Considering Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics Part 3

Non-sermon related reading has fallen off the grid the last few months.  I feel like I’ve been reading this book for the better part of 6 months.  Not quite, but I have finally finished Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation.  I already reviewed the first 2 sections which dealt with the basics of interpretation and his argument for a gospel-centered hermeneutic, and how various methods of Bible interpretation have eclipsed the gospel throughout church history.

The final section, Reconstructing Evangelical Hermeneutics, was the most difficult for me to read.  At times he covered areas of philosophy with which I was unfamilar.  So, I was occasionally thinking ‘huh?” (particularly speech-act theory).  But it was still profitable at times, just not as profitable as the previous 2 sections.

Among the areas that were helpful were his discussion of typology, and Dr. John Currid’s criteria for true typology.  This criteria is affirmed by Keller & Clowney in the DMin course available through RTS on I-Tunes.  He was also helpful in discussion contexting (his simpler term for contextualization).  The missionary mandate, as he argues, mandates this.  He also includes a chapter on the interaction and relationship between biblical and systematic theology.  He talks a great deal about how both Calvin and Luther viewed Bible interpretation, and the role of the Spirit (particularly Calvin on this front)

His Epilogue contains a few good quotes to sum all this up:

Hermeneutics is about reading God’s word with understanding so taht we might be conformed more and more to the image of Christ.

The purpose of God’s word is to bring us to God through the salvation that is in Christ.  It does this by revealing his plan and purpose, by conforming us more and more to the image of Christ, and by providing the shape of the presence of God with his people through the Spirit of Christ.

So, pastors and those who regularly teach God’s people should find Goldsworthy’s book helpful as we seek to fulfill our calling.  As the ancient children’s song says, “take up and read.”

Read Full Post »

Considering Indulgences

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Way back in 1517, Luther attacked the use of indulgences by the Church of Rome.  They were used to provide a false hope, and a steady flow of cash for Papal building projects.  The Reformation was born.

Many, Cavman included, think we need a new (or renewed) Reformation since the doctrine of justification by faith alone as fallen on hard times in evangelical circles.  People have once again put sanctification prior to justification, just in a different form than Rome did.

But the Church of Rome has made a change that was not expected by many people.  Indulgences are back.  Yes, like the Terminator they have returned, and that is not a good thing either.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Like the Latin Mass and meatless Fridays, the indulgence was one of the traditions decoupled from mainstream Catholic practice in the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, the gathering of bishops that set a new tone of simplicity and informality for the church.

Read Full Post »

Considering Luther on Galatians 2

I’ve got to stuff all of Galatians 2 into one sermon.  Oh the madness and folly of it all!  One of my favorite works on Galatians is Luther’s commentary.  I don’t agree with all he says, but there are some great things in there.  He had … a way with words.   Let’s see some of it.

“The truth of the gospel is that our righteousness comes by faith alone, without the works of the law. The corruption or falsehood of the gospel is that we are justified by faith but not without the works of the law.

I like how he reminds us that most false gospels do not deny the need for faith, or Jesus.  What they deny is the sufficiency of Jesus’ work for us.  This is why they are so dangerous, there is an element of truth to be found in them.  Satan uses a little truth to float big lies.

“…we will suffer our goods to be taken away, our name, our life, and all that we have; but the gospel, our faith, Jesus Christ, we will never allow to be wrested from us.”

Martin points to how precious this gospel is- it is more valuable than our possessions, reputations, and even earthly life.  This is why Paul fought so vigorously for the “truth of the gospel”.

“We therefore make this definition of a Christian: a Christian is not one who has no sin, but one to whom God imputes not his sin, through faith in Christ. That is why we so often repeat and beat into your minds, the forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteousness for Christ’s sake.”

Imputation is a necessary element of the gospel.  Our sins are no longer imputed (or accounted) to us AND Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.  We must remember both.  We cannot bring both our own righteousness and Christ’s to God.  It is one or the other.  We need constant reminders of this truth because our default mode is to try and earn SOMETHING.  We want to contribute something (besides our sin) to salvation.  Jesus, save us from our pride.

