You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2008.
The newest political feud is not between Obama and Clinton political advisers, but between Obama and his spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. The now infamous remarks in 2003 that God is damning America for her past sins have come to the front of public debate. The comments were made in the context of a message about government failures around the world, noting that what a man (or a nation) sows that he shall also reap. Anyone who disagrees with his assessment will at least have to concede it was made using a biblical text in Galatians and that throughout the sermon America was not the only nation he blamed. Wright’s foreign policy is not that much different from the paleo-conservative argument of “blowback,” meaning that a nation’s entanglement in foreign affairs will have negative consequences for its own well-being in the future. In this sense, Americans at large need to admit that US involvement overseas have not been as pure as neo-conservatives imply. However, most of what Wright has said is at least dubious. His “bombastic” remarks about the US government are undergirded by a fallacious understanding of the role of government in society. He advocates a government that needs to stop spending money abroad (in wars) to a government that needs to permanently take our money locally and distribute it to the causes he deems suitable. In reality, this is a very common perception; it is a variation of socialism, just not fully developed. But the Black Liberation Theology that Wright advocates is just a more racial specific form of South American Liberation Theology. Moyers observed–and Wright concurred– that this theological outlook is based upon reading the biblical text through the lenses of an oppressed people. It is true that Israel was an oppressed people, but God was still willing to prosecute them for their covenant betrayal. In no way was God obliged to bless disobedient Israelites; in fact, the opposite is truer to the facts. Why is it so outrageous that God may be judging certain communities in the US or any other countries for their immorality, unfaithfulness and lack of recognition of their Lord? Indeed, the whole premise of any liberation movement is faulty from the start.
In the Moyers’ interview I was somewhat intrigued by Jeremiah Wright. His linguistic and historical insights were at times appealing, but then reality sunk in. This is the man that holds Louis Farrakhan in high esteem; “that the government was capable of having used the AIDS virus to commit genocide against minorities,“ who praises other black leaders (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) who are more interested in their fame than the causes they espouse. They masquerade their socialism in Pharisaical clothing.
When asked if Obama reacted appropriately by distancing himself from him, he answered that Obama acted like a politician and he (Wright) acted like a pastor. Of course, implying that politicians will do and say whatever it takes to get elected. Obama, reacted with indignation at those remarks and once again attempted to distance himself from Rev. Wright. The New York Times reported on Obama’s speech. The article concludes with Obama’s strong words:
“Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday. “I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign and what we’re trying to do for the American people.”
But Wright is out for blood now. As a dedicated minister for 30 years he has the right to defend his own reputation, whether he is right or wrong. That is, if he is actually trying to defend his own reputation; or as some have concluded, he may be purposefully seeking to destroy Obama’s chance of winning the nomination. For what reason? One can only speculate. He may be one of those guys that demands full allegiance or else. He may, as Judge Andrew Napolitano suggests, trying to draw the attention of the public to racial issues that in his own mind continues to be a major hindrance in the black community. It is even possible that he and the Clinton campaign may have some ties; none of this is beyond the scope of a genius orator and wise religious politician. In the end, that is what Wright is: a religious man who is deeply interested in using politicians for his own gain.
Wright is correct to assert that Obama is acting as a politician. At this point, Wright has left Obama with no other option. He is distancing himself from an old friend because if he does not, he is doomed. The last thing Obama needs is an old friend working against him. It looks like this old friend is here to stay.
But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.
In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.
Barack Obama’s problem is ecclesiastical: he is part of an unorthodox church with an unorthodox former pastor. His problem is soteriological: he offers salvation through the government and by the government. His problem is eschatological: his run for the nomination does not have an end in sight.
