Monthly Archives: May 2011

A Brit uses the H-word

3 Replies

I spoke just now of fiddling while Rome burns. But to a Christian the true tragedy of Nero must be not that he fiddled while the city was on fire but that he fiddled on the brink of hell. You must forgive me for the crude monosyllable. I know that many wiser and better Christians than I in these days do not like to mention heaven and hell even in the pulpit. I know, too, that nearly all the references to this subject in the New Testament come from a single source. But then that source is Our Lord himself. People will tell you it is St. Paul, but that is untrue. These overwhelming doctrines are dominical. They are not really removable from the teaching of Christ or of His Church. If we do not believe them, our presence in this church is great tomfoolery. If we do, we must overcome our spiritual prudery and mention them.

–C. S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time”

Professing believers

Leave a reply

“But how do we know someone to be unregenerate? The Bible gives us only one criterion — fruit, which is seen in the various works of the flesh. But infancy in a godly household is not a work of the flesh . . . The children of at least one believer are described as holy ones, or saints (1 Cor. 7:14)” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 20).

via Little Saints.

Crushing the righteous in the gate? We’ll see next week

1 Reply

With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor,
but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.
When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices,
and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.
By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted,
but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown

Here are some resources for those who 1. care about the Bible and 2. think the Reformed Heritage allows us to care about the Bible.

LINK (Note, I pasted the most relevant links directly in this post but it changed the urls for some reason. But they still work in the original entry)

If none of this interests you, consider that you may have one week left to read the PCA’s most widely-published and widely read theologian, with the possible exception of Tim Keller.  In addition to his books, and his blog, you might also find interesting his writings for Touchstone Magazine and those in First Things.

Here are three reviews of Peter’s latest book, Defending Constantine (IVP),

Also I recently found this going on at Duke University as one of their “discernment groups”:

Church and Empire

This group will reflect on the conflict and cooperation of church and empire. We’ll read selections from The Original Revolution, by John Howard Yoder, and then move to read a new book called Defending Constantine, by Peter Leithart. This group is for students interested in wrestling seriously with the political implications of the Christian faith. We’ll meet weekly or bi-weekly depending on interest and availability.

Perhaps PCA authors get this kind of coverage at Duke all the time and this isn’t noteworthy at all.

I have to admit I’m not sure how to pray for Peter.

If Daniel gets thrown into the lion’s den and the lions want to eat pizza and drink beer with him and discuss what the Bible really says, while Daniel’s accusers bite and devour one another outside, one is inclined to think he has been delivered from Babylon rather than condemned.

Also, while I assume his vindication would continue to be given the eery silent treatment that most Christians show to denominations behaving badly (or trying to), I keep wondering if a false verdict would break that silence. Suddenly we would have people in the wider Evangelical and non-Evangelical world talking about baptism, justification, the Bible, and the Reformed heritage. The Escondido revisionism would be openly acknowledged, and a great many other things that could use some light and fresh air.

Is not rat stink enshrined in the Bill of Rights?

Leave a reply

If I line up (at times) with Lew Rockwell, who thinks the Constitution was statist from the beginning, I have to explain myself. If I throw my support behind (say) a Romney the way Hugh Hewitt has in the past, the associational argument evaporates.

But wait a minute. Patrick Henry thought the Constitution as first presented was a statist document. Is he the only one who gets to smell a rat? The first generation of our founders thought the objection potent enough to attach the Bill of Rights to the document, and what is the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is the testimony of our founders that the Constitution as it was first presented created an opening for the erosion of all our rights. I think the Bill of Rights was an adequate firewall in principle (albeit not in practice), but what exactly about subsequent events has demonstrated that such concerns were misplaced? Without the Bill of Rights, we would have turned into the soft despotism we have now a generation or two earlier than we did.

I grant that in America we still have more freedoms than most places in the world, and I really am grateful for that. But our dwindling freedoms will not be maintained if we persist on kidding ourselves about how many of them we have already lost. What is the current price for a modern American to fly across the country? Right. Hundreds of dollars for the ticket, and one crotch check administered by a surly bureaucrat in uniform.

via Bright Lights and Big Bugs.

