Monthly Archives: April 2010

Maybe Wright shouldn’t have much to say about individual justification and salvation

Leave a reply

But he plainly does have much to say. I know this because he writes about it.  I reviewed one book dedicated to almost nothing else here:

Mark Horne » Blog Archive » For All The Saints.

Just to make sure I am being clear, there are two different questions here (or more):

  1. Does N. T. Wright have a robust belief and teaching about the justification and salvation of individuals?
  2. Does N. T. Wright’s exegesis or hermeneutics or theological method or worldview or something else rationally allow or lead to a robust belief and teaching about the justification and salvation of individuals?

Clearly, many are making some kind of claim about #2.  I am skeptical about most or all of the arguments I have encountered but they are possible in principle.  What isn’t plausible at all are answers to #1 that claim he does not have such a belief or concern.

How to present a message based on history, imagery, geography to an unbeliever?

4 Replies

Jim Jordan once pointed out that good books create their own readers.  He pointed out that The Name of the Rose made you into the kind of reader you needed to be to care about the ending.  He read through the book and couldn’t put it down at the ending.  A friend of his skipped the middle and found the ending stupid.

I’m trying to figure out how to present the concept of “saints” and thus holiness and sanctuary access in a commentary on Ephesians.  I preached on Ephesians 1 saying that we Christians are “throne room people” who have “sanctuary access.”  I gave some explanations and reviewed the holiness stories going back to Sinai and the Tabernacle.

But I was really assuming and able to assume a Biblically literate audience.  Thinking this from an unbelievers or neophytes perspective, how do I do this without seeming to be stacking metaphors or images that don’t have a concrete meaning?

Don’t know if this post makes much sense.  Just thinking out loud (except that really means, thinking in print).

The covenant of works was “also essentially a gracious covenant”

Leave a reply

Archibald Alexander Hodge first published his book, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes, in 1869 (Presbyterian Board of Publication). His Outlines of Theology preceded it by nearly a decade, having been published in 1860. In it he writes of the covenant of works, “It was also essentially a gracious covenant, because although every creature is, as such, bound to serve the Creator to the full extent of his powers, the Creator cannot be bound as a mere matter of justice to grace the creature fellowship with himself.” In his posthumously published Evangelical Theology: A Course of Popular Lectures (1890), Hodge similarly states, “God offered to man in this gracious Covenant of Works the opportunity of accepting his grace and receiving his covenant gift of a confirmed holy character” (167).

via joelgarver.com – the covenant of works in the reformed tradition.

So A. A. Hodge sounds just like John Calvin.

Charles Hodge on how baptism washes away sin

1 Reply

“How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism.” (Commentary on Ephesians)

RePost: my favorite Anglican scholar/pastor – Part One

6 Replies

As a Presbyterian, I have been helped by many scholars associated with the Anglican Church. The ministry of C. S. Lewis, for example, goes back to early childhood in my Baptist home. I have also been greatly helped by Austin Farrer, as anyone who reads my commentary on Mark’s Gospel will see.

Of course, both Lewis and Farrer have problems. Lewis managed to write a basic intro to the Christian Faith (Mere Christianity) that remains agnostic about how one should understand the atonement (though I’m told his personal convictions were better than this). Farrer I am sure had his own problems. I never bothered to find out much, but simply mined his Bible study for all the riches that could be found in it.

But better than both, I believe, because he is more orthodox, more insightful, and more contemporary, is the Jesus and Pauline scholar N. T. Wright, presently the bishop of Durham.

I began reading Wright in seminary-his two “big books” first. His New Testament and the People of God was absolutely astounding. I admit to getting slightly bored with the philosophical material (though it fit well with my “presuppositional” understanding of knowledge), but his New Testament introduction was simply riveting. No one had ever used the “background” material in so useful a way. It suddenly went from being something I had to learn to something I wanted to learn.

Of course, since Wright was “a British Evangelical,” I viewed him with a good deal of suspicion. I assumed his view of Scripture would be horrible and that he would have a great many other problems (a few years later I did see evidence that he espoused a view of Scripture that I believe failed to do justice to it or to his own use of it; but it took awhile). Farrer had insisted that the Bible did not teach propitiation, for example, so I was prepared for Wright to also join him and argue for expiation. Surely he would not fight for propitiation, I thought.  But he did.  In his lectures on Romans for Regent College he castigated the NIV for not using the word “propitiation” in Romans 3.

In my opinion, the first two books in his “Christian Origins and the Question of God” series should be read by just about everyone who reads books and is a Christian in the twenty-first century. But my reasons for this will have to await a later post.

TO BE CONTINUED

Two of the ways Westminster Treats Law and Gospel

1 Reply

First, it treats them as different administration of the one covenant of grace:

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

See here for more on this distinction.

Another way the Westminster Confession treats law and Gospel is to treat law as all moral commands or duties which human being ought to follow.  In this case there is a contrast between considering the law as demanding perfect obedience and seeing the law as part of the Gospel:

6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

Sacraments, Gospel, and Common Grace

Leave a reply

If memory serves, Berkof stresses that the sacraments only have reference to special grace, not common grace.

