A journey with sacraments

I think that I became a paedobaptist for the second time (!) because I decided that every argument against it, if valid would also overturn circumcision, because the differences between the OT and the NT that were relied upon to distinguish the two were shown up to be no difference at all by Romans 9-11.

I think I've now come to a 'high' Lutheranish position for the same reason. Arguments about real presence and effectual rituals rely on seeing God as either free or bound. However the OT sees God as both ultimately free, but graciously choosing to bind himself in covenant to certain signs. In the OT he is seen as both as everywhere and residing in the Temple. It sees sacrifices as themselves effectual, and yet worse than pointless without repentance. How can you reconcile the two? I haven't got a clue. In that I am like Luther who said to Zwingli:

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, 'This is my body.' I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments..."

Judah and Tamar retold

"may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman." (Ruth 4:12)

A strange blessing to give a couple considering Judah and Tamar were as far from the perfect couple as you could imagine. However, perhaps this was important to the author of Ruth as the story bares some striking similarities to the story in Genesis 38. In addition the story ends with "the generations of Perez" giving a genealogy beginning with Perez and ending with David.

After some reflection I think I may go so far as to say that Ruth is the recounting of what the faithful people of God act like in contrast to the cautionary tale of Judah and Tamar. Here are some of the similarities I spotted.

Gen 38	Ruth
Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite	Elimelech moved away from his people to Moab
Judah and his son marry a Canaanite	Mahlon and Chilion marry Moabites
Judah's two sons die	Elimelech and his two sons die
Judah and Onan act unfaithfully as kinsman-redeemer	Boaz acts faithfully as kinsman-redeemer, the un-named redeemer of Ruth 4 does not act faithfully
Tamar faithfully seeks to continue the line	Ruth faithfully seeks to continue the line
Tamar offers herself as a prostitute to Judah	Ruth seeks to seduce Boaz in a way which could almost be considered entrapment
Judah dishonourable and seduced by Tamar	Boaz is honourable in his conduct to Ruth
Tamar is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of Boaz, David and Jesus	Ruth is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of David and Jesus

However, as I find Genesis 38 one of the more puzzling bits of Scripture perhaps I haven't helped myself understand Ruth any better.

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.

Reading Romans backwards

I set myself the task of reading Romans backwards the other day. Well not literally, but by focusing on how the application of chapters 12-16 followed from Romans 1-11. One thing that struck me doing it this way is how running through the whole book is the question: who judges?

All the judgment language in Romans (Justification, Righteousness etc) is often brought to a point with one of two questions:

• How do we receive a favourable judgment (Legalism v. Grace)? Or
• How do we know who has received a favourable judgment (Jew v. Gentile)?

Both these questions are important to Paul writing Romans, but seem secondary to the larger question of who does the judging.

Romans 1 dwells on the judgment made by God (on all humanity, Paul does not start with Gentiles in chapter 1 and then move onto Jews in chapters 2-3)

Romans 2 questions those who take on judgment for themselves how they will stand in God's judgment.

Romans 3 is again about the universal and condemning nature of that judgment.

Romans 5 talks about the two judgments available, one belonging to Adam and one to Christ.

Romans 12 says that the Christian should "think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment" and should leave judgment (vengence) to God.

Romans 13 talks about God's judgment being invested in the proper authorities.

Romans 14 at length teaches how we should not judge each other, and in particular the weak.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? To me at least this has been a bit of an epiphany.

More musings on the differences between the Reformers and Evangelicalism

Further to my recent musing on the difference between Evangelicals of the eighteenth century onwards and the Reformers of the sixteenth here, I am now thinking that the root difference was that the Reformers looked for 'revival' through a top-down reformation of theology and worship, where as the Evangelicals looked for the change in hearts of individual Christians which would then lead to the reformation of society. [Phew long sentence]

So a monarchal compared to a democratic approach.

This is no doubt partly a result of the Enlightenment but also other factors.

The Puritans may form a bridge between the two in England.

Goldsworthy MP3

• "The Necessity and Viability of Biblical Theology" (SBTS, 18 March 2008)

Evangelicalism and the Enlightenment

Lots of interesting books coming out of IVP at the moment. One of them includes the following in the blurb:

David Bebbington's Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s, published in 1989, offered an intriguing hypothesis regarding the genesis of this movement. He argued that evangelical religion had emerged as a substantially new entity through trans-Atlantic evangelical revival in the 1730s, and had taken a collaborative rather than antithetical stance towards the Enlightenment. In both respects, Bebbington distanced himself from older interpretations that had held the opposite view. (Source)

I wonder if Bebbington is right or not....