The feminine role model for men?

Leave a reply

16 A gracious woman gets honor,
and violent men get riches.
17 A man who is kind benefits himself,
but a cruel man hurts himself.
18 The wicked earns deceptive wages,
but one who sows righteousness gets a sure reward.
19 Whoever is steadfast in righteousness will live,
but he who pursues evil will die.
20 Those of crooked heart are an abomination to the Lord,
but those of blameless ways are his delight.
21 Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished,
but the offspring of the righteous will be delivered.
22 Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
is a beautiful woman without discretion.

via Passage: Proverbs 11 (ESV Bible Online).

I started this post thinking to only include the first three verses. But it suddenly looks to me like the second mention of a woman could count as the end of a thematic piece. Perhaps more on that later. Notice now how verse 16 contrasts a woman and a man. Both get stuff they want. Verse 17, however, informs us that kindness helps men as well as women. Cruelty hurts the practitioner.  Then verse 18 points out that the riches gained by violent men won’t actually profit them.

I thought of these three verses while listening to a news roundup on TV which brought up recent celebrities who have mistreated women. The consensus was that men are savages without the help of women to bring civilization. My first reaction was to reject this idea, and I do reject a lot of the Darwinian framework in which this claim is usually fit.

But it does seem like Solomon observes that some women learn wisdom by adapting to their lack of power and that men would be well-served to observe their ways and refuse to use the power they have to get what they want. There are better ways to get there, and the wise woman, the woman Wisdom, knows it.

Revisiting the distortion

Leave a reply

I found this in the comment of another blog post and think it deserves (non-typological but literal) re-publication:

I have read both volumes of Justification and Variegated Nomism. After reading the first volume (for those who do not know, the one interacting with Sanders’ view of Judaism) I was pleased to find that almost every published review I read (and I read many) had the same opinion of it that I did: excellent (though uneven in quality) collection of essays that critically engage Sanders and a concluding-summary essay (Carson’s) that misrepresents the contributors.

Though the contributors have differing assessments of the adequacy of Sanders’ model for their assigned types of Jewish literature, most think that Sanders’ critique of the traditional view of Judaism (e.g., merit-theology, earning salvation, priority of “works” over “grace,” traditional Lutheran-Reformed views of Judaism, etc.) is correct; many think his “covenantal nomism” model helpfully captures the dynamics of their assigned Jewish works to varying degrees; a common criticism (one of the same ones I have of Sanders too) is that Sanders asks Protestant questions of Jewish sources. Just for fun, one of the authors (Richard Bauckham) doesn’t think Sanders went far enough: Bauckham thinks that 4 Ezra also manifest the pattern of “covenantal nomism.” Those who have read Sanders will know that 4 Ezra was a writing he considered an exception to “covenantal nomism.” He thought it represented good ‘ole fashioned legalism.

Don’t get me wrong, some contributors were more critical of Sanders than others, but they did not advocate a return to the traditional view of Judaism (e.g., legalism, etc.). Some think Philip Alexander’s essay is an exception, but his main critique is mine: stop asking Protestant questions of Jewish sources. Mark Seifrid’s tendentious essay on righteousness language in the Hebrew Bible and Early Jewish sources is also a highly critical exception that remains difficult to take seriously (I doubt many broader scholars would deny that it’s a highly theologically-motivated/slanted treatment of the data). Carson made me laugh when he referenced perhaps the most inane snipped of it in his RTS lectures; how Seifrid points out that “covenant” and “faithfulness” never occur next to each other in the Hebrew Bible. That’s about as persuasive a criticism to broader scholars as me pointing out to folks here that “Christ’s righteousness” is a phrase that never occurs in Paul’s writings.

