Piper vs. Wright on Justification

Many of you who frequent my blog (if "many" can be said of such a small plurality!) or have ties to it are probably becoming aware of the differences emerging within Protestantism over the traditional view on justification and that of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul" espoused by James Dunn, E. P. Sanders, and, most notably, N. T. Wright. There has been much controversy over this, because it appears that Wright challenges traditional theology in two ways: (1) He sees references to the "law" in Romans and Galatians as exclusively referring to God's covenant with Israel at Sinai and not also a universal moral law given to all nations. (2) He denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, instead saying that though present justification is by faith, there will be a future justification upon the basis of our Spirit-wrought works. Many evangelicals claim this is a slip back into Rome, but I'm not so sure that that's really at stake (or at least not the degree some people think it is). In fact, I think there are ways that both perspectives fit together.

Christianity Today magazine has put together a very helpful table comparing Wright's view and the traditional Reformed view of John Piper (although I think Michael Horton or Douglas Moo would have been a much better representative of the confessional Reformed position than John Piper). The accompanying essay about pastoral implications quotes Kevin DeYoung, my former pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan.

Questions on Romans 1:16-17

Our small group at New Song Church (EFCA) has begun studying the letter of St. Paul to the Romans. After reading the book some 20 times, I figured I had a pretty good understanding of what it was about. But reading some differing perspectives on the overall theme and argument of Romans always challenges me to go back to Word itself.

Perhaps the best "thesis statement" in Romans is 1:16-17: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.' " (ESV)

If you have insight into a few questions, that would be great!

(1) Is "the power of God for salvation" the effect of the gospel message or the content of the gospel message?

If it is the effect, this would mean that as the gospel is preached, God's Spirit works to create faith in the message. It's God's powerful, mighty Word through which he brings life. (See 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.)

If it is the content of the gospel, then the gospel is about the power which God has exerted in Christ upon the cross to justify sinners and break the power of sin and in the resurrection-defeat of death and decay. (See Romans 1:4; Ephesians 1:19 ff.; Philippians 3:21; Colossians 2:12.)

(2) How are we to understand "the righteousness of God" revealed in the gospel? Does it mean "the righteousness God bestows" or "God's own righteousness"?

If it means "the righteousness God bestows" or "a righteousness from God" (NIV), then the gospel reveals that, in the face of unrighteous mankind's dire need in the face of God's wrath (1:18), God has provided a justifying righteousness for us. The argument stretching from 1:18 to 3:20 seems to point in this direction, especially since the Greek links 1:18 to 1:16-17: "For (gar) the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

If it means "God's own righteousness," then the gospel is about how God turns out to be and faithful and just. One question put forth in Romans is whether or not God would punish sin and, if he did, how he could still bring his promised life and salvation to a universally sinful world. The answer is the propitiating work of Christ which "shows God's righteousness" (3:21-26). He upholds both his justice in punishing transgression as well as having devised a way to justify (vindicate or declare righteous) sinful people so that they could inherit eternal life. God's faithfulness is also "on trial" in Romans, since the very people to whom he promised salvation, the Jews, are rejecting the Savior (3:3-4; chapters 9-11). If God promised the Jews salvation and yet they're not actually entering into his kingdom, is God impotent and/or a liar?

I suppose it's possible that these ambiguous phrases contain both meanings simultaneously, though that seems to contradict general theories about how language works. Are either of these examples of double entendre? Any helpful thoughts?

Malatya

I recently found out that a documentary DVD has been made about the slayings of the first Turkish Christian martyrs. Ugur Yuksel and Necati Aydin, along with a German believer named Tilmann Geske, were killed by an organized group of five teenagers in the city of Malatya in east-central Turkey on April 18, 2007. (See my related posts from 4/18/07, 4/28/07, 8/8/07, 4/18/08.) You can check out the film's website at www.malatyafilm.org. The website includes a 30-day prayer guide for the nation of Turkey put on by The Austin Stone Community Church in Austin, Texas.

Being myself a Christian living in Turkey at that time and committed to spreading the news that Jesus Christ was the Redeemer of the world, I remember how strongly I felt the news of their deaths. Several of my housemates had actually met these men a few months earlier. Just two days after the killings I traveled to the city of Adana on the southern coast of Turkey and worshiped at the church where Geske was a member for six years. It was powerful. I remember the strength of the Turkish church and their determination: determination to persevere unswervingly in the face of opposition, given the faithfulness of God and the hope of the resurrection; determination to continue their love for their nation; and determination to forgive the killers and embody the power of the cross and the message of a God who loves those hostile to him. The martyrs' family publicly forgave the killers--news which made the front page of the newspapers and shocked many.

But what I think I remember most was this: As an expatriate, I had often thought of "us" expats and "them," the Turkish church. I loved the Turks and prayed for them daily--as I still do often--but I always prayed for "them." But on April 18 I remember reading Psalms 58 and 59 and unthinkingly found myself praying "we" and "us"--a prayer which, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, opened to my eyes that I was one with them. I hurt with them. As a Christian in Turkey, I was now caught up in this, too. Would my turn come soon? I had already endured a notable degree of mocking, derision, mistrust, and verbal abuse there for telling others about God's salvation. I am one with the Turkish church was the word burning in my heart. It was a moment I will not forget.

