Beckwith

Christianity Today recently interviewed Francis Beckwith, the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society who resigned because of his re-entrance into the Roman church. Here's a snippet of the interview: "The Catholic Church frames the Christian life as one in which you must exercise virtue—not because virtue saves you, but because that's the way God's grace gets manifested. As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something."

This is disturbing to me on several levels. Firstly, I find it troubling that Beckwith's first mention of "grace" is in connection with "virtue" rather than "redemption." Protestants have traditionally had little problem with speaking of grace in connection with sanctification and conformity to Christ, but in our best moments we have clearly established that grace in this respect is impossible unless we are first clothed with the righteousness of Christ. In other words, before grace works "inside" it comes as a gift from the "outside" - that is, through Christ's life, death, and resurrection which doesn't just start the process of redemption but actually accomplishes it.

This leads to the second point, where Beckwith says that "as an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so." My response: does the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone not provide enough incentive to pursue holiness, that we have to substitute it with another gospel of faith plus works? Put simply, what about the incentive of "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me" or "We were buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life?" It is extremely vexing to me why one would want to exchange the death and resurrection as our incentive for sanctification for something else, which is inevitably a form of self-justification.

Which takes us to the last point, where Beckwith says "Now there's a kind of theological fraemwork, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something." It seems to me that the underlying text here is, "Now I can finally contribute something to my salvation." In the Protestant scheme, our virtue does indeed count for something: it "adorns the doctrine of God our Savior" (Titus 2:10). What our virtue does not do is "count" before God as earned credit with the heavenly bank. We have two choices when all is said and done: the righteousness that is from the Law or righteousness that is by faith in Christ (Phil 3:9) -seeking my righteousness or receiving the righteousness of another.

Hopefully the fact that the president of the ETS has run away from the true apostolic and catholic Church does not mean others will follow.

Chronicles

The Chronicler's adherence to a 'theology of immediate retribution' provides his dominant compositional technique, particularly formative in his reshaping of the history of Judah after the schism. 'Retribution theology' refers to the author's apparent conviction that reward and punishment are not deferred, but rather follow on the heels of the precipitating events. For the Chronicler sin always brings judgment and disaster, while obedience and righteousness yield the fruit of peace and prosperity.

- R. Dillard "Reward and Punishment in Chronicles" WTJ 46

FV

Doug Wilson is indeed a prolific blogger. I must say I am impressed with the sheer amount of coherent words he is able to string together on a daily basis, covering all sorts of topics. If he was a writer in ancient Israel they would had to fell half the trees in Lebanon to provide enough paper for his writing.

Anyhow, I was surprised to see that Wilson is responding to every chapter of every book that engages in a critical analysis of the Federal Vision. So he is currently responding to By Faith Alone edited by Gary Johnson, and he recently finished Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry edited by Dr. Scott Clark. The responses by Wilson can be found here. One consistent reservation that Wilson registers is the idea of the republication of the covenant of works at Sinai. He thinks that this is setting up God's people for inevitable confusion, because if the COW was republished at Sinai, it would mean there were two principle operating at the same time in redemptive history: the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace. If this is the case, then Wilson argues that we somehow have to distinguish between which parts of this era relate to works and which relate to grace - something that would be unnecessarily tedious. I don't want to get into it in detail here, but I think one problem is that Wilson does not seem to understand the typological aspect of the covenant of works in the Mosaic economy. Here I would simply recommend an interesting article by TL Donaldson called the "The Curse of the Law and the Inclusion of the Gentiles" (in New Testament Studies, 32 - 1986- pgs. 94-112). Here is a great paragraph from the article that relates to the subject at hand:

"Israel serves as a 'representative sample' for the whole of humankind. Within Israel's experience, the nature of the universal human plight - bondage to sin and to the powers of this age - is thrown into sharp relief through the functioning of the law. The law, therefore, cannot accomplish the promise; but by creating a representative sample in which the human plight is clarified and concentrated, it sets the stage for redemption. Christ identifies (with) not only the human situation in general (Gal 4:4), but also with Israel in particular, thereby becoming the representative individual of the representative people" (pg. 105-106).

Islam

Here is the first paragraph of a paper I did for a "Witness to Muslims" class:

Malise Ruthven states decisively, “If there is a single word that can be taken to represent the primary impulse of Islam, be it theological, political, or sociological, it is tawhid – making one, unicity…”[1] The Muslim doctrine of God (Allah) underlies this noticeably strong emphasis on the oneness of Islam: it forms the very first part of the Islamic creed – “there is no god but Allah…” All subsets of Muslim belief and practice including the authority structure, the law, and the community subserve the aim of submitting to the one will of the one God Allah. Ruthven further asserts that “the overwhelming stress on God’s uniqueness reflects the polemical context in which early Islam was forged. Tawhid simultaneously challenges Arabian paganism, Zoroastrian dualism, and the Christian doctrine of divine incarnation.”[2] Indeed, one of the first visible acts of Muhammad was his destruction of all the pagan idols set up in Mecca, save one: Allah. Perhaps metaphorically this is how adherents of Islam might like to conceive of its status: a force that has dispersed all competitors and established itself as the supreme religion above all others. For fourteen centuries Islam, despite all its internal turmoils, has sought to remain committed to tawhid, zealously guarding it against pagan polytheism and Christian Trinitarianism.
[1] Malise Ruthven, Islam: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: OUP, 1997), 49.
[2] Ibid, 50.

Music

A diversity of friends means a diversity of musical tastes, and I rather like that. So here (without consulting them) are some friendly favorites:

My friend Peter likes Orishas, a Cuban rap group that is really quite musically diverse.

My friend Stephen likes Carla Bruni, a French jazzy-type singer with great song-writing skills.

My friend Scott likes Christian Forshaw, a great saxophonist who integrates choral works with his creative instrumentation.

My friends Justin and Erika like Regina Spektor, a great lyricist with a unique voice: the song "Samson" is worth pondering.

My friend Ellis likes (or at least used to) Blessid Union of Souls, a band with clever (if sometimes depressing) lyrical rock ballads.

My sister Tami likes the Magnetic Fields, an old-school sounding band with very melodic and memorable tunes.

Prolegomena

So I've been reading Provan/Long/Longman's book A Biblical History of Israel which on the whole is very well written and a great overview of ancient Israel. One thing I have noticed though is that while the book is some 300 pages (with small print), a full third of the book is dedicated to historiographic concerns - essentially a justification for writing a history of Israel using the biblical text as a primary source. While it's a helpful discussion, I wonder if these authors have gotten caught in today's almost obsessive preoccupation with prolegomena, seen especially in Christian theology and philosophy.

One of my professors has said that prolegomena is like clearing the throat before one speaks. What is funny is that if we take this analogy to our present context, then there are many scholars and writers today who seem to spend the majority of their time clearing their throats and then finally getting around to saying something worthwhile (if they ever get there!) I think one of the unforunate aspects of the contemporary academic landscape - call it "postmodern" if you like - is that many feel like they have to spend a good deal of labor and book space with preliminary issues and philosophical questions, and then end up doing less with their actual object of study. Thus, a scientist in a Christian university has to come up with a "Christian philosophy of science" before he ever looks at something under the microscope. Bavinck, a theologian who himself wrote a very lengthy Prolegomena to his dogmatic theology, wisely comments right at the beginning that in going through introductory matters like the authority of Scripture and the place of the church and tradition in theological formulation, one is already doing theology! This seems like a wise insight - and it warns us not to draw a map before we've actually hit the trail.

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...