Christology

"To summarize, it is not via kenotic Christologies but via a theology of divine accomomodation that we are able to uphold the two natures of Christ in one person. Not only in the incarnation but throughout the history of God's covenant with his people God remains God while entering into solidarity with human beings and creation more generally. God is "haveable" because he has given himself, and yet he remains "other:" free from as well as for the world. By uniting himself to our flesh, the Son executes in time the redemptive determination in eternity. The incarnation is therefore the culmination of covenantal accommodation. We have indeed met a stranger, but is hs also flesh of our flesh, a mediator "who in every respect has been tested as we are, and yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). In this event, God is haveable without being fully possessed; given without being enclosed; brought into the most intimate solidarity with humanity without any loss to the deity that would place redemption beyond reach. As in all analogical revelation, so too here - even in the univocal core that is Jesus Christ - there is more to God than meets the eye."

- Michael Horton, Lord and Servant, pg. 177

Sanctification

"Our conformity is rather to Jesus Christ in the mundane experience of his historical existence, an existence marked by fears and trails, faith and hope, continually strengthened, comforted and inspired by the Spirit of God through suffering and temptation as he sought in loving obedience to accomplish the will of the Father. Our destiny is not that we might be made divine but rather that we might at last become truly human."

- Alan Spence, "Christ's Humanity and Ours" in Persons, Divine and Human, pg. 97

NNPP

A new acronymn we should coin: "Not the New Perspective on Paul" - taken from a lecture given by Francis Watson, a talk which is a model of British academic wit and exegetical acumen. What's interesting about Watson is that he's actually a former NPP proponent who has turned from his old assumptions and now become a tremendous critic of his former school of thought. I always think it's a rarity when academics not only change their mind, but are willing to actually admit it in such a public manner. In this respect, Watson mirrors the one he has dedicated his scholarly life to studying: the Apostle Paul.

Prayer books

I heard a stirring sermon this morning from a fellow student on the subject of prayer, from Colossians 4:2-4. He concentrated on the importance of "being watchful in prayer" and what that entails.

I realize that reading about prayer should certainly not replace prayer itself, but the following three books have helped me to think about prayer more biblically, and I commend them to you if you are interested in the subject:

Lord, Teach Us How to Pray by Alexander Whyte
The Soul of Prayer by P.T. Forsyth
The Method of Prayer by Matthew Henry

Barth and Trinity

"As for how we are to conceive of the three members of the Trinity, Barth holds that God can have only one personality, for if Jesus Christ were a personality different from the Father, He would not be the Father's self-revelation. He therefore suggests abandoning the term 'person' to refer to the members of the Trinity, because that word inevitably implies 'personality' which would amount to tritheism. Barth prefers the Cappadocian terminology of three mutually related modes or ways of being of the one God. He connects God's personhood or subjectivity with the divine substance or 'ousia' rather than with the three 'hypostases.'"

- Metzler, Norman, Concordia Theological Quarterly 67.3-4, pg. 273.

Pannenberg

"Pannenberg's understanding of the nature of the theological task gives rise to a theology oriented toward two intertwined focal points - reason and hope. The significance of the term 'reason' is obvious...theology is a rational undertaking. The term 'hope' capsulizes the thoroughgoing eschatological orientation of his program. Since his entire systematic theology focuses on the eschaton we may characterize it as a theology of hope. Foundational to the whole of Pannenberg's theology is the concept of the kingdom of God understood as the glory of the Trinity demonstrated in God's rulership over creation."
- Olson and Grenz, 20th Cent. Theology, pg. 190.

Sort of sounds like they're describing Vos, aye?

Christology

"It is here usual to enquire, whether Christ as Mediator is inferior to the Father, and subordinate to him. But this controvery, it seems, may be easily settled among the orthodox: if the Mediator be considered in the state of humiliation, and the form of a servant, he is certainly inferior to the Father and subordinate to him; see John 14:28 "The Father is greater than I." Nay, we may look upon the very mediatorial office in itself as importing a certain economical inferiority, or subordination; as being to be laid down, when all things shall be perfectly finished, and God himself shall be all in all , I Cor 15:28."

Herman Witisus, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, pg. 184.

New Exodus and Gal 5:18

Studying Galatians 5 has sort of been a pet project of mine throughout my time in seminary, so I'm excited when scholars produce helpful and insightful exegesis of this passage, particularly when they are sensitive to the redemptive-historical motifs that run through Paul's writings. So I was delighted when I happened upon this review about a book entitled "Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Gal. 5:18" by William Wilder. (Gal. 5:18 says, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law") Here is a snippet of the review:

"What Wilder observes is that - contrary to conventional interpretations of this verse - Paul has in mind a 'new exodus' typology in which the guiding Spirit corresponds to the exodus cloud and existence 'under the law' to the Israelites' bondage in Egypt...Wilder looks at the contexts of salvation history, exodus typology, and Paul's apocalyptic perspective before probing Ps. 143:2, 10 as the specific background for Gal 5:18."