Lord Jesus, the Father has begun to pour out your Spirit and vitalize your servants. Would your redeemed saints in Turkey spread news of you through their bold faith, their self-sacrificing service to their family and friends, and through persistent hope in the Resurrection--both yours and theirs.

"Dirilis ve yasam benim. Bana iman eden kisi olsede yasayacaktin." ("I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me will live, even if he dies." John 11:25 -- from Tilmann Geske's gravestone)

"Necati Aydin: 1972 - infinity" -- from Aydin's gravestone

Self-justification versus God's justification

A money matter this past weekend revealed just how selfish, hurtful, conniving, and distrusting of God I really can be. Just a day before, I was talking with some of my students about how their innate response to any wrongdoing of theirs is to defend themselves and proclaim themselves innocent. Ha! Now I too was doing the exact same thing. It's funny how that works, eh?

As sad as it is that such things happen, God has been teaching me a very important lesson through it. I realized that as long as I was trying to find excuses and explanations for my behavior, I was trying to create my own circumstances for vindication--a self-justification. But on what basis would that stand before God? To do such is to fall from grace (Galatians 5:4). Yet in God's faithful persistence, the Spirit whispered to me the truth: Christ the Son has made full atonement for all my sins, and by faith in him I stand fully and forever vindicated before God the Father. But such faith in him means that I no longer lean on any edifice of my own works, logic, or vindication, and instead rely wholly on him. In Christ I was (and am) free to be a sinner, to say I'm sorry, to admit my wrongs in every gruesome detail, and to ask for forgiveness. And such forgiveness did I find, both from the offended party at hand and from God as well.

When were you saved?

"It happened one afternoon in A.D. 34 when Jesus died on the cross."

-- Karl Barth, upon being asked in 1962 exactly when he "got saved"

I think this quote--this mindset, this reality--is wonderful and wonderfully clarifying. It's true that the redemption accomplished by Christ is applied to us in the here and now by the Holy Spirit. But we can never let our first moments of light and faith (if known) overshadow the fact that it is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. It was his self-emptying and curse-bearing death and his glorious, aeon-flipping resurrection which accomplished our salvation, not some moment we "accepted Christ" or "committed my life to Christ" or anything else like that. Jesus' final words? "It is accomplished" (John 19:30).

Angels in our midst

Reading the Revelation of St. John is always a mind-stretching experience. I used to get really perplexed by it because I thought it mostly had to do with hidden secrets about some far-off "end times." Then I realized two things core to its message: (1) We are now living in the "last times" (Hebrews 1:2; 1 Peter 1:20). (2) It is literally "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:1). "Revelation" (Greek apokalupsos) means "unveiling" or taking away a covering so that we can see the truth. In this book we do not see Jesus as a dead historical figure, nor the church as an impotent amalgamation of rejects, nor the powers of the world as ultimate. We are given a glimpse behind the veil of our eyes to embrace reality in faith: Christ is a living King, the church is God's dwelling place on Earth, the saints are a victorious, conquering army, and the forces of evil are the real losers.

One thing that struck me is this: Jesus gives a message through St. John to the "angel" of each of the seven churches in Asia Minor (present-day western Turkey). It occurred to me that these angels are not the "heavenly host" as I once thought they were. After all, it would be very strange for the Son of Man to use a mortal human to mediate his words to the heavenly beings who serve him at his throne. The word "angel" can also just as easily be translated "messenger." To whom, then, is Jesus speaking through John? It is the pastors of the local church bodies! The Chief Shepherd is giving counsel to his designated vice-shepherds (see 1 Peter 5:2, 5).

What importance this has for us! As Protestants we toss about the Reformation doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" as license to seek our own paths to God or, more likely, simply include our pastor's preaching and counsel as simply one course in the spiritual smorgasbord by which we grow in knowledge and faith. But if these are are, as Christ himself reveals through his Spirit, his very angels and messengers, how much more important do these men become! How much more attentively ought we to heed their preaching as the very voice of Christ to us!* How much more authority do these seemingly weak, worldly men actually wield upon the earth!

So easily do I stuff my sermon notes into the back of my journal, leave them on the desk, or toss them out. It's my daily, personal "quiet time" that counts most, I think. That's where God really speaks to me. Personal study of the Scriptures is invalulable, it's true; but Christ promises his presence in the church. "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Even in the Revelation of Jesus as exalted and in holy splendor (1:12-20), he is found nowhere other than standing among his churches.

But there is more: "In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a double-edged sword" (Revelation 1:16). Jesus then tells the apostle, "The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches" (v. 20). In his book Reversed Thunder Eugene Peterson points out that to the ancient Greco-Roman world, the constellations and the seven known planets (or "unfixed stars") were of supreme importance. The constellations represented the pantheon, and the movement of the planets among the Zodiac was believed to determine one's destiny.

Yet Christ holds the stars in his hand! It is not mere stars or planets nor some fickle soap opera of deities which rules the outcome of history. Neither is it Rome nor the Third Reich nor the U.S.A. nor any other political power. It is Jesus Christ who is Lord! And it is his stars--his messengers--which influence the world. It is his lampstands--the churches--which bring light and truth. The work of the church and her pastors cannot be unceremoniously scraped into a pile of impotent failures, all apparent realities to the contrary. It is through the church which Jesus acts: He wields his sword, as Peterson points out, not through the mouth of a gun, but though the mouth of his people bearing his Word to the world.

