether it be loss, or death, or bereavement over the loss of relations. Don't simply dive into them. Swim in them. Keep them constantly in your mind. The cause of all evils is the failure to know the Scriptures well."

(Homilies on Colossians, Cited in Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 96]

What a great truth that is. If I ever needed reminding of the sovereign mercy of God, and the darkness of my contrary soul, I just need to be pointed to my irregular habits of reading the bible. I so often neglect it, but when God moves in my life to make it a regular thing it is like water to a thirsty soul.

A bit of a random post - but at least I've documented the link to that clever web page and that wonderful quote.

Who was Oscar Cullmann?

I've only read a few books by Oscar Cullmann, and while they are not astounding I think that they are only not because much of what he was about has become mainstream - in conservative evangelicalism at least. Wikipedia describes him so:

Oscar Cullmann (25 February 1902, Strasbourg - 16 January 1999, Chamonix) was a Christian theologian in the Lutheran tradition. He is best known for his work in the ecumenical movement, being in part responsible for the establishment of dialogue between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions. Because of his intense ecumenical work, Cullmann's Basel colleague Karl Barth joked with him that his tombstone would bear the inscription "advisor to three popes."

Within the evangelical tradition he is remembered slightly differently as the author of the (good) cliché that Christ's death and Resurrection can be compared with D-day as the decisive battle in a war that rumbles on although VE-day, when sin and death are completely destroyed, is yet to come. I think this comes closer to the heart of what he was about (not that I have any authority to say so). He says of his important work Christ and Time:

The whole of early Christian thought is based in Heilsgeschichte [salvation history], and everything that is said about death and eternal life stands or falls with a belief in a real occurrence, in real events which took place in time. [...] The purpose of my book Christ and Time was precisely to show that this belongs to the substance, to the essence of the early Christian faith, that it is something not to be surrendered, not to be altered in meaning;

(Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?)

Quotable: Oscar Cullmann on the Christian hope

The Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher who belongs with Socrates to the noblest figures of antiquity, also perceived the contrast. As is well known, he had the deepest contempt for Christianity. One might think that the death of the Christian martyrs would have inspired respect in this great Stoic who regarded death with equanimity. But it was just the martyrs’ death with which he was least sympathetic. The alacrity ['cheerful readiness, promptness, or willingness'] with which the Christians met their death displeased him. The Stoic departed this life dispassionately; the Christian martyr on the other hand died with spirited passion for the cause of Christ, because he knew that by doing so he stood within a powerful redemptive process. The first Christian martyr, Stephen, shows us (Acts 7:55) how very differently death is bested by him who dies in Christ than by the ancient philosopher: he sees, it is said, 'the heavens open and Christ standing at the right hand of God !' He sees Christ, the Conqueror of Death. With this faith that the death he must undergo is already conquered by Him who has Himself endured it, Stephen lets himself be stoned.

(Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead, p.59-60)

A truly brilliant lecture. Well worth the 60min it would take to read (and it's online here).

Rambling on the first Adam, the Last Adam, and grasping

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

(Philippians 2:5-7)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness [...] For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

(Genesis 1:26a; 3:5-6)

Is it a coincidence that the same language pops up in both? I suspect not having heard a talk on Philippians 2 by Jeff Meyers. There are two ways to gain 'knowledge of good and evil' (the power/wisdom to judge, cf. 1 Kings 3:9; 2 Samuel 14:17 - thanks Jim Jordan) be given it or to take it. Take it and you yourself will be judged by THE judge.

It has often been commented that Paul never speaks of Christ's resurrection as something he does for himself, rather it is always something that the Father/the Spirit does to him. It seems Christ was passive in his resurrection, which is also his justification and his elevation to God's right hand.

As you can see I don't know exactly what you can do with all this so I'll continue to think about it. Thankfully Paul does the applying for me when he says 'Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves....Do all things without grumbling or questioning'. It's not complicated but it is hard.

'it is God who works' - just another way of saying Sola Deo Gloria really.

On not being detached but being fearful

Whenever we approach a doctrine taught in Scripture it is important that we think about how we ought to approach it. And a weighty matter like justification is not something that we are at liberty to look upon in a detached way. After all, whether we like it or not, we are involved in it. The doctrine of justification sola fide presupposes the guilt of sin, and as we are sinners we are best off approaching it with a due recognition of our guilt coram Deo (before God). (Martin Downes)

Temple language in Ephesians 2:11:22

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Justification according to some Federal Vision proponents

I'm still busy with studying law but that doesn't mean I've called a halt to thinking about the doctrine of justification. I came across a helpful summary from Peter Leithart on how he has come to think of justification as more than a matter of a 'bare verdict'.

My work on justification has focused on passages where the Bible uses "justification" terminology to apply to delivering acts of God. In these passages, "justify" is still a judicial term and describes a judicial act. God is acting as judge. But the verdict that He gives is an enacted verdict, a verdict that takes the form of deliverance from enemies and death. I’ve coined the term "deliverdict" to capture the two sides of this. Some evidence:

1) Romans 4:25 says that Jesus was raised for our justification. I accept Richard Gaffin’s exegesis of this passage, in which he argues that Paul implies that Jesus' resurrection was His justification, and that we share in that verdict by union with Christ. Jesus' resurrection is the ground of our justification, and the prototype justification. And it's certainly not a "bare verdict." God declared Jesus "righteous" by delivering Him from death and raising Him to new life.

