Category Archives: Bible & Theology

The Augsburg Confession on Justifying Faith

Leave a reply

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

And then here is further defense against Roman Catholics:

But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ’s sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ’s sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30.

What I like about these statements is that they respect the wording in Romans 4.4-5.

A slightly different argument between Galatians and Romans

2 Replies

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

So writes Paul in Galatians, chapter 3. But he is arguing against circumcision which did not come 430 years later. It was given to Abraham. So in Romans 4, Paul doesn’t spend as much time contrasting Abraham to Moses as he does contrasting Abra[ha]m in Genesis 15 to Abraham in Genesis 17:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is those of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

In that last sentence, Paul jumps the 430 years. But the rest of it is all about the shift that occurred within the time frame of Abraham’s own life.

The way slogans seduce us: Angel, Absurdism, and Faith (not the girl)

Leave a reply

YouTube – Joss Whedon: Atheist & Absurdist.

I love Joss but I have extreme skepticism about what he claims he has suffered for his atheism. I also hate the hearing the word “faith” used for an opinion on God’s existence. Whether or not God is trustworthy is a matter of faith. Whether or not he exists has nothing to do with faith (and Hebrews doesn’t say otherwise).

But I’m posting this because I remember actually liking Angel’s slogan: “If what we do doesn’t matter; then all that matters is what we do.” And I feel really stupid for not seeing the irrationality of it immediately. Sometimes I think paradoxes give off the glint of hidden wisdom when they are just plain nonsense.

Angel’s conclusion at the end of Season 2 (or near the end) was that (to repeat) “If what we do doesn’t matter then all that matters is what we do.”

If what we do doesn’t matter, then anything might matter except what we do. You can’t draw the contradiction of a premise from that premise as if it followed as a conclusion from it.

Now that I’ve gotten that issue out of the way (in my own mind, at least), let me say why I think Whedon’s view appeals to people, especially to Christians.

Being able to evaluate and value one’s decisions and commitments without having knowledge of the eternal plan for them is a requirement for the human condition. It is set forth most starkly in the Bible in the book called Ecclesiastes.

So, I think the appeal is precisely because Joss’ view is a close replica of the truth.

But I don’t think it works if there is no plan at all. (And claiming there is no plan seems to actually assert endless knowledge rather than humbly deny it. But that argument would be endless, so I’ll let it go.) It is one thing to make decisions and do your best without understanding why your circumstances exist or how you fit into a larger picture. But it is another to say that there is no picture.

To really act as Angel does actually requires faith. And that, in my opinion, is why Whedon had to include a miracle in his story. Viewers would have felt like there was no point without it.

The Law is …. of faith? (from Psalm 119)

Leave a reply

Waw:

Let your steadfast love come to me, O Lord,
your salvation according to your promise;
then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me,
for I trust in your word.
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
for my hope is in your rules.
I will keep your law continually,
forever and ever,
and I shall walk in a wide place,
for I have sought your precepts.
I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love.
I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love,
and I will meditate on your statutes.

Zayin:

Remember your word to your servant,
in which you have made me hope.
This is my comfort in my affliction,
that your promise gives me life.
The insolent utterly deride me,
but I do not turn away from your law.
When I think of your rules from of old,
I take comfort, O Lord.
Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked,
who forsake your law.
Your statutes have been my songs
in the house of my sojourning.
I remember your name in the night, O Lord,
and keep your law.
This blessing has fallen to me,
that I have kept your precepts.

See also:

The Protestant Love Ethic

3 Replies

While in pagan mythologies Wisdom and Love are two very different and often-conflicting goddesses, in the Bible, Sophia is both. The evidence is not only in Canticles but in Proverbs. Proverbs is the love book.

Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love.

Hatred stirs up strife,
but love covers all offenses.

[“Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” — 1 Peter 4.8]

Better is a dinner of herbs where love is
than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

Whoever covers an offense seeks love,
but he who repeats a matter separates close friends.

[“…does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. — 1 Corinthians 13.6]

A friend loves at all times,
and a brother is born for adversity.

[Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. — 1 Corinthians 13.7]

As a book about love, Proverbs stresses peace with and help to others.

