Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ and N. T. Wright

Noted Greek scholar Dan Wallace has recently posted an essay on the New Testament expression “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσυύνη θεοῦ) as found in Romans. In the essay Wallace is critical of N. T. Wright’s recent work titled Justification which was released this past May. Wright is an ardent proponent of the New Perspective on Paul.

Happy Reformation Day!

Today is the anniversary of Martin Luther posting his 95 theses on the castle church doors at Wittenberg, Germany in 1517, starting a chain reaction leading to the Reformation. This year also marks the 500 year anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. I am currently reading two new books on Calvin published in this anniversary year, one by Bruce Gordon simply called, Calvin, and the other by W. Robert Godfrey titled, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor. For those of you in the Washington D.C. area, a local church is hosting a 6 week lecture series titled “Calvin in the Capital” on Thursday nights. There are two more lectures left in the series. I made the first one and it was superb.

2012? 2009 has enough trouble of its own!

The 2012 phenomenon that is prevalent in the popular culture holds to a series of cataclysmic events that will occur on the earth in 2012 ushering in the end of the world as we know it. These events are rooted in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar which ends December 21 or 23, 2012. These events are derived partly from astronomical, partly from myth, and partly from supposed prophetic utterances of extraterrestrial visitors. As usual, it doesn’t take long before what is popular in the culture creeps into the church.

A decade ago, many Christians were petrified of Y2K. I won’t rehash how foolish many ended up looking before a watching world. Now, some Christians are speculating that perhaps the second coming of Christ will coincide with the 2012 phenomenon. A couple of weeks ago I was working on a sermon from Mark 13:1-13. Jesus had just commented on the temple’s imminent destruction (13:1-2) when his disciples asked him a two part question: when would these things happen and what sign would signify the end (13:3-4)? Jesus’ response in 13:5-8 is a simple one: We must not be deceived into speculating about the end of the age based on world events.  We can be confident that many things will transpire: false Christ’s will appear (13:6), there will be wars and rumors of wars (13:7), and there will be national uprisings, earthquakes and famines (13:8). But these are not the sign of the end, but mere birth pangs.

The one thing we can know with complete assurance is what Jesus goes on to say in 13:9-13, namely, that we will be persecuted. We don’t know when Jesus is returning and we should not try and calculate the date. However we are to know the following regarding these last days: we will be persecuted (13:9), the gospel must be proclaimed (13:10), we are to trust in God’s power (13:11), we will be betrayed by those close to us (13:12), we will be hated (13:13a), but by the grace of God, we will be preserved by God (13:13b). So, worry about 2012? 2009 has enough trouble of its own.

God’s strong call

Justin Taylor over at the Gospel Coalition has just posted a blog about the calling of John Piper into pastoral ministry. While it should be read by anyone considering pastoral ministry, it is a profitable read for any believer.

The motive of repentance: love to God

  

I am reading the book, The Doctrine of Repentance by the great Puritan writer, Thomas Watson. In it Watson gives six elements of true repentance:

• Sight of sin
• Sorrow for sin
• Confession of sin
• Shame for sin
• Hatred for sin
• Turning from sin

In the last element of true repentance, “Turning from sin,” Watson makes the point that turning from sin must be rooted in the right reason. He writes,

A man may restrain the acts of sin, yet not turn from sin in the right manner. Acts of sin may be restrained out of fear or design, but a true penitent turns from sin out of a religious principle, namely, love to God. Even if sin did not bear such bitter fruit, if death did not grow on this tree, a gracious soul would forsake it out of love to God (p. 54).

The gospel that divides

This morning I was studying Mark 13 in preparation for a sermon and was confronted with something that I must confess I give little thought to. Jesus had been “informed” by one of his disciples about the splendid stones and buildings that made up the temple complex (13:1). Jesus replied that all the stones that made up the temple would be torn down (13:2), a prophecy fulfilled in AD 70. He was then asked a two-part question by his disciples that in effect was, When will the end come and what will be the sign of the end (13:4)? Jesus then exhorted them not to misinterpret global events (13:5-8) and to be ready for coming persecution (13:9-13).

It was the source of this promised persecution that I had read many times over but to which I had lately given little contemplation. In verse 12 Jesus said, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.” Then in verse 13a, Jesus added something that is often not heard in pulpits today when people are invited to consider the claims of Christ, namely, “You will be hated by all because of My name.”

