Kunalians

Are You the One Who Is to Come?:The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Questions by Michael Bird

2009-08-19T18:31:00.000-07:00

Did Jesus claim to be Israel’s Messiah? To most evangelicals the answer would be in the affirmative but most “liberal” scholars deny that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and that the biblical records declaring him so are early church reflections and are not from the historical Jesus. It’s for this reason that Michael Bird, New Testament tutor at Highland Theological College, has written Are You the One Who Is to Come?:The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Questions in order to affirm that Jesus did in fact claim to be Israel’s Messiah.

Bird is carefully to argue not that Jesus used the title “Messiah” but “that Jesus saw himself in messianic categories, enacting a messianic role or messianic vocation as part of his aim to renew and restore Israel though his various activities” (p.29). Birds seeks to establish his thesis by first reviewing the messianic understanding in the 2nd Temple Judaism (Ch. 2) and refuting major arguments for the denial of Jesus' claim to be a Messiah such as Wrede’s “Messianic Secret” and the early Christians’ “scripturizing of the Jesus tradition” (Ch.3).

Bird spends the next two chapters exploring the messianic question through the Jesus tradition. First, Bird examines certain patterns and themes like “the Son of Man”, “the Anointed One”, kingdom, and “I Have Come” sayings (Ch. 4) then he analyzes the stories leading to Christ’s death, his death, and it’s aftereffects on the early Church. After carefully examination of the relevant texts, Bird makes a masterfully case that Jesus saw himself in messianic categories. Finally, Bird concludes with a final chapter describing the significances of Christ being the Messiah (Ch. 6).

I really appreciate a lot of Bird’s book. I found his review of the relevant texts to be careful and his conclusions to be extremely balanced. I was also excited to see Bird emphasis “the story of Israel”which I believe is the interpretative key in understanding Jesus. He writes “The story of the Messiah can only be understood as part of the story of Israel...Jesus was not a timeless heavenly redeemer imparting esoteric truths to receptive human vessels. The vision of the New Testament authors and of proto-orthodox Christianity is that the day of salvation has been brought to the world through the Messiah of Israel” (pg. 163).

It’s important to note that this is an academic book and some might not be familiar with some of the issues, but those who do or are willing to patiently work through them I highly recommend this book.

Top Books of 2008

2009-01-04T13:09:00.000-08:00

1. D.A. Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited

2. James Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle

3. Richard Hay’s The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction of New Testament Ethics

4. Scot Mcknight’s A New Vision for Israel: the Teaching of Jesus in National Context

5. Christopher Wright’s Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible’s Central Story

6. Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness

7. Tim Keller’s The Reason of God:Belief in an Age of Skepticism

8. N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God

9. Mark A. Noll ‘s The Civil War as a Theological Crisis

10. Kaiser’s, Bock’s, Enns’ Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)

Craig Blomberg's New Blog

2008-08-29T10:49:00.000-07:00

Craig Blomberg, one of my favorite NT scholars, has decided to create his own blog, called New Testament Musings . I am pumped!!!

Book Recommendation: The Moral Vision of the New Testament

2008-08-28T18:03:00.000-07:00

Richard Hay’s The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction of New Testament Ethics is an outstanding and thought-provoking book on New Testament (NT) ethics. Hay’s book consists of four parts reflecting the four heuristic task of pursuing NT ethics:

1) The Descriptive Task - the act of extricating the message of each individual writings of the Bible. Hays executes this task by briefly going over most of the individual books of the NT, noting each of the authors main points and concerns.