Hatred stirs up strife,
but love covers all offenses. [again]

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,
but a man of understanding remains silent.
Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets,
but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered.

The beginning of strife is like letting out water,
so quit before the quarrel breaks out.

It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife,
but every fool will be quarreling.

And more conventional “charity” is also covered. Helping the poor is an important concern in Proverbs:

Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner,
but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.

Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker;
he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD,
and he will repay him for his deed.

Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
will himself call out and not be answered.

Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,
for he shares his bread with the poor.

And yet along with all these imperatives to love and share and promote peace, we find the basics of the market ethics laid out. In fact, in the second section of Proverbs, it is laid out right at the beginning. Proverbs 10.1-5:

The proverbs of Solomon.

A wise son makes a glad father,
but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.
Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit,
but righteousness delivers from death.
The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry,
but he thwarts the craving of the wicked.
A slack hand causes poverty,
but the hand of the diligent makes rich.
He who gathers in summer is a prudent son,
but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.

Notice the argument of these first five verses that set up everything that follows:

  1. You can be wise or foolish
  2. You can try to steal, plunder, or cheat but God will not allow you to prosper.
  3. The way of prosperity is faithful work. That is the wise way to go. Don’t be a shameful/foolish son.

In the second of the awesome Keynes v. Hayek rap-videos, “Hayek” pleads:

We need stable rules and real market prices
So prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis
Give us a chance so we can discover
The most valuable ways serve one another

I know that Hayek’s claim that the market is a means of serving others will meet with mockery and derision by some. But “Hayek” is obviously right and wise. Solomon would agree. Right along with loving your wife and refusing the ways of violence and theft and deceit (“force and fraud” as the Libertarians would put it) is the command to work hard, to save money, and to try with all diligence to become rich if possible.

A slack hand causes poverty,
but the hand of the diligent makes rich.

One gives freely, yet grows all the richer;
another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.

Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man;
he who loves wine and oil will not be rich.

The reward for humility and fear of the LORD
is riches and honor and life.

Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;
open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.

What shows that we live in a foolish age is that we don’t see how all these imperatives to love entail and demand imperatives to work hard and save in order to build wealth. But it is the most obvious thing in the world:

How do you love your neighbor?

You help them out in their time of need.

How else?

Many ways.

And what don‘t you do?

You don’t rob or kill them.

Duh.

But a major point of Proverbs is that decisions to do right and refrain from wrong demand other decisions so that you can become a person who can do right. In this case, if you don’t want to take from others, you need to endeavor to provide for yourself. If it is more blessed to give than receive then it is more blessed to produce than to consume. And if you can’t support yourself, how can you ever help others? You will be too busy begging them to help you, and resisting the urge to steal from them. As the Apostle Paul summarized:  “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Ephesians 4.28).

Supporting oneself is fundamentally an act of loving one’s neighbor. Not everyone is able to do it, but everyone should want to do so. Because everyone is supposed to love.

In other words, if “capitalism” means a free market (rather than a crony kleptocracy), then to oppose capitalism is to oppose love and promote hatred.

Capitalism is the Marxist term for Christian society.

Related:

Biblical parenting?

Leave a reply

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.” And the three of them came out. And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.

When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb.” And Moses cried to the LORD, “O God, please heal her—please.” But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.” So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.

via Passage: Numbers 12 (ESV Bible Online).

So is this some kind of example of “law” that we must look to “the Gospel” in order to be rescued from it? But how can it be “law” for God to acknowledge Miriam as a daughter and wait for her to be reconciled to Himself and the rest of her family (including Moses’ “foreign” wife)?

And in any case, Paul uses exactly the same ideas.

As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

via Passage: 2 Thessalonians3.13-15 (ESV Bible Online).

Darwinism is atheism but the reverse isn’t true

Leave a reply

Physicalism per se can’t vindicate adaptationism [Darwinism] … Arguably, what determines which trait was selected-for is which laws governed the selection: given the laws, the counterfactuals follow; given the counterfactuals, you can distinguish a trait that isselected-for from a trait that isn’t. But physicalism isn’t committed to any particular inventory of laws; it says only that every causal intervention falls under some physical law or other. It follows from physicalism that if there is such a process as natural selection, it falls under physical laws (inter alia). But that says nothing at all about whether there is such a process. S the next time someone tells you that adaptationism is required by the ‘scientific world view’, we recommend that you bite his or her ankle. (p. 130)

via Jerry Fodor shows why Dawkins is wrong in saying “We must believe Darwinism” | Uncommon Descent.