Read Full Post »

Preaching the Gospel to Yourself with Luther

In my prep for the beginning of Galatians, I read this in Luther’s commentary:

“Let us therefore arm ourselves with these and like verses of the Holy Scripture, that we may be able to answer the devil (accusing us, and saying: You are a sinner, and therefore you are damned) in this sort:  “Christ has given Himself for my sins; therefore, Satan, you shall not prevail against me when you go about to terrify me in setting forth the greatness of my sins, and so to bring me into heaviness, distrust, despair, hatred, contempt and blaspheming of God.  As often as you object that I am a sinner, you call me to remembrance of the benefit of Christ my Redeemer, upon whose shoulders, and not upon mine, lie all my sins; for ‘the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,’ and ‘for the transgression of the people he was striken’ (Isaiah 53:6,8).  Wherefore, when you say I am a sinner, you do not terrify me, but comfort me above measure.””

We tend to get cowed down by our guilt.  We need to start saying “So what, Satan?” because we look to the crucified and risen One, and “there is no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Jesus.”

Read Full Post »

Considering Resources on Galatians

I’m excited to be studying Galatians for the next 3 months.  It is a controversial book these days- particularly in the dispute over the meaning of justification.  I take the historical, Reformed Protestant view as espoused in the Westminter Confession of Faith where we are declared righteous because God imputes Jesus’ righteousness to us.  Anyway, here are some of the resources I’ll be using and some I wish I was using.

What I’m using:

• Commentary on Galatians: Modern-English Version by Martin Luther (The link is for the Crossway version, sorry).  Classic!  There is some great stuff in here from the man who recaptured the doctrine of justification triggering the Reformation.
• Commentary on Galatians by John Calvin from his Commentary set.  Have to use it!
• The Message of Galatians (The Bible Speaks Today series) by John Stott.  Tried and true, this will be my 3rd go round with Stott.  Great stuff, and not overly technical.
• Galatians and Ephesians (New Testament Commentary) by William Hendriksen

What I Wish I Had Handy:

• Let’s Study Galatians by Derek Thomas  This is an easy to use, and understand series written for normal people.
• Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom by Leon Morris.  The late Dr. Morris is one of my favorite biblical theologians.  If ever I study this again, I will have this book.
• Galatians (Reformed Expository Commentary) by Philip Graham Ryken.   He is the pastor of the historic 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia.  This is a solid, readable series. 
• No Other Gospel: Finding True Freedom in the Message of Galatians by Carol Ruvolo. 
• Religious No More: Building  Communities of Grace and Freedom by Mark Baker.  The title is pretty interesting to me.  Afterall, Paul is writing to a community!

Read Full Post »

Considering Preaching the Gospel to Yourself

This morning we were talking about Psalm 16 in preparation for Sunday’s sermon.  One guy thought it reminded him of guys he knows grabbing themselves by the collar and preaching the gospel to themselves when facing temptation.  In Psalm 16, David is reminding himself of God and His benefits because he’s in danger of forgetting them in the midst of his troubles.  Psalm 16 becomes a great example of what it means to preach the gospel to yourself.

Preaching the gospel to the people

Ivan brought up the movie Luther.  Early on, Satan is accusing Martin and he is overcome with despair.  His Confessor Staupitz overhears this and enters his cell and preaches the gospel to him, summarized by “I am yours, save me!”.  Later, while at the Diet of Worms, Luther is again assailed.  This time he preaches it to himself- “I am yours, save me!”  He was internalizing the significance of the Christ’s saving work so he’s remember and believe it in the midst of spiritual attack.  If you haven’t seen this movie- what are you waiting for????

In the process of talking about preaching the gospel to yourself, I remembered a (short) interview with Jerry Bridges by C.J. Mahaney on the subject.  I think Jack Miller coined the phrase, but he is at least the first person I remember using it.  Maybe he got it from someone else.  But it is a helpful way to spend 20 minutes.

Read Full Post »

Review: The Prodigal God

Tim Keller’s The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith is a much needed book.  I needed to read it, and I can see how many in the churches I’m familiar with need to read it as well.  It is short, well-written, well-illustrated and keeps pointing the reader to Christ.  What more could you want?