In light of my preparation for licensure exam, I have begun to read on various controversial discussions in the Presbyterian Church. Among them, the ever controversial question of Paul’s theology of imputation. A fine book that surveys both the historical analysis of imputation–from the Reformation onward– and exegetical treatment of crucial texts in the Pauline corpus, is Brian Vickers’s doctoral dissertation: Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness.[1]
Vickers defends the traditional view that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. Nevertheless, he is uncomfortable with general Reformed distinctions of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. He notes that the Reformed tradition has not always been united in accepting the concept of “merit” in the garden. Commenting on Reformed differences, Vickers mentions–in a footnote–that Murray “stresses the principle of grace over that of merit.” Further, Murray preferred to call the period of the first man an “Adamic administration.” [2]
Another interesting nuance of Vickers in the book is centered on his discussion of the active and passive obedience of Christ. There is no denial, in Vickers’s analysis, that the overall treatment of Pauline texts proves undoubtedly that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, hence making us righteous in the sight of God; nevertheless, Vickers is unconvinced of the necessity to distinguish between active and passive.[3] Though traditional Reformed formulations refer to the necessity of the active obedience (Christ’s perfect obedience to the law of God) and the passive obedience (his submission to the will of the Father unto death), there has always been vocal scholarship in the past and today, which argue that though the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to us by forgiving our sins, the active obedience of Christ is nowhere textually found. As some have argued, Christ’s perfect obedience was not imputed to us; rather it was “that which guaranteed the perfection of his sacrifice.”[4] Vickers’ own conclusion is that “Christ’s obedience need not be sharply divided between ‘active’ and ‘passive’; Christ’s obedience (as all obedience) was active and passive.”[5] He argues also, that “there is no separating one kind of obedience from another in a practical sense.”[6]
While Vickers argues intensely for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners, he also engages modern scholarship, and particularly the New Perspective on Paul. This book provides an excellent treatment of the historical trajectory and essential texts related to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
[1] Brian Vickers, Paul’s Theology of Imputation: Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006).
[2]Vickers, 43.
[3] Melancthon did not distinguish between active and passive.
[4] Vickers, 227.
[5] Ibid. 228.
[6] Ibid. 228.
O my God, I thank you and I praise
you for accomplishing your holy
and all-lovable will without any regard for mine.
With my whole heart,
in spite of my heart,
do I receive this cross I feared so much!
It is the cross of Your choice,
the cross of Your love.
I venerate it;
nor for anything in the world
would I wish that it had not come,
since You willed it.
I keep it with gratitude and with joy,
as I do everything that comes from Your hand;
and I shall strive to carry it without letting it drag,
with all the respect
and all the affection which Your works deserve.
Amen.
Saint Francis De Sales
I heard some portions of the Ehrman/Wallace debate. Here is a major argumentation for Ehrman’s theory that the Bible cannot be trustworthy: a) There are about 400,000 variants in the Greek text. b) The Greek text contains less than 200,000 words, c) Therefore, there are more textual variants than there are words in the New Testament. Hence, the Bible, according to Ehrman is not inerrant.
Dan Wallace’s critique is quite striking. His point is a simple one: a) The reason there are more textual variants than the words in the Bible is because there are many Greek texts. b) The more Greek texts available, the more the variants. c) Therefore, Ehrman’s argument proves nothing.
If there were only five Greek manuscripts available and there were over 400,000 variants, then there may be a problem. Nevertheless, there are hundreds and hundreds of Greek manuscripts available (not to mention the oral tradition, and the patristic witness, and so on). The more the witnesses the better the ability to reconstruct the original. Unlike great works of literature, which contain one or a few manuscripts, the New Testament provides an abundance of evidence– in both oral and written tradition– that the present set of Greek texts available is reliable beyond a scribe’s dream.
Thanks to James White for some of the observations.
This morning, by God’s grace, I passed my Westminster Shorter Catechism exam. Though I ended my academic requirements at RTS in December of 2007, RTS requires that before any student graduates, they are to pass a comprehensive Bible exam and a shorter catechism exam. Today, marks officially, the completion of my Master’s Degree from Reformed Theological Seminary/Orlando. One of the advantages of RTS grads is that they are able to audit any class they have already taken for free. So, if God should keep me here in Orlando for the summer, I intend to audit a few classes. Graduation will be on May 23rd.
God has been gracious and faithful to me in these last four years. His loving kindness endures forever.
