Subordination within the Trinity: a personal limited reading list

• "The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordination" by Kevin N. Giles (Christians for Biblical Equality). An overview of the history of the doctrine.
• "Is subordination within the Trinity really heresy? A study of John 5:18 in context" by Craig Keener (Trinity Journal, Spring 1999). Focusing on NT testimony.
• "Equal in Essence, Distinct in Roles: Eternal Functional Authority and Submission among the Essentially Equal Divine Persons of the Godhead" by Bruce Ware (MP3, SBTS faculty address, Oct. 18, 2006).
• The Trinity and Subordinationism by Kevin Giles, reviewed by Bishop Robert Forsyth, and by Michael Kruse.
• "Functional Subordination within the Trinity" by Michael Bird. Short blog post with lots of interesting comments.
• Longer reading list at Theology Matters

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.

Quotable: Trinitarian theology from the masters

'that pasage in Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me: "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to thhe one."' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.13.17)

'Sometimes, indeed, [the ancients] teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son; sometimes they declare that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and thus has one beginning with the Father. Augustine well and clearly expresses the cause of this diversity in another place, when he speaks as follows: "Christ with respect to himself is called God; with respect to the Father, Son. Again, the Father with respect to himself is called God; with respect to the Son, Father. In so far as he is called Father with respect to the Son, he is not the Son; in so far as he is called both Father with respect to himself, and Son with respect to himself, he is the same God." [...] Indeed, it is far safer to stop with that relation which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations.' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.13.19)

I see echoes

There is a facebook group called I see Chiasms. I am not so perceptive in my reading of the bible. However, I do see echoes, which are much easier. A recent one I noticed was in Acts 8:26-40 where Philip meets the Ethiopian Eunuch who believes in Jesus and is baptised. I have been reading Jeremiah where another Ethiopian Eunuch turns up, called Ebed-melech (Jeremiah 38:7-13; Jeremiah 39:15-18). Ebed-melech rescues Jeremiah from a cistern after the Jewish authorities reject his message of judgment and imprison him in it.

Seeing echoes is one thing but it is more difficult to work out why they are there. This one took me a while but I think Luke includes the incident with Philip in Acts as he has just explained how Stephen had been martyred (Acts 6-7) and how following that 'there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles' (Acts 8:1). Luke is comparing Philip to Jeremiah the faithful prophet who was rejected by his own people but believed by an Ethiopian Eunuch. Simultaneously he is challenging Theophilus and us whether we to will believe the messengers who give us the good news and go on our way rejoicing, or whether we will join the city of destruction (in the language of Jeremiah and Bunyan).

"Go, and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for harm and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before you on that day. But I will deliver you on that day, declares the Lord, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword, but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, declares the Lord.'" (Jeremiah 39:16-18)

BTW this is just further evidence that you don't have to be a Jew to believe and be saved in either the OT or the NT.

Paul's problem with the law

The OT seems never appears to see the law itself as a problem. As Peter Enns comments:

the general tenor of the OT regarding [Torah/Law], however it is to be defined in each particular instance, is positive. The law is the psalmist’s delight (Ps 1:2; 119:70, 77, 92, 174). It is an object of devotion (2 Chron 31:4) and of careful study and observance (Deut 6:25; 31:11-13; Josh 1:8; Neh 8:3, 13). It is a source of wonder (Ps 119:18) and grace (119:29). It is precious (119:72) and true (119:142). It is not only to be obeyed, but loved (119:97, 113, 163, 165). The prophet looks forward to the day when the law of God will become part of the very inner fabric of God’s people: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (Jer 31:33). It is to be taught to the children (Deut 31:13; cf. 11:19-21). This positive view of the law may be best understood in the context of covenant. The law is an expression of God’s love for and commitment to his people. While enjoying a special relationship with Yahweh, the Israelites received the privilege of conducting their entire lives in accordance with his standards of conduct, which are themselves reflections of his character (VanGemeren, 24-35).

("Law of God" in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: volume 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 893-900.)