Tim uses the Parable of the Lost Sons to examine the heart of the the Christian message.  He examines the Parable in the context of his audience in Luke 15.  He also compares and contrasts it with the parables that precede it (the lost sheep and the lost coin), to get the message ‘right’.  And that message is that both sons were lost- one thru license and the other thru legalism.  While we see the licentious brother return home (much like the sinners how heard Jesus and placed their trust in Him), while the elder brother resents the father’s grace (much like the Pharisees who were listening).  We just aren’t sure how he responds, so the question bounces back on all those elder brothers- will you enter the joy of the Father or maintain your ‘rights’ and sit alone and angry?

In this process Keller redefines both sin and lostness (as I’ve addressed in a previous post).  He doesn’t redefine so much as deepen our understanding of these concepts, expanding them so we can recognize how easily we can sin and appreciate our tendency to wander back into self-reliance.

Keller points us to the True Elder Brother, Jesus, who left the Father’s side to seek and save the lost.  We can only return home because He left, and lost His life.  This helps us to redefine, or deepen our understanding of, hope.  This hope culminates in the Feast of the Father- a picture of heavenly celebration.

In the process, Keller draws upon the thinking of Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis and Martin Luther among others.  The last is particularly important since Luther understood too well that legalism is the default mode for most of us.  We quickly lapse back into the sins of the elder brother (pride, self-righteousness, lack of compassion).  He illustrates with movies (both popular and obscure) as well as novels that have captured people’s attention through the years.

So I found the book to be both convicting and comforting, humbling and encouraging.  Yes, big sinner.  Yes, bigger Savior who continues to change my heart so it resembles His.  This quote is one from the final chapter gives us something to chew on:

I have explained in this book why churches- and all religious institutions- are often so unpleasant.  They are filled with elder brothers.  Yet staying away from them simply because they have elder brothers is just another form of self-righteousness.  Besides that, there is no way you will be able to grow spiritually apart from a deep involvement in a community of other believers.  You can’t live the Christian life without a band of Christian friends, without a family of believers in which you find a place.

This is Keller’s hope- to transform the church and society as we recognize our frequent relapses into self-righteousness and rely more fully and completely on the only Savior- Jesus.  I think this is must reading for pastors, church leaders and ordinary Christians.  It is accessible to all- so don’t shilly-shally (as Steve Brown would say) and drink deep and drink often.

Read Full Post »

Considering Sin and Lostness

I’m not sure if enjoying is the right word.  I guess the right word would be benefitting.  I am greatly benefitting from my reading of The Prodigal God by Tim Keller.  He is able to expand on some ideas found in his sermons on the Parable of the Lost Sons.  He develops a better understanding of both sin and lostness.

We tend to tie sin in with rebellion- which it is.  But sin is craftier than that.  It can look like obedience!

It is not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father, it’s the pride he has in his moral record; it’s not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast of the father.

His obedience produces a pride that keeps him apart from his father and younger brother.  Sin can work thru “obedience” to keeps us from Christ and His people.  We seek to save ourselves.  This is the work of the religious fanatic Martin Luther said lives in each of us, the default of our hearts, trying to earn merit before God.

You can avoid Jesus as Savior by keeping all the moral laws.  If you do that, then you have “rights.”  God owes you answered prayer, and a good life, and a ticket to heaven when you die.  You don’t need a Savior who pardons you by free grace, for you are your own Savior.

Because sin is not just breaking the rules, it is putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord, and Judge just as each son sought to displace the authority of the father in his own life.

Keller continues to say that these 2 conditions are not equal.  It is easier for the licentious to see his sin and seek to return home.  The legalist thinks he already is home!  He is more blind to his sin because he looks so good.

What are the signs of an elder brother (legalist, self-righteous, Pharisee)?

The first sign you have an elder-brother spirit is that when your life doesn’t go as you want, you aren’t just sorrowful but deeply angry and bitter.

Keller notes this can function in 2 ways.  If I perceive I have been obedient- I am angry with God and rage against him.  If I perceive I have not been obedient- I am angry with myself and become filled with self-loathing.  Hey, been there, done that- and still take trips there.

Read Full Post »

Following Up

In listening to some Tim Keller sermons there were a few leads I wanted to follow up. If you are like me, you might think “I really need to find that”, but aren’t really sure where to find it.