________________
*Romans 10:14 highlights that when the message of Christ is preached, we do not merely hear about Christ; we hear Christ himself. "How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (NASB).

Freedom of and for faith

I'm sorry, but this kind of obtuse legalism makes me ill.

It's one thing to forbid dancing, hand-holding, and the like at their own school. But to forbid a student to attend prom at another school is ludicrous; that's no threat to the school. It is upsetting that this MSN writer chose not to provide the Baptist school's explanation for not allowing dancing, etc., and how this student's' perceived moral compromise could spread to his classmates. At least that much should be allowed to be said. But nonetheless, I cannot see at all how any "fundamental," "Bible-believing" Christian can outright forbid our freedom in Christ to follow the Spirit in matters allowed in Christian liberty. Neither dancing, nor hand-holding, nor consumption of alcohol is forbidden in the Bible (see 2 Samuel 6:14-16; Psalm 104:14-15). On the contrary, drinking wine is itself commanded and assumed in the observation of the Lord's Supper, and our Lord himself drank wine (Matthew 26:27-29). Jesus even compared the Christian life to the joy of new wine (Luke 5:33-39).

More than just making Christians look like a bunch of total idiots, I'm afraid that this unbiblical legalism turns people in on themselves and away from Christ and his "alien righteousness." The Pharisees thought the kingdom would come by their own efforts in the Law and thereby failed to learn what mercy is. We need to make room for people to have faith in Christ and his deeds, not their own. Martin Luther counseled thus to all legalists who forget we are justified before God by faith alone and not by adhering to religious rites and customs and laws:

[The Christian] will meet first the unyielding, stubborn ceremonialists who like deaf adders are not willing to hear the truth of Christian liberty [Ps. 58:4] but, having no faith, boast of, prescribe, and insist upon their ceremonies as means of justification. Such were the Jews of old, who were unwilling to learn how to do good. These we must resist, do the very opposite, and offend them boldly lest by their impious views they drag many with them into their error. In the presence of such men it is good to eat meat, break the fasts, and for the sake of the liberty of faith do other things which they regard as the greatest of sins. Of them we must say, "Let them alone; they are blind guides." (On Christian Liberty)

Heirs by grace

Now that I'm wrapping up several months of study in the Pentateuch, I was looking foward to spending some time again reading the Psalms. Well, lo and behold, the first psalm I read this morning, 105, was essentially a retelling of the Pentateuch's story. One interpretive feature of many psalms is that the meat of their content in the middle is framed by "bookends" that provide the main theme. In the case of Psalm 105, a retelling of Israel's deliverance from Egypt and entry into Canaan, the bookends are about God's righteousness in upholding his covenant with Abraham.

7 He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
8 He remembers his covenant forever,
the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 the covenant he made with Abraham,
the oath he swore to Isaac.
10 He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant:
11 "To you I will give the land of Canaan
as the portion you will inherit." (vv. 7-11)

42 For he remembered his holy promise
given to his servant Abraham.
43 He brought out his people with rejoicing,
his chosen ones with shouts of joy;
44 he gave them the lands of the nations,
and they fell heir to what others had toiled for-
45 that they might keep his precepts
and observe his laws.
Praise the LORD. (vv. 42-45)

We learn here that God's treaty with Abraham is a promise sworn "forever" by God (v. 8) and is an "everlasting covenant" (berith olam, v. 10). But wait a second--wasn't it fulfilled already? Didn't Israel inherit the land? Well, not quite.

Centuries later the priest Zechariah (whose name means "the LORD remembers") extolled the Lord's righteousness at the Messiah's advent (Luke 1:67-79): With the coming of the Messiah has God now remembered "the oath he swore to our father Abraham." What had God done? He had raised up the true Davidic king, Jesus Christ. Psalm 105 points us ahead to the One who would "fulfill all righteousness" on our behalf. Jesus, Abraham's true Seed (Galatians 3:15-22), has now by his own faith and righteousness inherited the true "promised land," the kingdom of heaven. He earned it by his own merit and righteousness, doing his Father's will even unto death. And by another covenant (diatheke) what he earned he now freely gives us by grace (Hebrews 9:15-17). Through no toil or merit of our own, we've "fallen heir to what others [or Another] had toiled for" (Psalm 105:44). We share in Christ the Son's own everlasting inheritance by open-handed faith.*

National Israel may have been given provisional access to a small plot of hotly-contested land. But now we see that in the Messiah God's promise to Abraham means so much more. His descendants--the Israel of faith--are nothing short of all peoples, tongues, and tribes**; his land is nothing short of the entire earth now, and "the new heavens and the new earth" in the age to come.

Not only do I think it's cool to see foreshadows of the gospel in the Old Testament. What is much, much better is our tenaciously faithful and furiously loving Father; our self-emptying Savior who suffered that we might become sons; and the Spirit who breathes the life of faith into us by which we grasp hold of Christ and life in his kingdom.
_______________________
*See Romans 8:14-17; Galatians 3:26. Being "adopted as sons" in Roman times involved conferring a right to an inheritance.
**According to the Bible, Israel is no longer a plot of land or limited to Jewish people; the entire global church is Israel. "If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29; cf 6:16 and Romans 4).