Barak

"Perhaps more pertinent to our politics is the name Barack (sometimes spelled Barak) which presumably refers to the warrior who served under the direction of a strong willed woman executive named Deborah (see Judges 4). This has led practitioners of a peculiar style of biblical prognostication to conclude that the senator will accept the vice-presidential nomination on a ticket headed by a strong-willed woman of our time...."

Richard John Neuhaus, First Things March 2007, pg. 68

History and Faith

It seems to me inescapable...that anyone who chanced to read the pages of the NT for the first time would come away with one overwhelming impression - that here is a faith that 'does not understand itself to be the discovering and imparting of generally valid, timeless truths,' but that is firmly based on certain allegedly historical events - a faith which would be false and misleading if those events had not actually taken place, but which, if they did take place, is unique in its relevance and exlusive in its demands on our allegiance.

- Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History, pg. 14.

Covenant seminary courses online

Covenant seminary is kindly offering many of their courses online for free. I think many of their instructors are great lecturers: I'm familiar mostly with David Calhoun and Dan Doriani, both of whom have courses on this site.

Qur'an and the Bible

Contrast the first statement by Reza Aslan, a Muslim theologian, to the second statement by Geerhardus Vos, a Christian theologian.

1. "The Quran is considered to be direct revelation, the actual words of God handed down through Muhammad, who was little more than a passive conduit. In purely literary terms, the Quran is God’s dramatic monologue. It does not recount God’s communion with humanity; it is God’s communion with humanity…"

2. "Because God desires to be known after this (covenantal) fashion, He has caused His revelation to take place in the milieu of the historical life of a people. The circle of revelation is not a school, but a covenant. To speak of revelation as an 'education' of humanity is a rationalistic and utterly unscriptural way of speaking. All that God has disclosed of Himself has come in response to the practical religious needs of His people as these emerged in the course of history...it (the Bible) has not completed itself in one exhaustive act, but unfolded itself in a long series of successive acts."

Lolita

The reader will regret to learn that soon after my return to civilization I had another bout with insanity (if to melancholia and a sense of insufferable oppression that cruel term must be applied). I owe my complete restoration to a discovery I made while being treated at that particular very expensive sanatorium. I discovered there was an endless source of robust enjoyment trifling with psychiatrists: cunningly leading them on, never letting them see that you know all the tricks of the trade; inventing for them elaborate dreams, pure classics in style (which make them, the dream extortionists, dream and wake up shrieking). By bribing a nurse I won access to some files I discovered with glee, cards calling me "potentially homosexual" and "totally impotent." The sport was so excellent - its results - in my case - so ruddy that I stayed on for a whole month after I was quite well (sleeping admirably and eating like a schoolgirl).
- Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita, pg. 34.

So here's a question: Should Sabbatarians watch the Super Bowl this Sunday? Notice I did not say "Christians" because that would mean I would have to defend the practice of keeping the Lord's Day holy: something that has already been satisfactorily done by Joseph Pipa and even the pope. But assuming that you believe the Lord's Day should be sanctified along the lines of the 4th commandment and the summary of the commandment in WCF 21.8 and LC 116-121, then I will make what is perhaps a bold statement: watching the Super Bowl is inconsistent with biblical Sabbath keeping. The reason, in short: the 4th commandment states that "You are to do no work" and then goes on to state that one's family and animals are also under the purview of this injunction. What is more, "the stranger who is within your gates" is also forbidden from doing work. (As one of my professors has said, the Sabbath is not just about receiving rest, but also giving rest to others.) It seems to me that by willingly (even enthusiastically) participating in watching others work, we are not following the spirit of this law, which is to both rest ourselves and to give others rest as well.

The objection may arise (and I've heard it many a time): "refraining from watching is not going to prevent them from working, so it's not an issue." Firstly, the logic behind this seems like "Well, the stranger who is within my gates will work elsewhere unless I let him work here, so I better let him work here on the day of rest." Secondly, one must again question the assumption behind this statement. For the main concern is not whether one's watching is forcing someone to work or not, but whether one's participation is at the very least an implicit approval of others working, which Sabbatarians do not believe is appropriate on the Lord's day.

It seems to me that if we as Christians want to be "counter-cultural," then resting on the Lord's day is a good place to begin...

Christian Freudom

No, that's not a misspelling. It's a clever phrase Carl Trueman develops in a characteristically winsome manner in a recent article for Reformation21 online. He begins by discussing the complexity of human motivation, and that sometimes even in "serious" theological discourse we can see Freud's insights at work. For example, a person writing a very critical appraisal of dispensational eschatology might also be trying to free himself from the clutches of his fundamentalist upbringing by exposing the shaky doctrine he was taught as a child. Next, Trueman goes to point out that many young Reformed folk have adopted practices they consider "Christian freedom" but are in fact only strong reactions to a legalistic background. Drinking or smoking then becomes the classic expression of Christian liberty. Here's part of the conclusion (I recommend reading the rest for yourself!):

"In closing, it is perhaps worth mentioning the most famous foul-mouthed Christian beer drinker of them all: Martin Luther. It is a well-known fact that his language was rough and ready, frequently obscene, and that it became more extreme and offensive the longer he lived. Over the years, scholars have wrestled with the reasons for this, from his dysfunctional relationship with his father to his chronic constipation to his desire to present himself as a man of the common people. Certainly, the extremity of his vocabulary raises all manner of interesting psychological questions. But what is interesting is that – to my knowledge – Luther does not make his foul-mouth the test case of Christian freedom and maturity; and beer drinking is only the most trivial instance for him of such liberty. Indeed, Luther actually emphasizes rather different elements in his understanding of Christian freedom...."