So when we consider Paul's problem with the law it can be tempting to shift his target from the law to a misunderstanding of the law, and this has been done by Christians of all traditions from all times. However Paul's problem can never be avoided in this way; whether by arguing that he was actually arguing against legalism (e.g. Dan Fuller), obedience without the Spirit (e.g. Scott Hafemann), or nationalistic pride (e.g. Tom Wright and Jimmy Dunn). It's not just me who thinks this. Heikki Räisänen agrees:

Heikki Räisänen objects to Dunn's claim that the Jews misunderstood the law in overly ethnic terms according to Galatians 3: "It is altogether impossible to read chapter 3 as an attack on just a particular attitude to the law. Why should the death of Christ have been necessary to liberate men from an attitude of theirs?" (p. 39, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

So does Andrew Das:

[Dunn argues that] the eschatological Spirit has liberated humanity "from that too narrowing understanding of the law's role" in terms of "pride in national identity" (p.387). Where does Paul address a mistaken understanding of the Law in Romans 7? (p.149, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

And so does Mark Seifrid:

Hafemann [and Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit! (p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, Mark Seifrid)

In the light of this there can be only one conclusion for someone who accepts the authority of the whole bible and that is that:

1. The law, while good, was not a perfect and full solution to humanities problem (and God's problem with humanity); and
2. The status of the law has now changed with the coming of Christ

To deal with Paul's language surrounding the law you do have to have to take into account both how there has been a problem with the law from the beginning, and yet that the problem has qualitatively changed with the coming of Christ.

Top 10 (Christian) books I read in 2007

It has been a funny year for my reading. Firstly almost all the reading I have done has been in the last 6 months due to pressures with work and OU study, and secondly because my reading has been very narrowly focussed around justification, Paul and the Law and the Reformation.

As you read more and more it seems individual books have less and less influence on you but here is my top ten list for what it is worth (BTW the criteria for judgment is how much I got out of the book combined to a lesser extent with their intrinsic worth):

1. The One Year Bible-ESVYes it is just a bible that has re-arranged the passages according to the reading plan, but it has strangely been used by God to make me read more of the bible more regularly than I have since university. Therefore it means quite a lot to me.
2. The Roots of Endurance: Invincible perseverance in the lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon and William Wilberforce by John Piper Beautifully written and seriously edifying. Although I knew the stories I found it really encouraging. If only John Piper always wrote so well.
3. Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates ed by Mark A. Husbands and Daniel J. Treier a collection of exceptional essays by Don Carson, Mark Seifrid, Bruce McCormack and others. Mark Seifrid has probably been the most influential author on me this year although I have only read essays by him and dipped into Christ our righteousness which I had read before (a brilliant book).
4. Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World by James B. Jordan I still haven't finished this book but I include it on the list because I have listened to hours and hours of Jim Jordan's lectures this year. He is very eccentric but has helped me to pay attention to the details when reading the bible, and particularly to seriously think about the OT cult, the literary quality of the bible, maturity as a theme of the bible, and so much else. He is unlike anyone else you may read - a creative fundamentalist.
5. The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff A wonderful window onto the theology of the 19th century. An inaugural address by a 25 German scholar newly emigrated to America and to become the father of American Church History. Made me think seriously about the progressive nature of church history/theology and about ecumenicalism (see post here).
6. Gospel and Wisdom by Graeme Goldsworthy After reading several books massively influenced by Graeme Goldsworthy I finally got to read Gospel and Kingdom and Gospel and Wisdom. I can now see why he has been so influential although I enjoyed Gospel and Wisdom the most. It really helped me to see the relationships between the wisdom books, and their relationship to Jesus.
7. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther by Roland H. Bainton A wonderfully written account of a very engaging character and a fascinating time.
8. A Journey Worth Taking: Finding Your Purpose in This World by Charles D. Drew Tim Challies the king of Christian book reviews included it in his top 7 saying that it was "the only book [he] read twice this year. It is a book that deals superbly with the notion of calling and finding our place in this world. Written by a pastor who is in the thick of things, planting a church in New York City, it provides a biblical perspective on the 'self-help' genre." I couldn't say it any better. It is a self-help book in a way and a little too inoffensive, but it is also quite inspiring.
9. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? by Oscar Cullmann a short little book to shake up anyone who thinks in a disparaging way about the physical, and dreams of becoming a disembodied spirit after death. You can read it online and find out that most of what Tom Wright is now famous for saying has been around for a while.
10. The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals by Gene Edward, Jr. Veith a frankly beautiful book that is designed to be an introduction to Lutheranism (something you don't come across much in the UK), although I think that frankly it could be an good introduction to Christianity. Probably the best written book I've read this year, and the one I would most heartily recommend.