The Reformers’ New Perspective

Leave a reply

Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Calvin’s New Perspective.

Others were saying this?

How about Heinrich Bullinger:

And indeed one may easily get in trouble here unless one proceeds on the royal highway. For those people who consider only the conditions of the covenant and in fact disregard the grace and promise of God exclude infants from the covenant. It is true that children not only do not observe the terms of the covenant but also do not even understand these terms. But those who view only the sacrament, ceremony, or sign of the covenant count some in the covenant who are really excluded. But if you consider each one separately, one at a time, not only according to the conditions of the covenant but also in terms of the promise or the mercy of God, and the age and reason of a person, then you will realize that all those who believe from among the Jews and the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham with whom the Lord made the covenant. In the meantime, however, their offspring, that is, their children, have by no means been excluded from the covenant. They are excluded, however, if having reached the age of reason they neglect the conditions of the covenant.

In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates. They are mistaken who boast about their prerogatives as sons of the family by virtue of birth. For he who violates the laws of piety toward parents is no different from a slave; indeed, he is lower than a slave, because even by the law of nature itself he owes more to his parents. Truly this debate about the seed of Abraham has been settled for us by the prophets and the apostles, specifically that not everyone who is born of Abraham is the seed of Abraham, but only he who is a son of the promise, that is, who is faithful, whether Jew or Gentile. For the Jews have already neglected the basic conditions of the covenant, while at the same time they glorified themselves as the people of God, relying on circumcision and the fact that they were born from the parent Abraham. Indeed, this error is denied and attacked not only by Christ along with the apostles but also by the entire body of the prophets (The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant with God, in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker [Louisville, KY: W/JKP, 1991], 106).

That’s a start.

Nero never lasts

2 Replies

It is an abomination to kings to do evil,
for the throne is established by righteousness.

via Passage: Proverbs 16:12 (ESV Bible Online).

I have never had time to prove all the ways this is true, but Romans 12 is stuffed with Proverbs. The point where he is acknowledge to quote Proverbs is almost misleading because almost everything else he says in chapter 12 is also from Solomon.

And if you know Proverbs, then the transition to Romans 13 makes complete sense. Paul’s perspective ™ on kings is Solomon’s view of kings. Objectively a king must practice righteousness to prosper on the throne. Evil kings there are many, but they always undermine their own dynasties.

And your job is not to talk up rebellion, but to appeal to the king’s only real source of security: you are to treat him as a judge who must do right.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

One thing that might help here is to realize that Solomon’s perspective is multi-generational. The righteous prosper through their children and grandchildren while the wicked are removed from power and wealth in three to four generations. Perhaps I can show that in a another post some time.

(The ™ thing is kind of an inside joke. If it doesn’t mean anything to you, don’t worry about it.)

Romans 5.20-6.1

1 Reply

Here is Romans 5.20 in the ESV: “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…”

Looks just fine, doesn’t it? English translations typically use a contrasting conjunction (“but”) when the Greek word could just as easily mean “and.”

But why did God send the law for the purpose of increasing the trespass? Might it not have been done to make grace abound? Didn’t Israel’s sin culminate in the crucifixion of Jesus? In which case, “their trespass means riches for the world, and … their failure means riches for the nations” (from Romans 11).

And if we look at how this passage leads into the question/accusation in 6.1, the contrast looks even shakier.

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?

Typically, people treat the question in Romans 6.1 as dealing with everything Paul has said in chapters 1-5. But wouldn’t it make more sense, since Paul brings up the question at this precise point in his letter, to consider that the question follows from the last thing Paul wrote before the question? In which case, I propose we eliminate the contrast and make it simplter:

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, and 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?

So God sent the law to increase the trespass so that Jesus would be presented as a propitiation through Israel’s culminating sin and the wrath that should have fallen on the planet is received by him instead. God “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8.3) and thus made grace abound. So since God used sin to produce grace, Paul’s opponents mock him by asking “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?”