Gaffin on Union

If, then, we ask, what is the ground of the justification that is mine in union with Christ, the basis of my being justified in him, then, it seems, there are just three conceivable options in reading Paul: (a) Christ's own righteousness, complete and finished in his obedience culminating on the cross, the righteousness that he now is and embodies in his exaltation; (b) the union itself, the fact of the relationship, the existence the uniting bond, as such; or (c) the righteousness and obedience being produced by the transforming work of the Spirit in those in union with Christ. In short, in union with Christ, the ground of justification is resident either in Christ as distinct from the believer, in the bond between Christ and the believer itself, or in the believer as distinct from Christ.

It appears that the current readiness to dispense with imputation stems from taking either of the latter two factors just mentioned, whether or not intentionally, as in effect, the ground of justification. But neither is sustainable. The relationship as such, no matter how real and intimate, in distinction from the persons in that relationship, cannot be the basis of my justification. Clearly in Paul it is not a relationship as an entity, the relational bond in itself, but a person that justifies and saves, specifically the person of "the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). I suspect that position (b) above will inevitably gravitate to (c) in some form...

- Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, pg. 51

Alan Jacobs

One of my favorite writers these days (besides the aforementioned James Wood) is Alan Jacobs, a professor of English at Wheaton College. He has begun a new column over at Books and Culture Online entitled "Rumors of Glory," which is from a 1980 song by Bruce Cockburn. This is Jacobs describing the inspiration he received from the track, and hinting at what the column will involve in the future:

"In the song, perhaps his best (which is saying a lot), Cockburn sees the "tension" between what we were made to be and what we in fact are; he sees that human culture is produced by that tension, which generates "energy surging like a storm." At once attracted and repelled by that energy, "you plunge your hand in; you draw it back, scorched." And the hand that has been plunged truly into the human world is always marked by that plunging: it's "scorched", yes, but beneath the wound "something is shining like gold—but better." The truth of who we are, given the extremes of divine image and savage depravity, is hard to discern; perhaps we can only achieve it in brief moments; perhaps we only catch rumors of the glory that is, and is to be. But even those rumors can sustain us as we walk the pilgrim path."

The Brothers Karamazov

...But Christ is not an idea. This is surely the only way to explain the intellectually nonsensical behavior of Dmitri, who, though innocent, is willing to be guilty for all and before all; or of Father Zosima's advice that we should ask forgiveness "even from the birds;" or of Alyosha's final words, which close the book, about how resurrection does indeed exist: "Certainly we shall rise, certainly we shall see, and gladly, joyfully tell one another all that has been!" Such notions have really fallen off the cliff of ideas and into the realm of illogical, beautiful, desperate exhortation. Belief has smothered knowledge. And this exchange - of the unreason of Christianity for the reason of atheism - means finally that there can be no "dialogism" in this novel, either of the kind Bakhtin proposed or of the kind that Dostoevsky so dearly desired. There is neither a circulation of ideas nor an "answering" of atheism by Christianity. For the answer - the unreason of Christian love - no longer belongs to the realm of worldly ideas, and thus no longer belongs to the novel itself. It exists in paradise, and in that other, finally unnovelistic book, the New Testament.

- James Wood, The Irresponsible Self, pg. 74.

Sophie Scholl

I recently saw a German film called Sophie Scholl: the Final Days. It was a dramatized historical documentary about Sophie and a small group of anti-Nazi campaigners known as the White Rose that distributed leaflets in the early 1940's suggesting the futility of fighting against the Allied Forces, and also describing the oppression of the German people under the fascist regime.
It was a well-done production, containing what so many Hollywood films lack: meaningful and thoughtful dialogue. Especially provocative is the exchange between Scholl and her interrogator, which is an ideological dialogue rather than the legal prosecution we might expect. In this discussion Sophie makes what is a most fitting criticism of Nazism: "No human, no matter what the circumstance, can exercise divine judgment."

I highly recommend it!

Christian liberty

Also worth noticing here is how far present-day notions of religious liberty are from those of historic Christianity. Some Christians feel that if they may not express their faith in public openly, they lack religious liberty. But if Christian freedom of the kind described by the Westminster divines is primarily a liberty to worship and serve God without fear of eternal condemnation, how is the liberty of American Christians restricted by not being able to pray in public schools, enjoy a creche in front of town hall, or appeal to the Bible in political debates? Or even if such Christian freedom involves liberty of conscience, so that a believer must have enough political liberty to worship in a way pleasing to God, when or where exactly have the secular authorities in the US attempted to regulate the worship services or private devotional exercises of Protestants and Roman Catholics?

- D.G. Hart, A Secular Faith, pg. 70