Freedom under Providence

News flash: Olivia and I are moving back to Richmond, Virginia! Few viable job leads had materialized in Plainfield or anywhere else in nearby Chicagoland, so I contacted my old district in Richmond, Henrico County Public Schools, and within a week I had three interviews lined up. I was eventually offered a biology/chemistry teaching position at Henrico High School, and I was able to negotiate for an extended, higher-paying contract.

As the reality of a move to VA drew near, we trembled at the thought of leaving behind Olivia's home of eleven years. I've become more comfortable living here, too, and yet another major move is certainly less than ideal. But we realized that in the absence of a compelling reason to stay in Illinois, this was clear provision from God in answer to prayers for employment. We knew that neither option--staying in IL or moving to VA--would be sin. We had good, God-fearing motives for each. But we knew we had to quickly make a decision, so we trusted God and went for it, believing that even in a big move such as this, God would be with us.

I felt the freedom to make this decision because I know that "finding God's will" is not about reading a fortune in tea leaves, gazing in a crystal ball for each move, or wanting to see the whole future laid out before we step out in faith. That's condemned as abominable sin, in fact (Deuteronomy 18:9-14). It's easy to get plagued by wanting to know God's secret will for our lives, all the particulars and plans, when those mysteries are never for our knowledge anyway (Deuteronomy 29:29). As servants under God's covenant lordship, all that matters is living by what he has revealed, that is, trusting him and being guided by his law. As we trust and obey his revealed will or "will of command" we can be sure that he will uphold us and carry out his exact plan for our lives, his "hidden will" or "will of decree." My former pastor Kevin DeYoung once preached,

We must renounce our sinful desire to know the future and be in control. We are not gods. We walk by faith, not by sight. We risk because God does not risk. We walk into the future in God-glorifying confidence, not because the future is known to us, but because it is known to God. And that's all we need to know.*

Here I think only a historic Augustinian/Reformed view of God's sovereignty and providence can give us humans true, meaningful freedom.* In an Arminian/open theistic view, even in "middle knowledge," God does not control all that happens in the future. He merely knows all that is possible, but human choice directs its course. If "God's will for my life" were really some sort of secret string of pearls I must continue to discover--specific choices and actions I may miss or stray from--then unless God controls me like a puppet, I could inadvertantly thwart his will. "Dang, God wanted me to do that, but I guess I missed it and ended up doing this instead. How was I to know? Both seemed like good options at the time. Can I still get back on track with his plan for me?"

In the biblical truth, however, everything is secured by God. I may fail to follow his revealed will--his law--but I cannot thwart his true purposes for me (his "hidden will" or "will of decree"). "Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails" (Proverbs 19:21; see also 16:9, 33; Ephesians 1:11). I can rest in knowing that when I'm faced with two or more choices, neither of which is sinful, then I'm free to really choose and know that all that follows is in God's hands and is according to his plan. I don't have to fear ruining God's will for my life. Only in this way are my choices truly free. And I can rest assured that even when I fail in sin, the Potter does not throw out rebellious, deformed clay. He rather reshapes it again in patience and grace (Jeremiah 18).

In addition, because God has the sovereign power to actually bring the consequences and fruit of my decisions to pass and to make them stick, only a Reformed view makes my choices truly meaningful, more than just vain hopes thrown cast to the winds of chance. God has the ability to "establish the work of our hands for us" (Psalm 90:17), giving lasting weight to our choices and actions. Otherwise I would have no confidence that my decisions to follow God would not be corrupted by someone else; the world would be ruled by existentialist Angst. But it is not so, for "the earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1).
__________
*DeYoung, pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, MI, has now put his excellent sermon series "Wisdom and the Will of God" into a new book format titled Just Do Something. I'm really looking forward to reading it.
** This is not to say that others outside the Reformed tradition do not hold similar views, but they've largely been influenced by Augustine or the reformers.

Herein Is Love

Confessing Evangelical, a Lutheran blogger across the pond, has written about Dr. Tim Keller's relationship between love and self-sacrifice/self-substitution, that is, true love is substitutionary. Check it out here; it's definititely worth reading.

A Greater Hope, part 2

This is it: My first post since marrying Olivia. Now two-plus weeks past, I'm getting used to having a ring on my finger, and I'm finding it one of the sweetest blessings--more than I could've imagined--to kneel to pray with Olivia at night before bed and then wake up right next to her, snuggled up close. Sure, it has been pretty crazy trying to move her into my, er, our apartment and figure out our new life together. But I wouldn't ever want to trade it.

On the day before our wedding ceremony, I spent time in prayer thanking God for how he had fashioned Olivia and me with his own specific intentions for our lives (Psalm 139:15-16); I also prayed for God to establish this new marriage and household (Psalm 90:17). My thoughts turned to Jesus' admonition against divorce:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:3-6)

Yes, this passage can be cliche. But what struck me wasn't the warning against breaking faith with one's wife. It was that when a man and a woman are united in marriage, it is God's act; he is the one who joins them together.