• HIGHLY COMMENDED: A Reformation Debate by John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto; Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler Von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza by David C. Steinmetz; The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective by Michael Bird

Quotable: Das on attempts to understand second temple judaism

The essayists [in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism ed by DA Carson et al] offer a more nuanced view of the literature in question but do not return to the pre-Sanders caricature of Judaism as a religion of crass works righteousness and gross legalism. The essayists generally recognize the importance of election, covenant, sacrifice, and repentance in the Jewish systems of thought they discuss, even while reexamining the extent and role of God's grace. Greater and more sustained attention in the volume to the matter of strict and perfect obedience in Judaism would have been helpful since it is the denial of perfect obedience to the Law in Judaism that forms the basis for the new perspective reading of Paul. Further, the authors of the volume do not always recognize the significance of the tension they themselves highlight in Judaism (and Paul) between salvation by God's grace and a judgment according to works. Occasionally, when an essayist finds works and obedience extolled as necessary in Jewish literature, the essayist assumes a degree of works righteousness in spite of the presence of God's grace and mercy (e.g., Craig Evans's essay). The interplay between grace and demand is complex in both Judaism and Paul and need not equate to earning a place in the world to come entirely by one's own efforts. The apostle specifically qualifies the divine origin of human works in relation to salvation (Phil 2:12-13). Are not Jewish authors in his day capable of similar reasoning? Also, some of the essayists deem efforts to "stay in" the Jewish community, such as Law observance, instances of works righteousness. If so, should Christian acts of piety and avoidance of sin, all of which help maintain status within their community of faith, be analogously labelled as works righteousness? Greater sophistication in the analyses of these matters would have been helpful.

(p.11fn22, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

I also read recently (I can't remember where) that Sanders and his followers made the mistake of reading in grace whenever they read of election in the literature. However election need not be of grace as it has sometimes been seen as on the basis of God's foreknowledge of obedience (including in second temple Judaism).

You have to be so careful in reading.

Leithart on Watson on NPP (x2)

In his recently revised Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, Francis Watson offers a pithy summary of the agenda of the New Perspective. Sanders, he says, extended the critique that G. F. Moore mounted in 1921 against German Lutheran scholarship on Judaism; Moore basically argued that German scholarship was systematizing and apologetic rather than genuinely historical, and Watson suggests that Sanders’s work extended the Moore critique to the Strack-Billerbeck rabbinic collection and the scholarship that came from it.

Watson summarizes Sanders: "The crucial concept of ‘covenant nomism’ was set in polemical opposition to the familiar pejorative terminology - 'legalism,' 'externalism,' 'formalism,' 'earning salvation,' 'works-righteousness,' 'acquiring merit,' and so forth - whose overwhelmingly negative connotations eliminate from the outset all possibility of sympathetic understanding. It is easy to forget hw freely and unquestioningly such terminology was used prior to Sanders, especially in the field of Pauline studies. After Sanders, the whole conceptual apparatus underlying the terminology would have to be dismantled. And that mean rethinking all the polemical Pauline antitheses: faith and works, grace and law, Spirit and letter, life and death, blessing and curse, promise and flesh." (source)

As Watson goes on, he notes Dunn’s early and fundamental attacks on Sanders’s reading of Paul. Dunn argues that Sanders treats Paul as an un-Jewish theologian, rejecting not only covenant nomism but the whole apparatus of covenantal, biblical theology that the Jews built from. Dunn insists that Paul opposes covenant nomism (in Watson’s words) "on the basis of an expanded, inclusive, but still recognizably Jewish covenantal theology." Wright has made similar criticisms of Sanders, adding that Sanders’s view is vitiated by his avoidance of eschatology.