2) This is, I think, what Paul means in Romans 6:7 when He says - in a context having to do with deliverance from the power of sin, and, not incidentally, with baptism - that we are "justified from sin." That is, God delivers a verdict of righteous that takes the form of liberation from sin’s power. (This is how John Murray understands Romans 6:7 as well.)

3) Behind these Pauline uses are various passages in the Psalms and prophets where judicial language is used in contexts where it refers to deliverance from enemies, from death, from national catastrophe. Jerusalem’s restoration is "their justification [vindication]" in Isaiah 54:17. David seeks deliverance from enemies when He calls on God to "judge me" (Psalm 7:6-11; 35:27-28). (source)

I find that pretty convincing. The quote comes from a post in a big Federal Vision showdown over at De Regno Christi. It's not a pretty sight to behold, and perhaps surprisingly to some it is focusing more on tradition than any controversy over the sacraments or justification. But in the same place James Jordan (another FV proponent) has posted a comment on Peter Leithart's post:

I[n] Numbers 19 there are two justifications, two cleansings, two resurrections. We have here ritually directed the Biblical philosophy of history, one that every Jew of Jesus' day would know very well from having to experience if ofttimes. The first justification, on the 3d day, is totally apart from any works we can have done, for we are dead (unclean = symbolically dead, having contracted the death that spreads to all). But after the first resurrection, we are now partly alive and can do good works, leading to the second justification of the 7th day.

It can be no surprise then that the foundational justification is by faith alone, and yet there is a future justification in which God says that He likes us, likes what we've become, approves of us, and says "well done." All the good stuff we do (WCF 16) is in union with Jesus and by the Spirit, but it is still we who do it. The Judge approves of US and justifies US, not merely sees Jesus through us as if we don’t exist.

The first justification is by faith alone, and we return to that at the beginning of the liturgy each Day of the Lord. The final justification is God’s approval of who we have become in union with Christ and through faith.

There is no justification of "works" or "merits" because there is no merit theology in the Bible anywhere at all. God approves or disapproves of persons, not of merits. (source)

That's pretty controversial stuff and my gut doesn't like it. But I do respect Jim Jordan (I've never read/heard anyone who knows the Pentatuach better) so I'll have to take on board what he says and test it against the bible... Starting at Numbers 19.

The Prophets Redux

I keep on discovering more and more that Revelation repeats themes and imagery that can be found in the prophets hundreds of years before. I'm not sure what this means for our interpretation though.

Here's what I read this morning in Isaiah as an example:

In that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth. They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be confounded and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts reigns on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and his glory will be before his elders.

(Isaiah 24:21-23)

The same imagery is in Revelation:

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

(Revelation 20:7-10)

And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.

(Revelation 21:23-25)

Quotable: Peter Dray on lukewarm faith

I think often our answer to feeling lukewarm as Christians is to somehow try and whip ourselves up into a frenzy. I remember chatting to a friend a few months ago who felt lukewarm who was trying to take just this course of action. Jesus commands something very different to the church in Laodicea - not 'make yourself passionate', but repent. (source)

Compare and contrast

• Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins(HT Mark Meynell)
• Woody Allen and Billy Graham (HT Tom Price)

Away for a week or so

I've got my last essay of the year due in next week so I'm going to have to suspend my thinking about justification - and my blogging about it.

I've just read 'Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation: recommendations on a current debate' by Mark Seifrid (him again) in (Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates ed Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier). It was very interesting so I'm going to read it again and blog on it once I have finished my essay (although Peter Leithart (yes him again too) has summarised it probably better than I will anyway).

I've never really read much about (never mind by) Philipp Melanchthon. However I think I can already make one confident assertion about him... he was the funniest looking fellow of all the reformers.

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.

Back to work

After that flurry of blogging (if you can call collecting excessive numbers of quotations blogging) I'm going to have to get my head down to study. No longer am I concerned whether 'the law' in Paul means 'the Mosaic covenant', 'the Torah', 'a set of moral commands', or 'the Scriptures'; for the next week or so 'the law' is whatever our judges, our Parliament, or the EU says it is.

But while I'm away please feel free to add your twopence worth on the doctrine of justification in the comments. I'd be interested to know what you think.

Quotable: CH Dodd on 'ethical religion'

CH Dodd argues that the gospels, the epistles, and the Pentatuach all combine 'ethics' and 'religion' in the same way:

first the proclamation, then the beginning of instruction in morals, first kerygma [preaching], then didache [teaching], seems to have been thoroughly characteristic of the Christian mission.

[...]

This way of approach to ethics was sharply distinguished from that of contemporary Greek moralists, who from the time of Aristotle had set our to provide a self-contained and self-justifying system of ethics. For Christianity, ethics are not self-contained or self-justifying; they arise out of a response to the Gospel.

(p. 10, Gospel and Law)