This filled me with incredible hope. If marriage were merely a worldly doing--its purpose a human purpose and its ends derived from the heart of fallen man--then it would fail. It would be as fragile and transient as the morning dew, which is consumed in the heat of the day. But it's not. And that's a marvelous thing. Marriage was intended by God, who created man in his image, "male and female he created them," first to bring to fuller expression the unity and diversity of his own nature and the dance of love between the Three Persons of the Trinity.* And as the story of fallen man's redemption plays out, God also shows that the marriage bond is the matrix for knowing and showing off the depths of his unfailing love-and-faithfulness (Hebrew chesed). Finally, the promises God has given to his chosen people under the new covenant is that they will know him in the joy and intimacy of a husband and his wife (see Isaiah 62:5; Jeremiah 31:34; Hosea 2:20). (Yes, that kind of knowing, too!)

And as it is God's desire to fill the earth with his images, spreading his dominion and filling its span with his reflected glory, so too does God desire the raising up of children who know and cherish him and his work of salvation on their behalf. Malachi 2:10-16 says that God made husband and wife "one in flesh and spirit" (NRSV; see also NIV) because he is seeking "godly offspring," followers of Christ formed by their parents in a home of God-glorifying love and fidelity. God even goes so far as to say, "I hate divorce!" (2:16).

This goes to show that God has a lot more interest in preserving and beautifying marriages than any human couple does. It is his doing for his renown and pleasure. So Olivia and I can move forward and press through any test that comes our way, knowing that if we humble ourselves before God, fear him, and rely on him always, we can have full confidence that God will deepen and strengthen our marriage.
______________________
*See my previous post about this from last spring.

A Greater Hope

In less than one short week, my beloved Olivia and I will begin the exciting journey of life together as a married couple. I cannot begin to relay how excited I am! I mean, seriously, she is such a wonderful blessing in my life. For example, only she could make me want to swallow my pride and say "I was wrong."

Someone asked recently if we had a prenuptial agreement, to which I replied: "No, there will be no prenuptial agreement. We actually trust each other and endeavor to follow Jesus Christ in love for one another, which means we'll never divorce. No divorce = no prenup. It's as simple as that. Prenup agreements are an advance warning that you don't trust the other person and/or you don't plan on being faithful to them. But that's not us."

Now, how can I be so sure of that? you might wonder. It's a question I often ask myself. How can I know that my own selfishness and pride will not foster bitterness and divisiveness between us and ultimately lead to a divorce? Current statistics, if they are to be believed, claim that over one third of "born again" Christians' marriages end in separation.

It's because I know that my hope for living in love does not depend solely on myself; my hope is in God's great promises to purify my desires and make me increasingly more loving and selfless:

"They will be my people, and I will be their God.* I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul." (Jeremiah 32:38-41)

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." (Ezekiel 36:24-27)

"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18)

When by faith we have communion with Christ, we have Christ in us, "the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). Yes, our greatest hope, sharing in Jesus' bodily glorification and complete freedom from sin, will not be our possession until after his return. But even now we possess his Spirit and are being renewed. This is no mere wishful thinking, for if it is, then God is a liar. These promises of God have been my courage and my comfort since this past fall concerning a lasting marriage with Olivia. I have brought these promises of God's before his throne in prayer many times, claiming his faithfulness to his word and reminding him that his Name would be defaced if he doesn't hold true to this.

In short, Olivia and I, sinners that we are, can boldly go forth into marriage because God's purposes and grace are more powerful than any evil. It is the Lord Christ who is the Omega; he gets the last word in our lives and in all of history. And it is his promise that his own loving heart and fear of God will be wrought within us, bit by bit, day by day, as by faith we go under those waters of our baptism--letting our old desires and ways be put to death in Christ that a new self might be born within us.**

_________________
*I am aware that the passages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel were first spoken to Israel in her exile. But these promises are certainly not for Jews alone; they belong to the "everlasting covenant" of grace into which the entire worldwide church has been engrafted through faith in Christ and his gospel. In a nutshell, the apostolic message of the New Testament is that the promises of deliverance and kingdom given to Israel were now being fulfilled through the Messiah, and they have been opened up to all nations, that they too might share in Messiah's benefits. Hence Paul can call the Gentile Galatian church "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16; cf. Ephesians 2:12-13; 3:6).

** See Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13.

Colson on Catechesis

Chuck Colson has written an engaging article about the need for re-instructing the church in the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. Just this morning I read in my BSF notes about the primacy of knowledge in saving faith, that is, faith in Christ rests in a true understanding of his Person and work. Amen!

I was actually a little surprised to find that such a stalwart of modern American evangelicalism as Colson says that contextualization--culturally packaging Christian doctrine in a way that can more readily be grasped--is "radically different from changing the definitive, concise summary of Christian truth the early church fathers accomplished in their councils." What? The Religious Right upholding the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I'm glad to see it. I think this could be an up-side of many evangelicals' desire for a more "authentic" (read: ancient) faith. Of course, most just want medieval spiritual practices, candles, and "spirituality"; others seeking an authentic faith are stressing "following Jesus" (orthopraxy) over confessing truth about him (orthodoxy). (I specifically think of Emergent movement here.) But if a desire to discover an authentic faith leads to embracing the historical doctrines of Christianity, then that's awesome!