Anyway, I can't stop, I should be writing an essay on Land Law.

Mealtime

OT sacrifices can often be thought of offerings of food for God to 'eat'. Graciously in the OT God allows the priests especially, but the rest of the people as well, to share in these meals.

In the NT we don't bring offerings of food to God, instead God presents us with food to eat. Food that is greater and also more expensive than the spotless lambs offered by Israel to their God.

The Christ Files

I thought a few people may be interested in this new TV series from John Dickson (Australian evangelist). He's written a lot of books which include the wonderfully titled (and very good) If I were God—I'd make myself clearer... (available from The Good Book Co).

Anyway he has lined up an incredible list of the best of the best of sensible scholars out there to interview, so hopefully it will be pretty good and will be shown in the UK soon. You can view a whole load of video clips on the website: www.thechristfiles.com.au. My favourite bit has to be James Charlesworth on the differences between Qumran and Jesus. Here is the blurb:

The Christ Files is a full-scale historical documentary based on the book of the same name by Dr. John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Australia.

Filmed in seven countries the documentary reveals the earliest and most important manuscript evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, including the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, the apostle Paul and the controversial Gnostic Gospels.

Neither a work of fanciful scepticism nor of Christian propaganda The Christ Files provides viewers with a front row seat to the facts behind Western civilisation’s most influential story.

Interviews with twelve of the most prominent scholars and historians and access to some of Israel’s most important archaeological sites give this documentary a unique authority.

(Hat tip to Michael Bird).

The Table of Nations: another side of the story

Dave Bish has just written a great post about the seep and recurring problem with humanity as told through the genealogies of the bible, particularly the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Anyway, this encouraged me to take up and read (as Dave Bish's blog has a habit of doing) and I felt like sharing a few random, and more positive, observations on Genesis 9-11.

I was just listening to some lectures by Bruce Waltke the other day. He observes that is the Table of Nations seems to be in the wrong place chronologically. According to Genesis 11 (part of) the reason for the dispersing of people and the different nations that result is the sin making a name for themselves. However by placing the Table of Nations before that Moses seems to God's call to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Genesis 9:1; 7). It is blessing and a reminder that Noah is a new Adam and the world has a new start.

Of course before we get going sin has creeped in again with Ham's dishonour towards his father in drawing attention to his naked father (unlike Dave Bish I'm not so sure Noah sinned as Ham is the one who is blamed). This leads to the cursing of Ham and the blessing of Shem and Japheth. However it is notable that the blessings of the brothers is not the same.

"Blessed be the LORD [YHWH], the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant." (9:26-27)

YHWH was the covenant name of God, the name that showed his special relationship to his people. Shem and Japheth both receive blessings but Noah gives a greater blessing to Shem by saying that God will be with his line.

This blessing is not just for Shem but for his decendents and the Hebrews in particular (Note the promanence brought to Eber, who gave his name to the Hebrews, in Genesis 10:21). And this is how we should make this passage ours today, for we are the children of Abraham (Romans 9:7) if by faith we unite ourselves with the one who was physically his child.

Nevertheless this blessing does not come in a straightforward way. Dave Bish can see the many examples of sin in genealogies. For me in Genesis this is shown as much as anything by the declining life spans of the people (see Genesis 11). As the author of Hebrews points out even Abraham who YHWH was especially close to still did not see much blessing and lived in tents hoping for something better (Hebrews 11:9). His 175 years was less than his father, and in the grand scheme it was not long before he fell under the curse of death.

Perhaps though in Genesis 7-11 we also see how God will bless his people when Sin and it's consequences reigns on the earth. In Genesis 7-9 God seems to be destroying the world to recreate it. The trouble is he doesn't complete the destruction as Noah and his family bring the pollution into the new world. In Genesis 11 God shows his determination to again bless the world despite the sins of humanity. He judges the world at Babel in order to continue the filling of earth he promised/commanded Noah, his mercy wins through again.