Tim is fond of mentioning Martin Luther’s Large Catechism in connection with idolatry.  I’ve been wanting to read it for myself.  I figure there is quite a bit I could learn.  Perhaps you are like me and aren’t sure where to look.  Well, it is part of the Book of Concord.  So, here is the Large Catechism.  Enjoy!

Keller also mentions a Thomas Chalmers’ sermon, The Expulsive Power of a Greater Affection, in connection to sanctification.  I’ve been wanting to read this sermon, but was not aware of any Thomas Chalmers’ collections.  He’s not the most famous of the Puritans.  Thank God for the internet.  Someone has put The Expulsive Power of a Greater Affection online.  Justin Taylor notes how Sinclair Ferguson makes use of this same sermon.

Sometimes we make the mistake of substituting other things for it. Favorites here are activity and learning. We become active in the service of God ecclesiastically (we gain the positions once held by those we admired and we measure our spiritual growth in terms of position achieved); we become active evangelistically and in the process measure spiritual strength in terms of increasing influence; or we become active socially, in moral and political campaigning, and measure growth in terms of involvement. Alternatively, we recognize the intellectual fascination and challenge of the gospel and devote ourselves to understanding it, perhaps for its own sake, perhaps to communicate it to others. We measure our spiritual vitality in terms of understanding, or in terms of the influence it gives us over others. But no position, influence, or evolvement can expel love for the world from our hearts. Indeed, they may be expressions of that very love.

Others of us make the mistake of substituting the rules of piety for loving affection for the Father: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” Such disciplines have an air of sanctity about them, but in fact they have no power to restrain the love of the world. The root of the matter is not on my table, or in my neighborhood, but in my heart. Worldliness has still not been expelled.

The basic point is that our desire for particular sins will be lessened or removed only by having a greater affection for something or someone else.  We must love Jesus more than we love our favorite sins.  This is what Samuel Storms discusses at length in Pleasures Evermore.  It is what lies underneath John Piper’s Christian Hedonism.  Some great stuff- as I shared with someone caught in an addiction.  Avoiding our addiction can be a new idol- a mere replacement idol.  This person needs to meditate upon the work of Christ that he might grow in his love for Christ and be able to put this sin to death.  Otherwise we are using worldly means to deal with our sinful desires and habits.

Read Full Post »

Band of Brothers: My Answers

To be fair, I thought I’d put down how God brought me to embrace Reformed Theology as the most consistent understanding of biblical theology.

1. What was the first book you read that introduced you to Reformed Theology?   That would be Packer’s Knowing God, though I didn’t know it at the time.  I had been a Christian for less than a year when I bought it.  It remains one of my favorites.  After I “got” Reformed Theology, I re-read Knowing God, and saw all the seeds had been sown there.  Sproul’s Chosen By God was the one that gave me words to express what I had come to believe.
2. Besides the Bible, list the five most influential books in your Reformed theological journey.  In addition to the 2 already mentioned, Martin Luther- Bondage of the Will; John Piper- Desiring God; J.I. Packer- Keep in Step with the Spirit; Jerry Bridges- Trusting God; R.C. Sproul- The Holiness of God.
3. List three preachers and/or teachers who were most influential in your journey? Prior to seminary, R.C. Sproul.  I devoured his books and audio tapes prior to going to seminary.  J.I. Packer, who joined Sproul in introducing me to the Puritans, the Reformers and Jonathan Edwards.  In seminary, I spent lots of time reading Edwards and the Puritans (particularly Burroughs, Owen & Boston).  Post-seminary it would be John Frame, Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller and Jack Miller.  Yes, I cheated.  But I affirm grace, baby.
4. If you could give one book to someone interested in Reformed theology, what book would you give them?  Probably Sproul’s Grace Unknown (I think it is now called What is Reformed Theology?) or Ferguson’s In Christ Alone.
5. What doctrine would you say distinguishes Reformed Theology?  Particular Atonement.  Packer’s intro to Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is must reading to understand how essential this doctrine is to grasping biblical Christianity, and how other theologies offer a different gospel.  This is a much understood doctrine thanks to the many straw men those opposed to it put up.  This is usually the hardest distinctive doctrine for people to accept.