I am also glad to read that Colson says that "personal faith is of course vital, but it is not sufficient." Faith, in itself, is nothing. It's merely, as the reformers put it, the "open hand" that receives Christ and all his benefits. Our faith--our knowledge, assent, and trust--must be in "him who is true" (1 John 5:20).

Is Loss a Gain?

Ha. Life is funny. Or perhaps it's God who's funny, always wanting to keep me on my proverbial toes. You see, on March 5 I had a very positive evaluation by my department chairman and the head principal and they wrote a written recommendation to the school board for my rehire. All was well, right? I felt very grateful to God for knowing that I was filling my role as a teacher with success.

But then came March 12 and another fiat from the school board to cut more employees. (Our district is about $12M in the red.) Guess what? Against his wishes, my principal called me down to tell me the news that I would have to get let go and would not be rehired for next year. For real? I guess the recession isn't just "in the news" anymore.

At first I was pretty upset. But then I realized--with some help from some God-conscious friends--that this may just be God's way of guiding his plan for me. So what if I don't teach in Plainfield again next year? I get to work and/or live somewhere else, and I need to be open to that. The more I thought about it, I realized it wasn't that big of a deal. Maybe it's time to move back to Richmond; Olivia and I are certainly open to the idea of living in the "Promised Land." Maybe something better is in store. Who knows? (God does--and he's always good.)

Armed with that thought, I've been able to be pretty upbeat and hopeful this week. Sure, it'll get tougher after the wedding (April fourth!) and I really get serious about job applications. But right now I am resting in God's care, knowing that with God and with an awesome wife, I can pretty much go anywhere and do anything.

Bonhoeffer on "Cheap Grace"

Reflecting further on this passage in Numbers and people's presumption upon God's graciousness, I thought a few words from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship would be helpful here.

The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance [at the Cross]; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost [of Christ's death] was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?

He also goes on to define this "cheap grace":

[Cheap grace is] the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

I think that viewing justification as God's acceptance of sin instead of the acceptance of the sinner is so insightful. It's so easy for me to think, "Oh, I'm covered by grace; I'm forgiven; I'm set right with God." That's true--I am right before God through faith in Jesus Christ. But my sins never were nor ever will be right. Salvation is eminently personal: I am in fellowship with Christ. But my sins never are. My sins may be expiated, expunged, or propitiated; but they are never justified.

Postponed Grace

In the previous post I wrote about--believe it or not--how God is gracious to hold us to the consequences of our sin. But just because God is gracious and our sins are wiped away in Christ doesn't mean all can be had from God's hand so easily. When Israel refused to enter the Promised Land and God judged them, Moses interceded for them. He pleaded God's grace (Numbers 14:17-19). But many others presumed upon it (14:39-45). They thought that with a glib acknowledgement of their sin, all would be okay. They thought all was immediately amended and that God's favor could be had for nothing. Instead of showing a true, mature faith by humbly accepting the severity of their sin and the necessity of repenting from it, they chose instead to try to conquer their enemies in Canaan. Consequently they were duly routed.

It's not to say that the "promised land" isn't for forgiven, redeemed sinners. It is. But it's precisely that; it's a land that can only be enjoyed by redeemed sinners, those who are freed from sin. Those who still love sin much will love God's gifts least (Numbers 16:13-14). Perhaps God is looking for a certain kind of person to enjoy his gifts, someone who will really be grateful and accept them with gladness, someone who will cherish the things God chooses to give. "Not as the world gives do I give to you," says our Lord (John 14:27). He doesn't give us the same type of crap we can buy off the shelf for pennies but which fails to satisfy--the same junk we crave out of sinful desires. ("Oh, the leeks and onions and garlic we had in Egypt!" Israel moaned.) God gives "good and perfect" blessings (James 1:17), and perhaps for many people he chooses to wait until they will see them as good things. And isn't it all the sweeter to receive a gift if you've had to wait for it?
_______________
Do I err in thinking this? For now it's only a thought, a rumination. Am I confusing Law and Gospel? I don't think so. God's gifts are always gracious--free, undeserved favors upon sinners. But he is free also to give or withhold in the way he so pleases.

Consequences

Can there still be consequences for forgiven sin? That's a question I had to ask myself as I was reading through an account of Israel's greatest national failure, their refusal to occupy the Promised Land (Numbers 13-14). Because many said they would rather die in the desert than trust the Lord and boldly march into the land to do battle with its occupants, the Lord gave them exactly what they wanted: he condemned them to four decades of trackless wandering in the desert until every adult had finally collapsed in death. Not one of the rebels would inherit the land.

It says in Numbers 14:20 that God did indeed forgive their sin; he didn't wipe them out entirely. Their posterity would still go on inherit the Promised Land. But can there still be consequences for forgiven sin? Or, better yet, can God still hold us to the consequences of sin which he has forgiven and canceled? If they're truly forgiven and atoned for, shouldn't any lingering effects be removed? If God is not unjust, then how can he forgive and yet not relieve sin's effects?