Watson concludes laconically: "it is ironic, then, that Sanders and Dunn are both commonly seen as representatives of a single 'New Perspective on Paul.' The reality is that a repudiation of Sanders’s reading of Paul is integral to the New Perspective as Dunn conceived it." (source)

Apologies to Peter Leithart for lifting two of his posts wholesale from his own blog. The trouble is I just couldn't find a sentence that I could cut out and I thought the comments to well put to just link to.

Sort of a Christmas post

A list of barren women in the bible who God granted children:

• Sarai
• Rebekah
• Rachel
• Samson's mother (I don't think we know her name)
• Hannah
• Elizabeth

All gave birth to significant biblical figures. Sarai and Rebekah continued the seed of promise that would culminate in Christ. Rachel, Samson's mother, and Hannah all gave birth to saviours of the people. Elizabeth gave birth to the greatest prophet ever born before the coming of the Kingdom. So when we read early in Luke and Matthew that a virgin is going to give birth to a child the lights should be flashing! This child is going to be like those great heroes of the past that were born miraculously of barren women (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist), but astonishingly he is surely also going to make those heroes look very small indeed once he accomplishes what he has been given to do.

I am not a big Christmas fan, and yet the birth narratives are incredibly exciting to read. Like a good trailer you can barely wait to see what is going to happen. If you are not filled with anticipation when reading the first few chapters of Luke and Matthew you have watched just a few too many nativity plays.

By the way, Merry Christmas everyone!

A new identity and a new history

In our corporate worship, we sometimes sing this son:

I will give you all my worship,
I will give you all my praise,
You alone I long to worship,
You alone are worthy of my praise!

These words hhave at times bothered me: no one gives God all his worship and all his praise. But as I have sung them in the light of what we have been saying about newness [2 Cor 5:17 and Eph 4:24 stuff], I have seen something else. And that vision has led me more than once to pray aloud before the congregation something like this at the conclusion of the song:

Dear Lord, you know better than we do that, in one sense, these words are not true. We sing them with great religious feeling perhaps, but we don't live them. There are all sorts of things that we love more than we love you. This song condemns us. But there is another sense, gracious Redeemer, in which these words are in fact profoundly true of us. They are true because you have sent your Spirit to live in us - and there is no question but that he loves you this way. We praise you, dear Lord, that you are at work in us and that it is only a matter of time before you finish what you have begun.

(pp. 171-172, Charles Drew, A Journey Worth Taking: Finding Your Purpose in This World <- Recommended reading)

The New Perspective on Paul

I have occasionally been asked (and many more times wished that people would ask) what people should read as an introduction to The New Perspective on Paul (NPP). I think the biggest problem with many more recent overviews you read is that they talk about the NPP when really they mean Tom Wright's version of it. I think dealing with the stripped down original is the best place to begin though, and for that Jimmy Dunn's essay from 1982 is great. People now seem to skip from Sanders to Wright in any discussion of NPP and yet it was Jimmy Dunn who not only gave it the name, but also shaped the form of all later debate. Unfortunately until a few days ago the essay was not on the internet, but now it is go and read it twice:

• The New Perspective on Paul by James DG Dunn

My films of the year

Why bother posting this? I don't know but I thought it would be fun to look through the films released this year and list those I particularly liked. Here it is in a very rough order:

1. Last king of Scotland - thriller set in Uganda which earned Forest Whitaker an Oscar for his portrayal of Idi Amin.
2. Letters from Iwo Jima - American film in Japanese, showing a little of the horror and the honour of the WW2 battle.
3. Ratatouille - perfect Pixar.
4. Notes on a Scandal - uncomfortable, but scarily good acting from Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench.
5. Blood Diamond - Leonardo DiCaprio, a fake African in a fake Africa, but a good film nonetheless.
6. The Bourne Ultimatum - Difficult to imagine better action, although the plot was lacking somewhat.
7. The Lives Of Others - Humanity in the Stasi.
8. Becoming Jane - I had low expectations but I actually really believed in James McAvoy and Anne Hathaway.
9. Michael Clayton - George Clooney plays a fixer for dirty big law firm who a nasty big corporation wrongly decide to try kill instead of pay off.
10. Once - Sort of an Irish indie film about music, love and what could have been.