Peter and Paul recognised that this pattern of God blessing his covenant people, and judging the world to recreate it, reached its climax in Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham. God was merciful in the flood and held back his anger, as he had been merciful to Adam, Eve and Cain. On Jesus though the Father would pour out the full judgment on sin (cf Rom 3:25), but also bring to fulfilment the promise to his covenant people in Jesus' resurrection life. And this can be ours too. Not by birth into a line of promise, but by rebirth following death in baptism (Romans 6; likened to the flood in 1 Peter 3:18-22).

Pickings from the blogosphere

It's been a while since I did this.

• Ruth the Moabitess Absolutely brilliant stuff from Peter Leithart. It takes just 30secs to read but it is taking a long time to think about.
• Luther vs. Zwingli on the Lords Supper by Trevin Wax. A good summary of the Marburg Colloquy. Trevin Wax sees the main issue to be Christology (Mike Reeves agrees in these lectures) although Martin Greschat thinks it was how God communes with us (through external means such as the Words and Sacraments, or more directly). It's all so confusing.
• Read Gordon Cheng's comments on Tim Keller's apologetics amidst the comments on Tim Challies blog and then read Time Keller respond here. Then leave some time to do some serious thinking about how you present the Gospel.

2 questions

1. What shall we do with the sudden declaring of all foods clean in the New Covenant? That's what I am thinking about at the moment as my Bible reading plan takes me through Leviticus (when I bother to follow it). And what does that teach us about the Gospel? Incidentally I am a little sceptical of the use of David Field's word studying in Romans just because I think uncleanness is a really important. How can we accept that because the word 'law' does not appear after Romans 13:10 that we don't have to fit Romans 14 (on vegetables) into our reasoning.
2. What did Calvin base the structure of his 1559 Institutes on? The Creed (as Mike Reeves in his great talks on Calvin suggests along with others such as TF Torrance) or Romans (as JI Packer says)? Or is this just the universal structure of great theology, seeing as it also appears quite Trinitarian? But most important of all... am I just too much of geek because these sorts of things nag at me?

Anyhow, I am so rushed of my feet this week that is the best I can manage for a post. Sorry.

Structure

Ephesians is often treated as a pure type example of the Pauline method that "the indicative precedes the imperative."

But what Paul does first is pray. (Mark Horne)

Sorry for my continued absence.

Calvin the evangelist

UCCF's Theology Network is up and running. Lots for me to enjoy exploring in coming weeks.

Interestingly part of the inspiration for setting it up seems to be John Calvin's evangelistic work (sadly much ignored usually):

In 1555, based in Geneva, John Calvin established a top secret programme for the evangelisation of his native France. Using an underground network, with safe houses and hiding places, he slipped agents of the gospel across the border into France to plant new (sometimes literally) underground churches. Its success was astounding: the evangelical faith exploded in both numbers and influence in France. More than 10% of the entire population became Protestant, including something like a third of the nobility. Geneva became a nerve-centre for world evangelisation as missionaries were dispatched from Geneva to Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Italy, and even South America. [read more]

This reminded me of something else I had recently read about his few years in Strasbourg at an earlier time:

He placed great importance on fostering the independence of individual members, on kindling and promoting faith in each of them, and on having them assume their individual responsibility for the congregation. Intensive Bible study and a strict church discipline were the means he used to reach these goals. Calvin also succeeded in winning back a remarkable number of Anabaptists to the Protestant fold. It is no coincidence that he entered his name in the membership list of the tailors' guild on July 29, 1539 - a guild known for the many Anabaptists and their sympathizers in its midst. The woman whom Calvin married in Strasbourg, Idelette de Bure, was the wido of an Anabaptist he himself had converted.

(pp. 147f; Greschat, Martin; Martin Bucer: A reformer and his Times)

Of course not everyone might agree that the Anabaptists needed converting :)

Protestantism and pluralism

The Protestantism of the reformers is different from contemporary Christianity in many ways. It is particularly different from Evangelicalism surrounding the issue of pluralism.

1. Exclusive where we are inclusive

The term Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer. This was a protest by the Protestant princes at the Emperor's insistence that the Mass be permitted in all the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The protest was not directly at the denial of the rights of the evangelicals to worship but at the idea that two rites (evangelical and Roman) may be permitted in the same region. It was inconceivable to them that they Christian princes could allow worship that denied the Gospel (i.e. the Mass). The truth was universal and pluralism cannot be permitted if a prince has the power to prevent it.

This is clearly different to the view of almost everyone today, whether Christian or not. Freedom of religion is one of the most basic rights of citizens in the West. Interestingly the first emergence of this idea in England was in Cromwell's (Puritan) Commenwealth.