If our sins are forgiven in Christ, is he still punishing us? No. In Hebrews 12:6 (quoting Provers 3:11-12) it says that "the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." Those whom he accepts are accepted on account of having been forgiven of their sins through faith in Jesus Christ (John 1:12). God's wrath no longer remains upon them (John 3:36). So this punishment cannot be a punitive one; rather, it's disciplinary. A father spanks his child to train his child to obey and choose the right way ahead of time. God often chooses to let the results of sin unfold in his children's lives in order to teach us the death and fruitlessness of violating his created order, that is, his law. In the ensuing pain of sin God is mercifully weening us from our vain idolatries and is forming in us a glorious love for him alone. Hebrews 12:10 says that God "disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness"--and "without holiness no one will see the Lord" (v. 14). God's consequences are part of how he strengthens his children to endure until the end and not set our hearts on evil , by which we would fall short of the kingdom (1 Corinthians 10:1-11).

Furthermore, the painful results of sin can never be punishment--for that would be far too small to offset the grievous nature of our sin. Do we really think that losing a job, rocking a marriage, or bearing some measure of public humiliation for our sin is really enough to make full satisfaction for it before God? Absolutely not! Only there at the Cross is justice and satisfaction and reconciliation all in one. Only in the disfigured Man of Sorrows who cried in the shadows, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is enough punishment for sin. Everything else can only be at best a mild "slap on the wrist" in comparison.

In a strange way, I believe that willing submission to sin's effects shows not little, but great, faith in God's grace, mercy, goodness, and lovingkindness. We don't think, "Dang, God is punishing me for this sin." We know that would mock the Crucified Redeemer and neglect that our reconcilation in him. Humbly submitting to God's rod of discipline is full of faith because it's believing that accounts were in fact settled in full upon Golgotha. God has justified us in Christ and will never condemn us (Romans 8:1, 32-39). So we know what now comes our way must be corrective, not vindictive. It is for our good.

So we ought to rejoice that God our Father is chastising us. It proves us his sons, forms in us "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:10, 14), and validates our genuine faith so that we will be uplifted in praise and honor (1 Peter 1:6-7).

Maybe the question to ask isn't "Can God justly give temporal consequences for eternally forgiven sin?" The answer is, Yes, he can, and he does. Who am I to question God? But rather we should be glad that he does do so--for he does it as even a merciful act of his favor toward wayward sinners.

Gratitude

Today was The Day. That is, today is when non-tenured teachers were supposed to find out if they weren't going to be rehired for next year. I anxiously dared to open my e-mail inbox, wondering if I was going to have The Meeting today.

No news is good news, I guess.

As the day went on, I found out that two other hard-working science teachers got let go (and one was a two-sport coach, at that!). It was really a numbers game. The district is in debt, the curriculum is changing, and enrollment actually dropped. I'm not entirely in the clear yet, but I heard that today would be "the day" for anyone getting let go.

I hate turning on the news anymore, and the atmosphere is equally paranoid every day in public schools. I heard that a large local district released all of their first-year teachers. But it makes me ever so thankful that God has graciously answered my near-daily prayers for continued employment. (On top of this, two of my students even brought me some of the scrumptious cake they made last night during a "study party"!)

As Olivia has so often reminded me, "The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:5-7). Thank you, Father, for your kindness toward me through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Whose orthodoxy is it?

A recent issue of Christianity Today magazine examined the rise of Calvinism in an article titled, "Young, Restless, and Reformed." Rallying around the likes of John Piper and John MacArthur (at least as much as they can be considered confessionally Reformed), the theology of "Calvinism" has been growing in evangelical circles. But not everyone is pleased by this. Scot McKnight says this about the so-called "Neo-Reformed" in a few recent posts at the BeliefNet blog (part 1; part 2):

They think the only legitimate and the only faithful evangelicals are Reformed. Really Reformed. In other words, they are "confessing" evangelicals. The only true evangelical is a Reformed evangelical. They are more than happy to call into question the legitimacy and fidelity of any evangelical who doesn't believein classic Reformed doctrines, like double predestination.

Whether or not Reformed Protestants actually believe about "double predestination" what everyone else thinks they do--a gross caricature in my estimate--I find McKnight's criticisms a sharp rebuke to folks like me. You see, I would consider my theological understandings most in conformity with the Reformed tradition. What I think McKnight labels as "Reformed theology" is really the mislabeled "five points of Calvinism," better known as the "doctrines of grace." Granted, this has little to do with the meat of real Reformed theology, which is that all of God's dealings with humanity are subsumed under one of two overarching covenants: a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.

In trying to defend the gospel, though, do we really need the "doctrines of grace"? Are they themselves essential to the gospel--so much so that if someone doesn't adhere to them he has bastardized the message of Christ and is not a true "evangelical"?

In short--yes and no. For starters, it was Lutherans during the 16th-century Reformation who were first called "evangelical," coming from the Latin evangel, or "gospel." Oops. (Granted, Reformed theology during the 16th and 17th centuries looked a whole lot more like Lutheranism than it does now.) Without being too minimalist or vague, here is what I consider essential to the gospel. (I hope you will see that, unlike some versions that are merely propositions or "points," the gospel is really a story in history.)