Read Full Post »

Considering Hebrews 4:14-16

This is my chosen sermon text for the week.  Here are some interesting thoughts I ran across in my prep today:

“There can be no sustained faithfulness on our part unless we are convinced that we can trust God.  The basis for that trust is the consideration that we have a high priest who is merciful and compassionate in his relationship with us.”  Wiliam Lane in Hebrews: A Call to Commitment

“The promise is that God’s children will receive mercy accompanied by sustaining grace.  Mercy and grace are closely allied and essential aspects of God’s love.  That love is outgoing in providing the protective help that does not arrive too late but at the appropriate time, because the moment of its arrival is left to the judgment of our gracious God.”  William Lane in Hebrews: A Call to Commitment

“For he is not talking about sin and its guilt but about temptations, afflictions, and persecutions.  So the mercy meant here must be the cause for our deliverance- namely, in its consequences.  … In addition to this, the apostle is not here referring to the initial approach of sinners to God through Christ for mercy and pardon, but about the daily access of believers to him for grace and assistance.  To receive mercy, therefore, is to be made to participate in the gracious help and support of the kindness of God in Christ, when we are in distress.  This springs from the same root as pardoning grace and is therefore called ‘mercy’.”  John Owen in Hebrews

“… God’s word is like a long staff by which he examines and searches what lies deep in our hearts… God, who knows our hearts, has assigned to his word the office of penetrating even into our inmost thoughts.”  John Calvin in Commentary on Hebrews

“… for when Christ receives us under his protection and patronage, he covers with his goodness the majesty of God, which would otherwise be terrible to us, so that nothing appears there but grace and paternal favor.”  John Calvin in Commentary on Hebrews

“After terrifying us, the Apostle now comforts us, after pouring wine into our wound, he now pours in oil.”  Martin Luther, quoted by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes in A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews

“The hardness of the struggle should be an inducement to the Christian to draw near to the throne of God’s grace, rather than to draw back and abandon the conflict…”  Philip Edgcumbe Hughes in A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews

These are things I need to keep in mind, not just for a sermon, but everyday life.  As I prepare, it has been one rough week.  It is not just something to talk about, but something I need to be true and rely upon.

Read Full Post »

Considering Pagan Christianity

No, I have not yet read this one.  Lots of people are.  I see it on people’s blogs.  Some rave about it, and others are less enthralled.  Peter Jones has a good critical review of Pagan Christianity at Reformation 21.  What seems to be the problem with the book?

First, Peter mentions that the book does not seek to explain paganism proper.  Viola seems to use it merely to describe a non-Christian influence that is to blame for everything he doesn’t like about the “modern” church in the West.

 “This unexamined term is used as a whip to drive out of the present temple all the money-changers and their godless activities. In addition to “dressing up for church” and Sunday School (“swelling the cranium” 199), such pagan activities include: the notion of a “personal savior” (190); the liturgy (even the hymn-prayer-hymn sandwich); the sermon, the ordained, salaried ministry or “pastoral office” (136); robes; youth pastors; elder directed communities; baptism; the Lord’s supper (“a strange pagan-like rite”197); taking an offering and tithing; denominations; Bible Colleges and seminaries; instruments; hymns and church buildings, and choirs. For its all-knowing pretentiousness, one statement is mind-boggling. (Alas, it characterizes so many of Viola’s generalizations.) Dismissing the place of the sermon in Christian worship, Viola reveals: “…the truth is that the contemporary sermon preached every week…is often impractical…[and] has little power to equip God’s people for spiritual service and functioning” (98-99). He also “knows” that “the Sunday morning service is shamefully boring” (76). How does he know? If these judgments have Barna polling data to support them, they are not mentioned!”

Second, Viola’s book is yet another that traces all the problems to the church back to Constantine making Christianity a legitimate religion.  Okay, it isn’t quite that reductionistic.  But it sounds like all those books that only talk about what is wrong with America (similar to Obama following the stichk of many college professors).  It flattens out reality.  I went through that phase briefly after the Iran-Contra scandal (I was disillusioned by the end of Reagan’s 2nd term).  What happens is you only see what is wrong, and don’t acknowledge what is right.  Yes, Americans have done some horrendous things.  But we hardly have a market on that.  And Americans have done some fantastic things (and are currently doing them in places like Africa).