2. Inclusive where we are exclusive

The other thing that is striking as a twenty-first century Christian reading the Reformers is that they were not separatists.

Martin Luther as late as 1920 presents his book The Freedom of a Christian to the pope appealing to him to preach the teachings of the Reformation! Martin Luther, nor any of the Reformers that I can tell, felt compelled to leave the Roman Catholic church. Rather they considered that the Church of Rome left them and the teaching of the Early Church. At least that was how it was understood by the Protestants. I think in this the Reformers paralleled Paul's practice in mission. He started in the Synagogues time after time and usually only started preaching apart from them when they had ejected him.

If the church is ever in the news today it is because of new threats of divisions and threatened separation. When considering the debate within Anglicanism today, none of the Reformers would act like some (but not all) of their supposed followers do today. They threaten to split from the Church unless the bible is obeyed by the authorities within the Church. The Reformers trusted the Word to do it's work, and as long as they weren't actually prevented from preaching that Word they looked forward to the renewal of the fallen Church of which they were a part.

Interestingly the first major separations from the Church of England were by (some) Puritans.

Ooo, I have so much more to say about ecumenicalism (e.g. what we can learn from the Donatists, Justification by faith as an ecumenical doctrine, the possibilities for evangelism and church discipline) but it is probably not worth saying.

In the end...

I don't know whether modern day evangelicals are more in the right than the first evangelicals but one thing is for sure 'the past is another country'.

What I'm up to

You are probably all very happy that things have gone quiet on this blog recently. Unfortunately I am busy at work at the moment and my law studies have restarted. This means I'll have less time to read, and blog, than God has graciously given me over the last few months.

However, I thought I'd let you know that I have decided after some deliberations to give the Puritans a second chance. I read a handful of books several years ago but could not understand what all the fuss was about. So I am joining the 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge, and going to try and get through 12 short Puritan books in 2008. Perhaps I'll give up half way through, but we'll see.

In preparation my commute has been to the sound of JI Packer's seriously English introductory lectures from 1988. Interestingly he relates how he had been trying to get a publisher to publish Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, which was one of just two books written by Puritans which was not occasional or based on sermons, and was actually designed to stand the test of time. The Banner of Truth apparently did not judge it sound enough! However it seems that he finally did manage to get someone to publish it in 1997.

On a more serious note, Packer makes a convincing case for understanding the Puritan movement as a revivalistic movement, which sheds a different light on things.

Meanwhile I'm also finding Lutheranism a strange and exciting new world of theology. The English-speaking evangelicalism that I know has always looked to the Reformed when it has got serious about theology. This seems clearest in that when people identify themselves as 'Reformed' in England they usually mean 'not Arminian', when of course the Arminians were 'Reformed' as well. Reading Lutheran theology I feel God confronting me, and interacting with me, in a way I have not felt since reading Calvin for the first time. Still I am not sure that I can agree with most of what distinguishes Lutheran from Reformed when it actually comes down to brass tacks. Nevertheless I can see the prophetic power that it must have had in the sixteenth century and still has now.

All very exciting but lots to do. Got to go.

Reformers on the run

One thing that has struck me reading about the history of the Reformation is how almost every major Protestant figure seems to have had to leave their homes at one point or another. These include: Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Calvin, Bucer, Carlstadt, Osiander and Knox. I don't think Zwingli, Cramner, Ridley and Latimer had to leave there homes but they all got killed in one way or another.

This was no ivory tower dispute.

We have to be thankful for their love of God.

Sources of free UK Christian MP3s

There are now a whole host of MP3s of talks on the internet, but I think a lot of great UK resources are missed because American's get more publicity. So I thought I'd list a few resources I have found.

• @ the castle
• bethinking.org (UCCF's apologetics site)
• UCCF
• European Leadership Forum
• Oak Hill College
• The Christian Institute
• The Proclamation Trust
• East Anglia Gospel Partnership
• Yorkshire Gospel Partnership
• The North West Partnership
• The Theologian
• The Evangelists Conference
• The Northern Men's Convention
• The Northern Women's Convention
• The Fulwood Conference

I've restricted the selections so that I have not included individual churches, it is also quite biased to the conservative Evangelical side of the spectrum.

Any suggestions welcome. This is a work in progress.