Vickers makes an interesting observation in the beginning of his discussion on imputation.[1] He argues that the debate over the imputation of Christ’s active obedience tends to expect too much from a single text. Thus, critics and advocates of the doctrine “often miss the connection not only between the major texts but between the texts and a larger biblical-theological framework.”[2] Vickers concludes that when a cherished doctrine is not found in an individual text, the only other option is to force the doctrine into it. Confessional Christians are most guilty of this (myself included), since they contend that every biblical terminology has already been appropriately defined by our Confession. Hence, our tendency is to impose our theological convictions upon a verse because it contains a word like justification or righteousness. As Jeff Meyers points out, “…we read the Bible as if the definitions we have attached to our theological vocabulary must be dumped into every biblical occurrence of these same words.”[3] But the Bible is much greater than our confessions and certainly much greater than our incomplete definitions.
[1] Brian Vickers, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness. Crossway Books: Wheaton, IL., 2006.
[2] Ibid. 17.
[3] Jeff Meyers, The Challenge of Theological Terminology.
Covenant Theology is the apex of calvinistic theology. You cannot have a view of Calvinism that excludes a covenantal understanding of redemptive history. But what is a covenant? The most helpful definition of covenant theology comes from the uniqueness of Trinitarian relationship. Van Til himself acknowledged this relationship when he wrote:
The three persons of the Trinity have exhaustively personal relationship with one another. And the idea of exhaustive personal relationship is the idea of the covenant.[1]
Hence, a covenant is a relationship; man cannot escape his covenantal existence. God has structured human history on the basis of His own intra-trinitarian relationship.[2]
[1] Karlberg, p. 105. Quotation come from an article by Van Til on “Covenant Theology” in The New Twentieth Century Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
I suspect many Christians feel spiritually undernourished because they live out their lives on the basis of about ten biblical texts. The spiritual life of the church would be greatly enriched by kindling a love of the Old Testament…
Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 16.
Derek Webb said it best in his album Mockingbird :
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it’s to a king & a kingdom
The allegiance of much of our political system is to the flag pin and to the God bless America speeches.
When I studied Reformation History in seminary, Dr. Frank James was always clear in defining the distinctions that arose during the Reformation. He was always careful to differentiate the various traditions. One clear distinction was the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Calvin became the patron saint of Reformational theology, whereas Luther took another direction, thus establishing a Lutheran tradition that continues to this day.
What is unique about Lutheranism is its rigid divide between law and gospel, its understanding of the Eucharist (what some scholars call “consubstantiation,” though Lutherans generally do not like that language due to its philosophical connotations), and its two-kingdom model. The Reformed community has recognized that the disputes between Calvinists and Lutherans in the last four centuries are genuine disputes, in light of the vast theological differences between the two traditions. It must be stressed, however, that in some respects Reformational theology and Lutheran theology share some similar concerns. One can think of their opposition to the unsacramental theology of the Anabaptists, and the pernicious Roman doctrine of penance and purgatory. Though there are some similarities, some in the Reformed community have assumed that there is almost universal agreement between these two traditions. As a result, there has arisen a form of pan-confessionalism. Dr. Mark Garcia addresses pan-confessionalism in his article in the following manner:
…pan–confessional phenomenon is an effort to offer a theological response to problems or proposals from the perspective of what two or more confessional traditions hold in common, accenting areas of agreement and minimizing (and sometimes denying) areas of disagreement (see No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? by Mark Garcia).
Advocates of pan-confessionalism are more than willing to blur the differences of both traditions. The underlying motivation behind this desire for confessional unity is not catholicity (that would be a fine reason) but a distinct definition of justification. One defender of pan-confessionalism argued that to attempt to find any differences on the doctrine of justification in these traditions is highly questionable; another wrote that Lutheran and Reformed are in full agreement on justification and faith alone (No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? ). In a reactionary manner, these scholars–in order to fight the recent scholarship on Lutheran and Reformed differences on justification– have essentially abandoned Reformed formulations for Lutheran ones, thus undermining their own tradition they claim to cherish.
As examples of how Lutheranism has won the day in these circles, these scholars deny Christ’s active work through His church to subdue culture to the glory of the Father (this stems from the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms); they also deny the unity of law and gospel through Biblical revelation, hence not allowing “evangelical obedience” to be an integral part or even secondary necessity to saving faith.