Read Full Post »

Considering My Favorite Luther Quotes

Here are 2 of my favorite, non-colorful (or Driscollesque), Luther quotes.  I used them in my sermon yesterday on the Lost Sons.

 “Something inside of us strongly compels us to keep trying to earn God’s approval.  We look for good works, in which we can place our trust and which will bring us praise.  We want to show God what we have done…  None of us should be overconfident when it comes to forgetting our own good works.  Each one of us carries in our heart a horrible, religious fanatic. … We should realize that we all carry in our heart a horrible, religious fanatic, who will destroy faith with foolish delusions of good works.  … God’s approval doesn’t come to us by what we do.  Rather it comes through the holiness of Christ, who suffered for us and rose again from the dead.”  Martin Luther

”Therefore we make this definition of a Christian: a Christian is not he who has no sin, but he to whom God does not impute his sin, through faith in Christ.  That is why we so often repeat and beat it into your minds, the forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteousness for Christ’s sake.”  Martin Luther

The first quote is found in a devotional called By Faith Alone.  The second is from his Commentary on Galatians.  When I was a kid there was a local hardware  chain called Grossman’s.  The ads declared “There’s a little Grossman’s in everyone, there’s a little Grossman’s in you.”  Luther would concur, if it is acknowledged that the little Grossman in you is a religious fanatic.  The default of our heart is to seek to establish our own righteousness.  Every other major religion has this as it basic idea.  This is the primary way people run from God- religion, or legalism (being a good person).  We make an idol of our own goodness/sincerity, and subtly despise the perfect righteousness of Christ.

This is why Luther talks about ministry as “beating” the doctrine of justification into people’s heads.  We must do this because people are prone to lapse back into a legalistic mindset and earn their blessings for God.  Hard message to sell, since it undermines the idols of men’s hearts.  But this is primarily what gospel ministry is.

Read Full Post »

Considering Ethnic Badges and the Gospel

I think this will be my final post on The Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper.  I think it is more of an assessment than a response.  Piper does a good job of laying out N.T. Wright’s distinctive views on these issues, and then weighing them.  Piper does more than assess them by his own views, he tries to examine if they fit the evidence of Wright’s secondary sources, and (more importantly) the biblical texts.  He also weighs Wright’s criticisms of evangelical theology on this matter (which have some merit) as well as these proposed solution (not so much merit there).

Piper avoids the common traps of polemical theology.  He affirms where N.T. Wright is correct.  He does not demonize him or attack him personally.  In all this I think Piper writes a book that is clear, fair and convincing.  If disciples of N.T. Wright want to hear a fair case of the other side- this is it.  They might not be convinced that Wright is going in unhelpful ways in this matter, but allegiances can work that way.  And then my question becomes, are there areas in which you disagree with him?  If not, then you probably aren’t thinking.  I disagree with John Piper on a few issues, but not here.

Anyway… in chapter 10 Piper assesses the implications of ethnic badges and self-help moralism.  Wright sees “the works of the law” “as an ethnic badge worn to show that a person is in the covenant rather than deeds done to show they deserve God’s favor.”  Wright points to Romans 3:26-30.

Read Full Post »

Considering A Scandalous Freedom

I thought I’d heard all of Steve Brown’s sermons while I was in seminary.  Either I didn’t, or he got a whole new bunch of them for his book A Scandalous Freedom: The Radical Nature of the Gospel. 

I’d been wanting to read Steve’s book on grace for a few years.  Finally did, and glad I did.  Steve makes reading theology fun, and sometimes that can be no small feat.  There is possibly no greater sin than making theology boring, though the blood of Jesus is sufficient to forgive even that!  Steve doesn’t have to worry about sinning big there.

Steve likes to say things in a controversial way.  Lots of younger pastors do that now too.  But what he says is usually true.  Other guys often speak untruth.  I remember the 1991 Ligonier Conference on the Cross.  In his first sermon Steve was hitting hard on how we “cannot add to or take anything away from the Cross.”  Your obedience doesn’t make you more saved, or your disobedience less saved- it all rests on what Jesus did.  Some people went from that into thinking Steve was an antinomian (someone who thinks the law and obedience are irrelevant).  Oh, how we long to be self-righteous little religious fanatics.