Law and Gospel

Here is the heart of the distinction between law and gospel-not a formal division of God's word into commands and promises, or between Old Testament and New, but the alien and proper work of God. This distinction formed the basis of Luther's revolutionary theology of the cross. God's word works death and life on us (that is, law and gospel), putting to death the old and bringing to life the new.

(my emphasis, '"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002)

It is difficult to get my head around the Lutheran teaching on Law and Gospel. I think these two sentences have been the most helpful in making it clear.

Theology of the Cross

This reflection on Martin Luther's theology of the cross begins with a deceptively simple question: Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Final answer: No. This lack of equivocation arises, not only from knowledge of the historical record in general and Luther's writings in particular, but also from experience. Eleven months after receiving an invitation to address this topic for a Lutheran convocation of teaching theologians, my wife of twenty-six years was diagnosed with terminal cancer. If experience truly makes a theologian, then this experience makes unmistakably clear that a theology of the cross blesses nothing [...]

Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Even after agreeing to speak of the theology of the cross, the sentence still does not make sense. Quite the reverse! It serves up the single greatest temptation to sin that any theologian faces: imagining that what he or she does-theology-actually accomplishes anything so grand. No theology of any kind ever blesses. God blesses; the Crucified One blesses. A theology of the cross can make no such claim. However often theologians agree that they are dealing with second-order discourse in theology, the temptation still lurks to make that discourse worth something before God. Indeed, if Genesis 3 has anything to say to this day and age, it is that human beings are always tempted to make themselves gods, knowing and deciding good and evil, bane and blessing.

'"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002

The most moving article I ever read in a theological journal. It cuts to the bone.

PS top tip, when reading articles on findarticles.com click the print icon for a much more readable version.

Luther and Erasmus on the gospel and salvation history

Where Erasmus viewed the Scripture in terms of salvation history and placed Jesus' sayings and the Gospels at the center (ad fontes! [= "to the sources"]), Melanchthon found the scopus [goal] of the Scripture in Romans and justification by faith alone. Where Luther and Melanchthon both distinguished between law and gospel in the Scripture, Erasmus consistently constructed a grand unity between the two, culminating in the philosophia Christi, an overarching moral construal of the gospel in which Christ provided the Christian with an ideal example. Thus Erasmus centered his description of the gospel in the creation of a Christian people, not in the forgiveness of sins. His appeal for harmony and concord reflected the very center of Christ's gospel for him.

(Review of Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon's Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam by Timothy Wengert, Trinity Journal, Spring 1999 by Scheck, Tom)

Sound familiar?

Of course the big danger in reading about church history is that you start off deciding who is orthodox before you even find out what was being taught. Before you know it instead of being concerned to be looking through biblical eyes, you start looking through Martin Luther's, Philipp Melanchton's, or whoever your Christian hero is.

So I have to be careful. By stating that X thought something does not mean that we should pre-judge anything. As Erasmus and the Reformers said, ad fontes!

The Trinitarian structure of 1 John (Part 2)

1 John closes somewhat abruptly with the statement: "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

This hasn't made much sense to me before because I have always been reading 1 John focused on humans loving one another when reading the book and racking my brains to deal with the seeming Christian Perfectionism. But reading it again today what has struck me is just how much God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are mentioned. Instead it seems that theology is John's major concern. Of course loving one another is massively important but throughout this is seen as firmly founded on the nature of God himself.

The best way to demonstrate this is to encourage you to read the book beginning to end. Seeing that in God the Trinity is life, light, truth and love (some of John's favourite words).

As John says of his purpose in writing the letter it is "so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1:3). More directly he was prompted to write because of false teachers whose false teaching seemed to centre on a denial that Jesus was from God (2:23; 4:2-3; 4:15; 4:14; 5:1; 5:5-6). John points out that while they may think they can deny the Son while worshipping the Father they are mistaken (1 John 2:22-23, a constant theme in the Gospel as well). Denying Jesus they are actually idolaters!

Not only are they idolaters but by denying the Trinitarian work of salvation they are losing love in the process. As John says:

• "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers."
• "the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."
• "this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us."
• "We love because he first loved us."

Incidentally this is yet another instance of where I am beginning to think that Judaizers are the main threat behind many NT letters, not proto-Gnostics or any other kind of Hellenized syncretists.