I saw quite a bit this year thanks to Orange Wednesdays, but missed a lot too.

There are only two films I would have to be paid to see a second time:

• Pirates Of The Caribbean 3: At World's End
• Babel

A reflection on my justification reading so far

The more I'm reading on justification the lines of debate are becoming clearer and clearer in my mind, although I haven't come to any conclusion yet. Also the more I read the more I'm struck by how a great many (from all sides of the debate) seem to cut off the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from their thinking. I can't think of anything stranger but it increasingly seems to me that the choice to make is not between numerous carefully systematised doctrines emphasising faith or works in justification but between a doctrine focusing on the work of Christ against a doctrine which doesn't have faith that Jesus Christ died and that this should be our starting point.

For all of Mark Seifrid's lack of eloquence he doesn't seem to make this mistake. So I can't help coming back to his writing, and his closely argued lecture which you can find here.

Some quotations on Chapter 5 of 'The Way of Salvation' by Paul Rainbow

"Bede, in reconciling Paul and James on the justification of Abbraham, points out that what Paul denies is 'merit derived from works performed beforehand', while James sees that the patriarch 'performed good works in the light of his faith'" (p. 83)

"Luther and Calvin did not acknowledge the distinction between works of the law and good works. They tried to negate it.

In his lecture on Galatians 2:16, Luther defined 'works of the law' to encompass 'everything that can be done on the basis of the Law, whether by divine power or by human'" (p. 84)

"Ephesians 2:8-10 is paradigmatic for the difference between works (of the law) and good works" (p.87)

"Moo may harbour a theological assumption, common to the Reformation heritage, that God's grace triumphs over that which is human as such rather than over that which is corrupt in humanity." (p.88)

Death and the heart of Luther's understanding of justification

I have been listening to some great MP3s by Carl Trueman on the Reformation and Luther in particular (see here and here). They have taught me a lot, and reminded me of more. One of the greatest things he reminded me was how Luther began developing the doctrine of justification by faith alone initially by reflecting on baptism. Medieval Catholicism apparently saw baptism mainly as a washing/healing of people made dirty/sick by sin. Luther saw that baptism is more about death and resurrection and this profoundly affected how he then saw the human condition and justification. If we are dead we can do nothing. I remember now so clearly how this was central to Calvin too from when I read him a lot. The other day I was reading Romans and struck by how often death is mentioned in Romans. I did a search on an online bible and found these statistics:

• 'Death' is found 22 times in Romans
• 'Die' is found 21 times;
• 'mortal' is found 4 times;
• 'killed' is found 3 times;
• 'crucified' is found once;

Not that this means we should be the miserable caricature of Scotch Presbyterians that you read of in the media as the words 'live'/'life'/'resurrection'/'born' /'birth' can be found in a remarkably similar frequency. As Romans is not a very long book (433 verses) this is very significant (also worthy or reflection is that few of these references are in chapters 9-11).

Among other things this makes you wonder how often you hear preachers and ordinary Christians talking in this way. How often do you now hear of how the fall led to a 'messed up world' and a 'broken society' with 'fractured relationships'? Perhaps we ought to be more bleak in how we paint our current situation, and more bold in our description of the contrast of this with salvation.

Christ's life breaking in through faith

I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:8-11)

How beautiful is that? If you ask how must I be justified then faith is necessary, but as the Luther always remembered this was not a special work that God accepted as a substitute for perfect obedience. 'Faith' is simply the way in which Christ (and all he experienced - suffering, rejection, death and ultimately resurrection) breaks into our lives.