While catholic creeds are essential unifying propositions of the Church universal, pan-confessionalism denies the existing differences of particular traditions, thus erasing lines that ought never to be erased.
In a common Presbyterian order of worship, the congregation will move from reflection, confession, singing, and hearing. What is consistent about this liturgical movement is the tone of somberness that contextualizes these steps in worship. And when the sermon is over, these steps tend to repeat themselves in the Lord’s Supper and final hymn. The Eucharist becomes a moment of deep confession and self-examination and the final hymn tends to be Cross-centered, which adds another dimension of mourning. My contention is that these movements are excessively somber, not reflecting the triumph of the Resurrection and Exaltation. While parts of the liturgical process must include reflection and self-examination, joy and triumph are to adorn the liturgy of the church. I am advocating a more Resurrection-centered worship. Though our worship reflects Christ’s atoning work, it must reflect with greater emphasis Christ’s present resurrected estate at the right hand of the Father. Death has been defeated; a new age of joy and victory has arrived.
O God of goodness and mercy, to Thy fatherly guidance we commend our family, our household and all our belongings. We commit all to Thy love and keeping; do Thou fill this house with Thy blessings even as Thou didst fill the holy House of Nazareth with Thy presence.
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
Alan Keyes has announced his loyalty to the GOP is no more. Keyes participated in only two of the Republican debates. “Keyes added that he is looking to the Constitution Party as a possible home for his future efforts in politics, including a potential run for president in the 2008 general election.”
A student at Yale University, who for her “senior art project” says she repeatedly artificially inseminated herself and then took abortifacient drugs to induce multiple miscarriages, plans next week to display her “art” – including blood from her own forced abortions – prompting reactions ranging from horror and disgust to suggestions of fraud. Continue…
True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life. - Martin Bucer
In a March 18 report, Christian Aid reports that nearly 5000 Buddhist monks (location undisclosed) have recently turned to Christ. A worker reports: “It appears that the Holy Spirit had urged these monks and nuns to call our evangelists to come and share the gospel of hope and love. After several intense discussions, close to 80 percent of the monks present in each of the monasteries raised their hands to accept Christ, and then kneeled down to pray and receive Christ as their Lord and Savior.”
Christian Aid reports that baptisms are being quietly performed, for the safety of both the monks and the evangelists.
The Reformed community has debated the validity of Old Testament law in today’s society since the beginning of the Reformation. Many of the early Reformers (Calvin And Bucer) and the Puritan Reformers (Thomas Boston and Cotton Mather) believed strongly in the application of the law of God to their particular societies. Today, many of our contemporary evangelical leaders mock their forefathers for their commitment to Old Testament penology and regulations. Many in the Reformed community cite that theocratic Israel is a distinct body of people with a distinct law never to be mixed with the new law of this new age inaugurated by Christ. Fortunately, most recent serious scholarship do not make such strong distinctions. They acknowledge that God’s laws in the Older Covenant are inextricably linked to His unchanging character. Though this most recent scholarship would distinguish their analysis from the late Greg Bahnsen or R.J. Rushdoony, they are actually advocating a form of direct application of the ceremonial laws to our modern society. Whether they call these applications epochal adjustments or modified application, they are still finding the relevance of Old Testament law in New Covenant life. How direct may these applications be made is disputed; however, they do agree, that there is a general equity, an underlying principle, that needs to carry on into the New Covenant, in order to maintain the integrity and the continuity of Biblical revelation in all ages. Though the Reformed community and our Westminster Confession are in complete agreement that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in the ultimate and last sacrifice for our sins, the Lord Jesus, it is the underlying principle that needs to be revived even in our era for the sake of the world and for the sake of the Church. Both Drs. Bruce Waltke and Richard Pratt argue in this manner. In his Old Testament Theology Waltke writes that the ceremonial laws “such as abstaining from ‘unclean’ foods are ‘visual aids’ to instruct God’s people of all ages to be pure” (An Old Testament Theology, 14). The dietary laws were given so that Israel would maintain their separation from other nations. It is part of the theme of Leviticus, which is holiness. Though dietary laws no longer bind New Covenant Christians (Matthew 15:11; Acts 10:13-15), the principle of the Ceremonial laws is that God’s people are to be a set-apart people; consecrated only to their covenant Lord. Indeed if the history of our forefathers was given to us as examples (I Cor. 10:6) then why not see the ceremonial laws as examples of faith and purity (I Tim. 4:12)? After all, nothing was more central to Old Covenant life than to offer sweet aroma in the presence of God.