The Trinitarian structure of 1 John (Part 1)

Peter Dray prompted me to read 1 John today on my commute. It's a book that I have neglected to read for far too long. As I was reading it I guess I have been affected by recent blog conversations over the Trinity with Dan Hames and Glen Scrivener which I have learnt a lot from.

Anyway, reading 1 John today the Trinity seemed to purvey everything. Perhaps this short series of posts will show that I am shooting from left field, but I throw them out as things to test.

1 John 2:12-14 reads

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

The two statements about little children, fathers and young men clearly parallel each other. Perhaps even like this:

I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.	I write to you, children, because you know the Father.	Father
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.	I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.	Son
I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.	I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.	Holy Spirit

The first of pairs doesn't seem to fit my patten. Obviously the second of the two explicitly mentions the Father, but the first doesn't and seems to focus on the Son because of who's name we are forgiven. However, with a different pair of glasses you may focus on the one who does the forgiven, the one we can now know.

The second of the pairs mentions only knowing the one 'who is from the beginning'. John has already said that we know the Father, but the one who is from the beginning must surely refer to the Son of God considering 1 John 1:1 and John 1:1.

How then does the second pair concern the Holy Spirit? I think these quotes suggest that strength, the word of God abiding, and overcoming, are all closely linked to the Spirit in this letter.

by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. (3:24)

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (4:2-6)

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? [...] And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (5:4-7)

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. (5:13)

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. (5:18 cf. John 3:1-14)

What is going on in a death sentence

When thinking about models for the atonement it may help to reflect on the fact the cross was a death sentence. I was thinking about death sentences the other day and it seems that there are two main reasons behind them:

1. To punish wrongdoing by satisfying justice
2. To prevent further wrongdoing by killing the source of wrong

These correlate to the two main models of substitution:

1. Penal substitution
2. Christus Victor

These in turn correlate to two emphasises in Christian teaching:

1. Release from the penalty of sin
2. Release from the power of sin

I used to think that the second flowed out of the first. Now I think that they both live side by side as different aspects of the same event. An event that his thankfully played out again and again in the lives of believers in Christ. Realising this may make it possible to reconcile Melanchthon and Agricola who saw the problem with sin in the life of the Christian as penalty and power respectively.

Any thoughts?

Philip Melanchthon v. John Agricola the rematch

Is there any point in reading a book entitled Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon's Debate With John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia which documents a debate between two Lutheran theologians in the 1520s? When I first bought it I was concerned that it was purely for my personal interest and had no relevance for serving God in the 21st century. However strikingly this debate has never ended although few seem to know its roots. A recent example would be the brouhaha within Young Life in the US (HT Justin Taylor). Christianity Today describes that following challenges the Young Life leadership have produced a statement requiring a certain presentation of the gospel:

YL's eight-page Non-Negotiables statement requires a sequence for gospel presentations that closely resembles Campus Crusade for Christ's Four Spiritual Laws. [...] evangelists should explain the reality and consequences of sin before presenting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Talks end with an invitation to believe, become a disciple of Jesus, and publicly proclaim one's faith.

YL seems to line up with Melanchthon in this fight. Melanchthon held that the Law should be preached to bring people into a realisation of their sin, and to make them fear God in his wrath against them. They should then confess their sin and accept forgiveness in Jesus' sacrifice. Love for God and righteousness would flow out of this.

Agricola believed the only use of the law was to increase the volume of sin and so show the power and horror of the sin. However it had no role in conversion or the Christian life. Where as 'Poenitentia' meant guilt and contrition for Melanchthon and was a necessary step before forgiveness could be received, for Agricola the highest form of 'Poenitentia' was not to do the sin again. Agricola could see no difference between the contrition of Melanchthon and that of Judas following his betrayal. Agricola believed that 'Poenitentia' was a result of the gospel and not a result of the law.

That is a brief summary but I feel the strength of Agricola's beliefs, although I can also see its dangers.

The danger with studying historical theology is that you start knowing who was your father in the faith, who came out on the winning side and who was dismissed as a heretic. Instead of listening to God's word you listen to the evangelical church fathers. However, it is also good to check yourself before backing the predetermined 'wrong' side. Melanchthon won the day in the 16th century. His influence can be seen from John Wesley's preaching to the 'Four Spiritual Laws'. However, it seems that Evangelicalism is drifting decisively towards Agricola for the first time in its history. Is this a good thing? I still haven't decided, but I am 100% sure that it has a massive difference to my witness to my friends which side I do decide to back.