Quotable: Calvin on Justification

faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause "without works" is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true, since faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead, and a mere fiction. He who is born of God is just, as John says. (1Jo 5:18.) Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from his heat yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification; but faith alone reconciles us to God, and causes him to love us, not in ourselves, but in his only begotten Son.

(Commentary on Ezekiel 18:14-17)

Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails,—But as the principle which he adopts is like a cuttlefish, which, casting out its blood, which is black as ink, troubles the water all around, to hide a great multitude of tails. if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle’s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

(Institutes 3.11.6)

Counting down

Most people are currently counting down to Christmas at the moment. I'm counting down to the New Year when I've got to start studying law again. Soon I'll be unable to read as much as I'm managing at the moment. My current wish list of things to read, on the doctrine of justification alone, include:

• The Way of Salvation: The role of Christian Obedience in Justification by Paul A. Rainbow
• Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• "Reflections on Salvation and Justification in the New Testament" by D.A. Carson JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 581-608.
• Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship" by Gerald Bray Churchman 109/2 1995
• "'The Gift of Salvation': Its Failure to Address the Crux of Justification" by Mark A. Seifrid JETS 42/4 (December 1999) 679-688
• Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 by Scott J. Hafemann
• Paul and the Jews by Andrew Das

It's unlikely I'll get very far! And then there's all the more important things I have to be doing.... the trouble is the more you read the more you want to read.

Church history in 3 steps

According to Jim 'shine on you crazy diamond' Jordan you can look at the development of church history (or at least it's theology) like this:

• Step 1: Develop the theology of the Trinity (The Early Church).
• Step 2: Once you have done step 1 you now have the ability to develop the theology of the atonement (The Middle Ages).
• Step 3: Once you have done step 2 you now have the ability to develop the theology of how the atonement can be appropriated (Post-Reformation).

No doubt this is horribly reductionistic. However, my extremely limited forays into church history seem at least to suggest there is some truth in it. The early church especially seem to have an amazingly undeveloped doctrine of justification. Anyway, I don't have time to reflect on this further, although I am increasingly convinced of some kind of developmental view of church history (see my post on Schaff). It only seems sad that at present in Europe and North America past developments in understanding of the bible's teaching on atonement and justification are being undermined; not so much by questioning, which must always continue, but by failing to seriously consider the writings of those who thought much more deeply about such things than some at present. I wonder what people are thinking about in the rest of the Christian church, perhaps that will be where new developments will come.

Quotable: Seifrid on the Law's Spirit Deficit

Hafemann [and Jimmy Dunn] treat [2 Cor 3] as a discussion of the ineffectual nature of the law apart from the Spirit - as if Paul anywhere speaks of an effectual law through the Spirit!

(p. 112, Christ Our Righteousness, IVP)

Using the law lawfully

Perhaps there would be more light and less heat in the argument if Pauline scholars paid more attention to the Pastorals. 1 Timothy 1:8ff is something on which I haven't read much discussion:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

However we still have a choice over interpretations for what is a 'lawful' use of the law:

1. You use the law lawfully if you use it to condemn non-Christians.
2. You use the law lawfully if you realise that you the Christian are ungodly and sinners.

The argument for the first is that Paul does not seem to talk of Christians as sinners (they have died to that identity), and yet it is still the ungodly that are justified (Rom 4:5) so maybe the second interpretation is best... or perhaps there is a third way!

All this thinking is hard work. An Peter Dray has now gone and said that I'm 'drawing together and analyising a large amount of helpful scholarship'. Now I feel under pressure!

Ramblings on the Law as both good and bad

How can 'the law [be] holy, and the commandment [be] holy and righteous and good' (Rom 7:12) when it is 'not of faith' (Gal 3:12)?

Two answers come to the top of my head.

1. The law is good but partial and outdated in the light of our faith. This answer recognises that 'faith' is not abstract but must be faith in someone, namely Christ who had not been revealed in the law.
2. The law was right in theory when it offered life through obedience, but it was a hypothetical promise as no one could meet its holy standard. Despite the pedigree of this answer to the question, I think it is flawed in many, many ways (although it still has some truth to it.