Carson’s summary essay, however, gives the impression that the contributors were far more critical of Sanders than they actually were and that they were critical of Sanders in ways that they were not. Carson does this primarily through the rhetoric of the “diversity” of Early Judaism; e.g., Sanders is right about some ancient Jewish sources, but in general it’s just so diverse, it’s just so diverse, it’s just so diverse, etc. etc. etc. Overall Carson, through this rhetoric, implies the irrelevance of Sanders’ work for reading Paul. He furthermore implicitly (and this comes through quite clearly in the 2nd volume of the series) leaves open the option of just reading Paul and ancient Judaism the way they’ve always been read. The logic seeming to be that since the Sanders challenge has been overcome, there is now no viable competing alternative to the traditional view.

This is disingenuous historical arguing that only persuades non-specialists and/or people who just want to know that the NPP is wrong and traditional readings are correct. The fact that Sanders’ formulation only applies to a few (and not most) early Jewish sources would in no way certify traditional readings of Paul and cleaned-up traditional articulations of Judaism in the old Lutheran-Reformed mold. One has to offer positive arguments for the traditional readings as well. Given my focus thus far how Carson’s concluding essay to volume 1 misrepresents matters, his suggestion in the RTS lectures that people there just skip all the essays in the volume and read only his introduction and conclusion is…well…humorous to me.

Carson’s rhetoric of “Judaism is just so diverse” is a smoke-screen for smuggling in a cleaned-up traditional view of Judaism. One can see this from his own words elsewhere. See, for example, the revised version of his dissertation, “Despite all the diversity which enriches intertestamental Judaism, certain trends are so clear they can scarcely be ignored. With the partial exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls, legalism is on the rise, and with it merit theology” (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, 120).

Just to be clear, I too affirm the diversity of Hellenistic and Roman-era “Judaism.” In fact, my own projects seek to deepen articulations of that diversity by emphasizing…well…perhaps more on that when I or others I know who are tracking down the same path publish our thoughts on this : ).

BTW, the main problem with the second volume of the series is that the authors start with “the conclusions” of volume 1, by which they mean what Carson’s concluding essay distortingly lays out. They generally do not grapple with how they need to offer positive arguments for why the traditional questions they still bring to the texts are the most salient and contextually fitting, if that makes sense.

This may be more of a reply than you wanted or expected. A while back I started writing a review-article of the Justification and Variegated Nomism series. Perhaps I will complete and publish it at some point in the future. For now you get part of its basic argument :).

Quite amazing. And, by the way, even if some essential point of orthodoxy was at stake (which is totally not the case), Job’s warning would still apply:

Will you speak falsely for God
and speak deceitfully for him?
Will you show partiality toward him?
Will you plead the case for God?
Will it be well with you when he searches you out?
Or can you deceive him, as one deceives a man?
He will surely rebuke you
if in secret you show partiality.
Will not his majesty terrify you,
and the dread of him fall upon you?
Your maxims are proverbs of ashes;
your defenses are defenses of clay.

Propitiation is in the Gospel after all….

Leave a reply

One of the personal oddities about this post, is that it brings me full circle. I’ve always taught and preached that Jesus’ work on the cross was propitiatory, but for the last decade or two I’ve been convinced that “the Gospel” denotes a more specific message about Jesus being Lord by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. Romans provides much evidence for this…

But now my reading of Romans 1.16-3.27 leads me to understand that Paul insists that the Gospel reveals God’s wrath, as part of revealing his righteousness.

And it reveals God’s wrath by revealing how it was all put upon Jesus on the cross.

Was there an act of unfaithfulness related to the propitiation that Jesus provided?

1 Reply

Paul writes that the Gospel reveal’s God’s righteousness (i.e. that it proves that he is righteous). It also somehow reveals God’s wrath:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For [in it] the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth….

Note that I am now reading the passage so that the wrath is not something revealed somewhere or somehow else, to be answered by the Gospel, but it revealed also in the Gospel itself.

Thus begin Romans 1.16 to climax at the end of chapter 3. In that passage we find God’s righteousness is demonstrated twice, first by Jewish unfaithfulness and then next by the death of Jesus as a propitiation of God’s wrath:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.  What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?  By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”

But if our unrighteousness serves to show God’s righteousness, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)  By no means! For then how could God judge the world?  But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?  And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

But now the God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of  Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, through faithfulness. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faithfulness of Jesus.