This book is about grace, and the ways we forfeit it by living in prisons of our own design.  Jesus has set us free, but we miss the feel of the chains.  Throughout this book, Steve makes a number of really good points using some really good illustrations.  There was only one small point I would quibble with- but since I didn’t want to throw the book against the wall, I won’t even mention what it was.

Steve starts with the fact that we are free in Christ, moves to our false views of God, then a summary of the gospel and into the various prisons we put ourselves in.

Read Full Post »

Considering Running Scared, Part 1

I’ve been reading Ed Welch’s Running Scared as designed- one chapter a day to provide time to think and process it.  So far I’ve gone through the Initial Observations and God Speaks, or 8 days worth of pondering worry, fear and why they are so destructive in my own life.

Ed breaks down fears into background fear and anxiety, and phobias.  Our fears show up in our dreams, stressors, busyness, depression, anger, overprotection and more.

We all have fears.  The other day when reading this chapter I loaded my daughter into the car so she and my wife could go to Bible Study.  The thought popped into my head, what if… suddenly I was imagining life without them.  I used to have the fear that the congregation I served would close.  It did, 7 years later.  Now I have the fear I’ll never find a new call, or won’t for a very long time (I’ve seen it happen to guys).  I’ve been afraid that if my father cheered for my teams, they would lose.  I used to have dreams where the beginning of the worship service couldn’t start, despite there being large crowds there, because of a technical difficulty I couldn’t solve.  This morning I was angry with my daughter who wouldn’t listen to me, placing the DVD at risk of fingerprints and scratches (I’ve seen many a DVD destroyed by other people’s kids).

Read Full Post »

Summary of Justification and the New Perspectives Part 3

I’m concluding my summary of Guy Prentiss Waters’ book Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul with his critiques of the New Perspectives.

Critiquing the New Perspective 

Hermeneutical Issues

Sanders develops a synergistic religion in response to the largely Pelagian picture of Judaism put forth by earlier liberal scholars.  But he seemed to be quite selective in his reading.  Most importantly, it is impossible to know to what degree the Jewish literature of this period reflected the popular theological awareness and understanding.  As in our day, there was probably a huge gap between the academy and the general guy in the pew.

N.T. Wright bases his work on the premise that all Jews viewed themselves as being in exile.  They were waiting for deliverance from this exile.  Since they were in the Promised Land, though under occupation by Rome, it is difficult for me to buy this.  By and large, the literature of Second Temple Judaism does not support this premise.

More importantly, Paul never mentions this model.  Were he to accept and apply this premise, surely it would be mentioned. 

Just as telling, is that Messiah creates problems for Israel, rather than solving all of Israel’s problems (Romans 9-11).  And other NT writers (Peter & James) speak of Christians as being in exile.

Read Full Post »

Summary of Justification and the New Perspectives Part 2

Today we pick up with the developments of Dunn and N.T. Wright into what is known as the New Perspectives on Paul as traced by Guy Prentiss Waters in his book Justification and the New Perspectives.  For those not familiar with the historical-critical school, all this stuff can sound confusing.  For those who haven’t thought about it since seminary, it takes a little while to rub the rust off.

James. D.G. Dunn was enthusiastic about Sanders’ work which he viewed as freeing Paul in general, and Romans in particular, from Luther’s imposed grid of justification by faith.  He believes the view of righteousness through the law to be a gross caricature and feeding anti-Semitism.

Paul used “law” for Torah and that the law functioned as an identity marker and boundary that separated Israel from the surrounding nations.  He believed that Paul argued against Israel’s sense of privilege.

Dunn understand “the works of the law” to mean the pattern of obedience by which the righteous ones maintain their status within the covenant community.  It functions within a system of covenantal nomism.  He is inconsistent though, sometimes using “obedience of faith” to refer to covenantal nomism.  This also fails to account for Paul’s often negative use of the term “works of the law.”

Dunn understands the “righteousness of God” to mean God’s faithfulness to His people.  Romans becomes about how God vindicates His faithfulness.  Paul is calling his fellow Jews to recapture the true bounds of covenantal relationship instead of their current misconception of them.  Faith is viewed as our utter dependence upon God and the only way to sustain a relationship with God.