1. God created the world "very good" and man--Adam and Eve--in his image, for the goal of wholehearted fellowship with and enjoyment of God himself.


2. Through the deceptive agency of Satan, Adam exercised distrust and rebellion and brought God's curse of death--both physical and spiritual--upon all his progeny, that is, all of mankind. All of humanity is covenantally represented "in Adam" and are therefore under sin's guilt, shame, and power. Though God still requires all persons to fully obey God's moral law, they cannot do so and under just condemnation.


3. God graciously promised to provide a Redeemer in whom man would be rescued from sin, and through whom God would reign in righteousness to bring blessing and life to a world dead in sin. (*Addition: These blessings were originally pledged in Eden and then to Abraham and his offspring, later to be given to all persons who shared in Abraham's faith.)


4. Because of man's inability to effect his own restoration through works, God himself lovingly and mercifully took on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to achieve the obedience he required from man and to become an unblemished substitute to bear in his own death God's holy and just punishment for man's sin. This loving sacrifice reconciled sinful man to God.


5. Christ's was vindicated by God at his resurrection, and he now reigns from heaven to give his Spirit to all who would repent of their works, futility, and pride, and turn to him for salvation. Such persons are now, by the Spirit, given new birth "in" or "into Christ," are forgiven and declared righteous in him, and receive as a free gift the life Christ himself earned by his obedience.


6. Spiritual fellowship with Christ now transforms believers into a truer image of God.


7. Christ will return physically and visibly before the sight of all the world, and all persons will be raised bodily. Christ will condemn unbelievers to eternal torment and to welcome believers into eternal bliss in the kingdom of God--a new world which is again "very good" where we will honor and enjoy God unendingly.

The Reformed "doctrines of grace" do help to clarify these points and add depth and meaning. But this gospel goes a long way even without such beneficial clarifications. This message is our center. What I think the Heidelberg Catechism or Westminster Confession or Canons of Dordrecht do for us (and why they're ultimately necessary) is that they teach us to place saving agency--and thus all boasting and thanksgiving and honor and praise--squarely with God himself and God alone. They unpack more fully the message that "God saves sinners." We still have much the same gospel. It's just that without the Reformed lens on Scripture we wouldn't know how much praise and credit to really ascribe to God for the salvation we now have. We wouldn't know as well the security with which we lie in God's love and power.

In one sense, the Reformation's theology could be summed up as "Salvation belongs to the Lord; damnation belongs to man." It's a story of two cities, two mediators, two destinies, two ways to be human. So what the church really needs right now is not so much explicit, confessional Reformed orthodoxy, but finely tuned Law-Gospel sensors. We need pastors who are able to rightly able to expose how futile is our merit and how great and continual is our need for justification and life. And such pastors will also be able to lead us to the One in whom this justification and life is freely given.

Saying "I'm Sorry"

I realized while writing in my journal on Saturday that there's a big difference between saying "I'm sorry" and "Will you forgive me?" You may think it's a mere matter of semantics--and I'll let you retain that right--but I think there's a lot more to it.

You see, I'm finding that it's so much harder to ask for forgiveness than to say I'm sorry for doing something. Myabe it's just me, but I get this gut-rumbling, gulp! gotta-swallow (my pride) feeling when I'm deciding between saying "sorry" and the "f-word." (This, of course, usually occurs while I'm nervously twiddling my thumbs and my eyes cast downward--anywhere, really, but at the person I've injured.)

You see, forgiveness can only occur when an actual wrong, an injury, a trespass, has been committed. It has to named for what it is--and then never held against the offender again. "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you," St. Paul exhorts the Ephesian church (Ephesians 4:32). If I ask someone to forgive me as in Christ God forgave me, then that's painful. God didn't just nonchallantly wipe away our sins. "Eh, it's no big deal. You were flawed anyway, and I'm immutable by human deeds, so no big deal. Shall we let bygones be bygones and call it even?" No, when God forgave us in Christ, he declared our sins for what they really were. "Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:13-14 NLT). God didn't hide our sins or gloss over them. Like the Roman executors' custom, God made public our list of offenses, nailing to the cross. Upon Calvary, however, God didn't nail a placard to the cross detailing our sins; he nailed the Sinner himself, Jesus Christ, who bore our own sins in his body.

Asking for forgiveness is hard because it means I must acknowledge that I didn't just make a mistake; I didn't just slip up or have a momentary lapse in judgment. I sinned. I willfully and selfishly did something wrong (gasp!) to another person. It's hard to say that--not only to myself, but to the injured. It's much easier to say, "I'm sorry," because that just implies nothing wrong was really done, perhaps just something regrettable. "I'm sorry for doing that" really means, "I regret the fact that this happened, but I don't really intend to do anything about it." Of course, we can easily believe our own lies, so if we simply say "sorry" enough, it's easy to feel better about ourselves: I didn't do anything deliberately wrong, at least nothing inexcusable, and I've now made proper amends for it. Yeah, right.

But the Cross of Christ speaks a different word. There God exposes us each as manipulative, selfish mercenaries and proves us utterly impotent at making proper amends. But there he also freely provides the only One who is sufficient to make proper amends and to the uttermost atone for all our sins. Yes, even the sin of saying "I'm sorry."