So think real hard: Was the death of Jesus somehow associated with the unfaithfulness of Israel so that both could be said together to show God’s righteousness?

And then what about other passages–are these unrelated?

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification… Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,  in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.  Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Make sense? And yes, I’m wondering if God wanted to “show his wrath and make known his power” in the cross of Christ. Despite being “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” Paul clearly states that their hardening was “partial,” meaning temporary. While some were indeed hardened in the way we Calvinists think of (for else how could God judge the world?–as Paul asked earlier) the statement seems primarily directed to God’s putting forward of Jesus as a propitiation.

But if Romans 9 (or 7) makes you stumble, just drop it out of the argument…

Thus, the humbly named “Horne thesis on Romans” in a nutshell.

Five things I teach as a Christian: TULIP

Leave a reply

The “TULIP” acronym may be of recent vintage, but it works and gives us a bumper-sticker version of the Canons of Dordt.

T = Total Depravity

Maybe “Thorough” is a better term. All human beings throughout history, except Adam and Eve originally, and Jesus, were, are and will be sinful. Furthermore, this sin means that, whatever noble and good things one finds in a human being, one will never find anyone, of themselves, producing true faith in God and repentance from false gods or “gods.” This sets us up for the next second and especially the fourth letter in the acronym.

U = Unconditional Election

Out of their depraved and guilty state, God chooses to have mercy to everlasting life on some but not on all. He chooses these people on the basis only of his mercy, not on the basis of any relative merits they might have compared to others, or any other supposed or real good works they allegedly have done or will do in the future. He chooses to bring to bring these people to everlasting life and, unless he so chooses, they will resist his offers of mercy just like everyone else (see T above).

L = Limited Atonement

Some people claim that, by sending his son to die and rise, God was only attempting to save all humanity or as much as humanity as he hoped was possible. It is true that the cross represents God’s love to all who hear about it and that any hearer should respond to the message by faith and repentance. But God did not forget his intention for history and for individuals in sending his Son to bring obtain salvation for all who would obey him. He had those particularly in mind throughout history that he had unconditionally chosen (see U above) from eternity. He sent his Son especially for them and, in that sense, for them only.

I = Irresistible Grace

Just as all people are inherently oriented to be hostile to the true God (see T above) so God is able to change them so that they willingly repent and believe the Gospel. There is no one so evil or unbelieving that God cannot change them in this way by his unmerited blessing of the Holy Spirit given through Jesus Christ.

P = Perseverance of the Elect

Those whom God has chosen for eternal life (U above) and has morally transformed by Jesus and the Spirit (I above) will, despite any wavering during life, ultimately persevere in faith and so inherit eternal life. No one else will do so.

Introducing the speech issue in the second book in Proverbs

Leave a reply

I’ve already mentioned how Proverbs 10.1-5 form an introduction to the second book in Proverbs. It lays out foolishness and wisdom as basic choices related to whether one will plunder or produce. The next seven verses are a second stage introduction which adds to the choice between plunder and productivity the issue of speech:

6 Blessings are on the head of the righteous,
but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.
7 The memory of the righteous is a blessing,
but the name of the wicked will rot.

8 The wise of heart will receive commandments,
but a babbling fool will come to ruin.

9 Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,
but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.

10 Whoever winks the eye causes trouble,
and a babbling fool will come to ruin.

11 The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,
but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.
12 Hatred stirs up strife,
but love covers all offenses.

A few comments:

The speech of the wicked is contrasted with the fact that the wise listen (v. 8).

Two kinds of speech are condemned: mindless chatter and scheming deception (v. 10)

Scheming doesn’t work because it gets discovered (v. 9).

In the end it is all about choosing love over hate (v. 12).

Wise speech is life-giving because it is selective and thus rare. This section begins with listening rather than babbling and ends with covering offenses in silence.