A third way in which you can get round the seemingly conflicting statements in Paul is to argue that Paul when criticising the Law is actually attacking a perversion of the Law and not the Law rightly understood. This makes sense of many Pauline passages and helps in embracing all of God's word wholeheartedly. However, as Seifrid taught me, it is difficult to square this perspective with the fact that Paul always seems to be criticising the law itself, and not some perversion of it.

However, having thought about that I tried to think of other instances where the bible criticises something and yet actually holds it to be good. The most obvious example to me is Kingship. In Judges (except in the final section) and Samuel it is portrayed as a bad thing, with no indication that it may be good. Abimelech is surely a clear example of why raising up a king is bad (Judg 9), and Saul is an even clearer example despite being anointed by God. And yet despite the first half of Judges and Samuel in the second parts of the two books kingship is shown as a positive and God-ordained institution. And yet like Paul with the Law, when the bible is criticising kingship it seems for all the world that it is criticising kingship itself, and not a perversion of it.

Well my thoughts are not fully formed but I think there is something to be said for the 'perversion of the law' argument but care is probably required in using it.

The many problems with the Mosaic Law

Here are some more notes on the bible (which along with quotes is all I really do on this blog). As usual they are works in progress and not fully formed thoughts.

1. It was temporary "for when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Heb 7:12; cf. Gal 3:23f)
2. It doesn't justify "for if righteousness [/justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (Gal 2:21) indeed "it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law" (Gal 3:11). Note I say that it 'doesn't' justify and not that it 'didn't'. I think it is harder to show that it 'didn't' justify but there are passages which imply that it never did.
3. It didn't sanctify for "the law, weakened by the flesh, could not [...] please God" (Rom 8:3-8; cf. Jer 31 and 2 Cor 3 where the problem with the Mosaic law was that it was 'of the letter'/'the written code' and wasn't written on people's hearts by the Spirit). Note I am more confident to say that it 'didn't' here.
4. It was only a partial revelation for "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2; cf John 1 and the rest of Hebrews)
5. It was cursed due to Israel's disobedience this is more controversial and I am struggling to think of a passage to support it. However, I do think there is some mileage in remembering that the law belonged to the Jews, and that the Jews were under a curse (in exile) which Christ took upon himself. Therefore, the law itself had been in some way cursed too, so that to obey it is to identify with a cursed nation rather than the cursed Son of God who unlike the nation was/is able fully 'absorb' that curse on our behalf.

More thoughts to come... Please add your own.

The many purposes of the Mosaic Law

With a little help from Bruce Longenecker (The Triumph of Abraham's God) these are some hastily typed thoughts. Obviously there is a certain amount of overlap but I suspect not all are equally important or compatible.

1. To increase transgression.
• Two alternative ways it could do this, either by providing a legal basis for the classification of sin as transgression (Rom 5:20), or by actually increasing sin (Rom 7)
2. To reveal human sinfulness.
• There seem to be two (not mutually exclusive) ways in could do this, firstly by clearly showing the demands of God and showing humanity's inability to meet those demands, and secondly by illustrating human sinfulness in the ceremonial aspects of the law.
3. To restrain sinful desires (cf. Matt 19).
4. To condemn human sinfulness (try any of the OT prophets or 2 Cor 3:9).
5. To provide shadows of the reality found in Christ (Hebrews).
6. To make known what God is like (Heb 1).
7. To enable God to draw near to a people despite their sin and his holiness
• Consider how the levels of sacrifice and other rituals increased the nearer you came to God, and it was not just ceremonial but the demands of personal moral holiness were also greater the nearer you came to God (which links in with the higher standards Israel was held to compared to the nations).

Meanwhile, where as I stumble along in these matters Peter Dray is being much more clear and helpful on the place of the law on his blog if you care to take a look.

If anyone else does read this blog then please comment and help me out here. Thanks.

I'm off here for a week

The Lake District in November... I'm sure it will be beautiful so long as it doesn't rain too much.