…In the divine command man is commissioned to reproduce God’s own activity in creation, that is, to subdue and to fill the earth. Contextually then, the divine image is the anthropological enablement for obedience to the divine command. After the disobedience of the first Adam, however, the dinvine command (as restated in the Protoevangelion) is confirmed through the divine covenants to Noah, Abraham, and David. Each of these promissory covenants successively designates more specifically the Seed who would subdue the earth. Christ, who is the Seed promised as well as the Mediator of the New Covenant, expresses in the Great Commission the redemptive correlative to the divine command, namely, that the earth is to be filled with disciples and subdued unto obedience to the Word. Finally, the resurrection becomes the telos of history whereby the divine command finds consummation.
Blessed are you, Lord Jesus, Savior of the world, for giving your life to save us,
by your precious blood we are saved.
You promised living waters to those who seek the truth,
give us that water to quench our thirst.
You sent disciples to announce the Good News to all people,
sustain those who proclaim your word.
To those who carry your cross today in anguish,
grant patience and courage.
Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish. On the third day, he was vomited into dry land. Christ entered–willingly– the belly of the fish for three days and three nights, so that on the third day he might bring his people from the chaos of the sea into dry land. Christ is the obedient Jonah.
Oh, the joys of defeating England!
2002
Paul teaches that a New Creation has dawned upon earth (II Cor. 5:17) as a result of Christ’s resurrection ( I Cor. 15). This new creation of redeemed people is charged with the Adamic task (Gen. 1:26) of subduing the world to the demands of Yahweh. The ministry of reconciliation given to us by Christ is cosmic (II Cor. 5:18-19). What is in view here is a renovation of the world unto the Messiah. This is why the title of ambassadors is used in Paul’s discourse to the Corinthians. Ambassadors deliver a message of peace or war. If war, the exalted Christ will leave no remnant. Messiah’s new world order creates a new humanity that proclaims an ancient message.
Old Testament scholars generally differ in how God should be addressed both in the liturgy of the church and in doing Biblical or Systematic theology. James Jordan has argued that in Genesis 14:18-20 “the name of God in use among the nations was God Most High’” (Hebrew, `el `elyon; in Through New Eyes, p. 176). Though, as Leithart has argued convincingly “‘God Most High’ or simply ‘Most High’ are frequently used by Israelites as titles for Yahweh.” The main point being that both names manifests “that the covenant-keeping God of Israel, is also the Highest, the exalted King of the nations and their gods, who casts down all who exalt themselves against Him.”
In Waltke’s Old Testament Theology, he argues that the title “LORD” has messianic implications since Paul refers to Christ as Lord in Romans 10:9-13, nevertheless, it establishes a less intimate “relationship with a person than using his or her name” (Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Biblical Theology, 11). He prefers to use God’s name as it proceeds from His own mouth, namely, “I AM.” Since the gospels reveal that before Abraham was born, “I AM” existed, hence, God is both present and eternal. As Waltke summarizes: “He is both ‘I am here” and ‘I am eternal’ ” (Ibid. 11).
Happy birthday to Professor John Frame who continues to be–after seminary–a refreshing and insightful voice in my thinking about the church and theology. And a happy birthday to my dear friend Pastor Frank Cavalli, who has been an example of a true shepherd and a faithful, passionate Bible expositor. May God grant you many more years in His service.
In the Bible we sail on the clouds to heaven, submarine down to the depths of our hearts, and are transported back to ancient kingdoms that serve as paradigms for interpreting the present.
–Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 10.
Recent Comments