Church history validates the prediction of Christ regarding martyrdom through the agency of family members. (For that matter, church history also demonstrates how church members have “handed over” its own to suffering and death). The gospel message does divide, or to quote the Savior from another passage,

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34)

The Church’s relationship to the New Covenant

This past week I attended the second annual “Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics” held at Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pa. This year’s theme revolved around the dispensational understanding of the new covenant. For those of you familiar with the issue, you know that the church’s relationship to the new covenant has been one of the most debated issues among dispensationalists. Dispensationalism maintains a distinction between the church and Israel, leading to various ways of interpreting the church’s relation to the new covenant. These interpretations range from the church sharing in the blessing of the new covenant, to the church not sharing in the new covenant at all, to the proposal of two separate new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church.   

We know that God promises a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer 31:31-34). From our new testament (or new covenant) we know that the book of Hebrews cites the new covenant (Heb 8), and we know that in the upper room the night before he died, Jesus said, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). So how does one handle such a difficult interpretive issue as the church’s relationship to a covenant made with the house of Israel?

Dr. Rod Decker presented a paper at the council titled “The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian.” It is a treatment of Hebrews 7-10, a section which contains the longest treatment of the new covenant in the New Testament. It is an excellent paper, a model of good exegesis, and a cogent treatment of the issue. It is a bit technical but well worth the read.

The Hidden Smile of God

A small group study I lead just began reading John Piper’s book, The Hidden Smile of God: The Fruit of Affliction in the Lives of John Bunyan, William Cowper, and David Brainerd. It is the second volume in  a series titled “The Swans are not Silent.” Piper notes how Bunyan was imprisoned for 12 years because of his refusal to renounce his doctrinal stance regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. Bunyan was concerned for the lives of his wife, children (including a blind daughter), and fellow parishioners of his church. Piper states,

       What, then, would he say to his people to prepare them for the probability of their suffering for Christ? Would he say, with the old-fashioned liberal, “I believe that pain and suffering are never the will of God for his children”? Would he say with the modern-day open theist, “Christians frequently speak about ‘the purpose of God’ in the midst of a tragedy caused by someone else…. But this I regard to simply be a piously confused way of thinking”? No, this would have been biblically and pastorally unthinkable for John Bunyan, whose blood was “bibline” (29).

Piper then cites Bunyan’s exposition of 1 Peter 4:19, where Peter exhorts his readers, “Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their soul to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. Bunyan notes,

It is not what enemies will, nor what they are resolved upon, but what God will, and what God appoints, that shall be done….And as no enemy can bring suffering upon a man when the will of God is otherwise, so no man can save himself out of their hands when God will deliver him up for his glory….We shall or shall not suffer, even as it pleaseth him….God has appointed who shall suffer. Suffering comes not by chance or by the will of man, but by the will and appointment of God (30).

It is easy for someone who has never been imprisoned or tortured for their faith to dismiss Bunyan’s confession that suffering is appointed by God, but Bunyan suffered greatly. However it was not his suffering that convinced him of this truth, but the word of God. Sometimes when people inflict great hurt upon us, we can become angry and bitter. But as many saints from Joseph to Bunyan have found out, it is the sovereign God of the universe that governs our lives.

We are not in Kansas anymore

Sometimes we pastors try to impress on our people the fact that not only is the world changing, but so too the church. There was a time in America where the church influenced the culture. Then came the modern world where the church and the culture competed for supremacy. Now in the postmodern world, the culture is influencing the church. If you want to see an example of this, check out the blog titled “Almost Kick-Off Time” of this church in the heart of all places, Lancaster County, Pa. I would be curious to hear what some of you think about this kind of worship setting.

Open theism, free-will libertarianism, and evil

If you are looking to challenge your mind and heart a bit, I encourage you to pick up the book I referred to in the previous post, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. I have been reading through Mark Talbot’s chapter, “‘All the Good that is Ours in Christ’: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us.” Talbot, in dealing with the topic, delves into the problems with “Open Theism,” a view created to take God off the hook in those situations where God seems powerless to stop evil in the world. Open theists are free-will libertarians. Free-will libertarianism is the view that “true freedom involves more than just my doing whatever I choose to do” (surface freedom) but it “requires that a person not only is able to make specific choices but was also was able at the time she chose to choose differently than she actually did” (48). Free-will libertarians must hold such a view if God is to hold them responsible for their actions. They cannot reconcile God’s sovereignty with human responsibility. Talbot does a great job showing that these aspects are indeed compatible.

Open theism has reduced God to a less than omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God since he is unaware of the future. Open theists hold to the spurious idea that God has had to impose on himself limits that protect him from culpability. Talbot does a great job exposing the errors of open theism as well as the idea that somehow our wills are truly free. Next time someone says they have true free will, challenge them to never sin again.