Dunn breaks with Sanders in his understanding of justification.  It is an acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant.  There is initial justification, but it is also a repeated action culminating in the final vindication of God’s people at the judgment.  The doing of good works is necessary for our justification on this last day.

In Galatians, he says that Paul’s argument is ecclesiastical, not soteriological.  It is about status & identity, not activity.  Dunn also reorients ‘ungodly’.  It is not about behavior & unbelief, but about whether or not you are in the covenant.

Dunn argues that Paul used lots of metaphor regarding salvation.  We must be careful not to depend to much on one metaphor or push any of them too hard.  Due to Dunn’s philosophical nominalism, biblical language does not refer to any reality outside itself.

 

N.T. Wright was the first churchman, as opposed to academic, to espouse these ideas in writing, thereby popularizing them among evangelicals.  Wright sought to protect the church from theological liberalism as well as antinomianism.  These are noble goals; but did he succeed?

Wright is a critical-realist philosophically.  As such he focuses on narrative over and against propositions.  We all operate within stories, worldviews, which shape our thinking.  The purpose of theology is to operate within the worldview of the author.  In this way we challenge the structures of our culture’s worldview- engaging institutions more than individuals (as seen in Toronto’s Institute of Christian Studies and theonomy).  Wright comes from the ICS line of thought which is biased against doctrinal formulation and logical reasoning (ICE would be the polar opposite).  Wright moves away from vertical categories to largely horizontal ones.

Wright believes that the genius of early Christianity was reconfiguring the community of God’s people.  People are delivered from the power of sin, not the guilt of sin.  As such, Wright takes a Christus Victor view of the atonement.  He clearly de-emphasizes the blood of Christ and any discussion of forgiveness.  He refuses to go beyond Paul to understand better understand Paul (denying the analogy of faith- Scripture interpreting Scripture).

Wright views God’s righteousness as His covenant faithfulness by which he restores cosmic justice.  Wright essentially rejects imputed and infused righteousness.  It was this view of the “righteousness of God” that nearly drove Luther insane.

His view of the ‘works of the law’ is that of relying on our present loyalty to our covenant obligations as a present sign of our future vindication.  Paul is seen as arguing against this view.

In keeping with Sanders & Dunn, Wright believes that the main question of Romans is ecclesiastical, not soteriological.  Justification becomes the declaration of who does belong among God’s people.  Our badge of membership is not the works of the law, but faith.  Future, eschatological justification is based upon our covenant obedience.

Read Full Post »

Future Justification Available Now

That would be the book.  John Piper’s response to N.T. Wright on the issue of justification, Future Justification is available at the WTS Bookstore for an introductory price of $11.99.  This is an important issue- the hinge of the church (Calvin), and the article upon which the church stands or falls (Luther), and individuals as well.  So Piper brings some of his New Testament expertise (his Ph.D. is in New Testament) to bear on this theological matter.

Another issue that is central to Christianity is penal substitutionary atonement.  One of the important new books on this issue has just been released in North America.  Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substition is on sale for only $15 (that price was supposed to end Nov. 2nd but is still on the website).  John Piper wrote the forward for this book by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach.

These 2 books are important for interacting on the recent developments/departures on these issues, and re-examining what Scripture teaches on these topics essential to the Christian faith.  No pastor, elder, church leader etc. should be without them.

Read Full Post »

Fall ’07 Ministry Tour Nearly Done

I’m about to end a good stretch of pulpit supply and teaching gigs.  Tomorrow I preach my sermon on adoption in S. Orlando at Parkway Presbyterian Church (I’m hoping to have a shorter, complete version to put online).  Wednesday Night 2 PCA churches in town held a Reformation Festival, and I did a dramatic presentation as Martin Luther, trying to sum up the Reformation in 25 minutes.  It was well received.

So, I begin a break.  Hopefully I will have some additional time for prayer and reading (exercise too).  We’ll see if anything or anyone conspires to fill up my time.  And I need to invest some time lining up opportunities for the Winter.  I do have a preaching engagement in December, and depending on when we head north I may have one on Christmas Eve.  But I need to have some more lined up.

Read Full Post »