Let us define our terms:

Special grace is the grace of God which he gives unconditionally to whoever he chooses to inherit eternal life (for this post we will call them “the elect,” designating that they are chosen for everlasting life in Christ).  This grace is always effectual in bringing about that goal.

Common grace is any grace that can in principle be given both to someone chosen to inherit eternal life–an elect person–and to someone passed over and allowed to, ultimately, remain in their sins (for this post we will call them “the reprobate”).  Common grace is not always identical to universal grace.  Both the elect and the reprobate can enjoy Hawaii but not all of either group (I presume) has enjoyed that blessing of common grace.  All universal grace is common grace but not all common grace is universal grace.  Indeed, some forms of common grace (an Olympic gold medal for example?) may be rare common grace.  “Common” here designates that it is a blessing available or given to both elect and reprobate, not that it is plentiful or universal.

With that in mind, I think we need to be careful how we restrict the sacraments to special grace.  The Gospel is about special grace.  When we preach the Gospel we are presenting, inviting, and challenging hearers with the grace of Jesus in his incarnation, life, death, new life, and ascension.  But our words aren’t only for the elect. The reprobate here them also.  They are challenged by the same message.  To their eternal loss and more severe punishment, they reject the message.

In the same way, it seems to me, the sacraments are an aspect of common grace.  I believe I learned this from John Murray who got it from Dr. Herman Kuiper.

He wrote:

The best classification with which the present writer has become acquainted is that offered by Dr. Herman Kuiper in the work aforementioned. In classifying the various manifestations of grace recognised by Calvin he gives three groups. The first category is that of the “grace which is common to all the creatures who make up this sin-cursed world…a grace which touches creatures as creatures.” This Dr. Kuiper calls universal common grace. There is, secondly, the grace recognised by Calvin as “common to all human beings in distinction from the rest of God’s creatures…a grace which pertains to men as men.” This Dr. Kuiper calls general common grace. Thirdly, there is the grace common not to all creatures and not to all men but to all “who live in the covenant sphere…to all elect and non-elect covenant members.” This Dr. Kuiper calls covenant common grace.

The “covenant sphere” would include or be identical to the visible church.  In the visible church all are recipients of the preaching of the Gospel and the visible church is marked out by sacraments.

Thus, it would seem to me that we need (and do in fact) recognize the sacraments as a kind of common grace.  Those to whom God gives special grace respond in faith to the promises enacted in  these sacraments just as they respond to the preached Gospel.

Paul, Peter, and Wright are my moralists (and Westminster too)

Leave a reply

Due to time constraints, Bishop Wright’s talk was engaging but brief. In many ways, the talk served primarily as a “trailer” for his new book and provided inspiration but little details. However, it was effective in challenging those in attendance to consider the importance and eternal significance of Christian character. My one critique would be that reliance upon the grace of God to accomplish our sanctification is assumed by Wright but not discussed prominently; at one point in the lecture, Wright parenthetically reminds us that “of course, all this is to be done by [God’s] grace alone through faith [in Christ] alone.” I suspect this oversight is due to deficiencies in Wright’s understanding of Union with Christ and to his convictions regarding the role of good works in the future justification of believers.

via Feeding on Christ » Blog Archive » N.T. Wright’s Redeemer Prebyterian Church Lecture.

Even admitting that Wright has a small amount of time to make his presentation, we still have to find theological error in the absence of certain topics?  I simply don’t think this is fair to Wright, nor do I know of any deficiencies in Wright’s understanding of Union with Christ.

How about this stuff from Peter and Paul?  How does it compare to what is said above about Wright’s lecture?

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.

Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”  And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.  For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.  For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.  Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.  For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

By it [repentance], a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments. Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

Q. 85. What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?
A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means [his ordinances] whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.

[Frankly, I suspect N. T. Wright would find the language of Westminster too “conditonal” to be in his comfort zone.]

I put life and death before you…

1 Reply

If the PCA wants to be a little club of churches that fire off pot shots at each other and takes its place in the ecclesiastical world as a micro-denomination that stands ONLY for Reformed Purity rather than Reformed Catholicity, and if the PCA rejects the Kuyperian approach to the rule of Jesus over all areas of life and all of reality, embracing exclusively a view of Christ’s authority in which he rules the Church now but not much else, and if the PCA wants to spend its worship times giving speeches about what the sacraments don’t do rather than what Jesus does by his Spirit in the right administration of the sacraments, turning baptisms into damp dedications and the Lord’s Supper into a funeral service, and if ministerial symbols of office like robes and collars cannot be worn without someone suspecting that those who don such garments are on their way to Rome (or other destinations), then by all means slam the guys at Park Slope, despise the New York Metro Presbytery, spend time hunting down quotes in comment boxes on blogs for evidence of theological impurity, or slander ministers in good standing by misquoting their work while advertising such slander with sensationalistic headlines, and hope to put on trial those who read and quote books written by authors with whom we don’t agree on every single point (or crucial point!). That my friends is not the Reformed world I joined, and it strikes me as tragic, sectarian, and fruitless. There is a better way, and I suspect its about to unfold.

via In Hoc Signo: Report from New York, Part One.