2) The Synthetic Task - the act of seeking to integrate the individual writings of the NT. In this section, Hays provides us 3 guidelines in how we should pursue our synthesis of each individual NT text: a) confront the full range of canonical witness b) let the tension stand and c) attend to the literary genre of the texts (pg . 189 – 191). Hays also provides us with three images, which he believes to be central to the biblical story, that will help guide our reflections on NT ethics: a) community b) cross and c) new creation. (pg 196 -200)

3) The Hermeneutical Task - the act of relating what we find in the synthetic task to our particular situation. For this part, Hays examines the concept of authority as it relates to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (pg. 208-209). Then Hays investigates the hermeneutical strategies in pursuing ethics by five interpreters: Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, and Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza which allows us to see how different people use scripture, tradition, reason and experience in grounding their ethical imperatives.

4) The Pragmatic Task – the act of living out what the Bible’s commands. In this final section, Hays uses his 4 task model of pursuing ethics by seeking to understand the ethical norm for violence in defense of justice (pg 317 – 343), divorce (pg 347- 374), homosexuality (pg 379 – 400), Anti-Judaism and ethic conflicts (pg 407 – 438) and abortion (pg. 444-457)

I found Richard Hay’s book to be very helpful as it allows me to see the difficulties of using the Bible as normative source for ethics but yet it also provides a well reasoned model on how to get past them. I also enjoyed Hay's Christ-like tone throughout his book as it relates to his model and when he addresses hot topics like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality.

(Doug Moo's has a good critically review of Dr. Hay's book)

Book Recommendation: A New Vision for Israel

2008-08-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

In Scot McKnight’s book, A New Vision for Israel: the Teaching of Jesus in National Context, he seeks to articulate an understanding of Jesus by integrating him the in context of the redemption of Israel. McKnight sees Jesus as an eschatological prophet, whose mission was to warn Israel of the impending judgment of God (70.A.D.) which would usher in God’s final judgment and consummate his kingdom (pg.12). From this idea, McKnight builds and refines his understanding of Jesus through three major themes: a) the God of Jesus (Ch. 2), b) the kingdom of God (present aspect – Ch. 3 and future aspect Ch.4) and c) the ethics of God (Ch. 5 and 6).

I really enjoyed this book. It’s written clearly and builds a great exegetical case for understanding Jesus and his mission to Israel which I believe is the key in realizing who Jesus was in the gospels.

McKnight on 70AD and God's Consummated Kingdom

2008-08-28T15:46:00.000-07:00

One of the most difficult passages in the Bible for me to understand is Mark 13 and it's parallels: Matthew 24:1-51 and Luke 21:5-36. Some interpreters see this passage as Jesus foretelling the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.) and the final judgment which would usher in God's final kingdom in the near future that is within one generation (Mark 13:30), while other see Jesus as only predicting the temple's destruction as imminent and not God's final judgment/kingdom and yet others see Jesus only talking about fall of the temple, saying nothing about God's final judgment/kingdom.

Albert Schweitzer is probably the best known promoter of seeing Jesus predicting the nearness of both the temple's destruction and God's final judgment/kingdom, thus when God's final kingdom did not come about, he was wrong.

Scot Mcknight has a similar view to Schweitzer but challenges the notion that Jesus was in error based on his understanding of biblical prophets and how prophecy normally works. He writes:

"In his vision of human history, Jesus saw no further than A.D. 70, and to this date he attached visions of the final salvation, the final judgment, and the consummation of the kingdom of God in all its glory. That history took another course does not at all mean that Jesus was in error; rather, like the Hebrew prophets before him, he saw the next event as the end event and predicted events accordingly. This perspective was typical of Jewish prophecy from of old; the next event was seen as the end event, but that next event resulted in a series of unfolding events. Prophecy carried with it an innate poetic ambiguity. It might be that Jesus made a distinction between the climatic events pertaining to the nation and to Jerusalem, on the one hand, and to the final events of history, on the other; that is, that Jesus distinguished the events of A.D. 70 from the final events (judgment, kingdom, etc.) This would be very difficult to prove and need not be proved, since Jesus' method was so typical of Jewish prophecy:the next event, an event that God had enabled a prophet to see, would take shape as the last event that would wrap up God's plan for history". - pg 12, A New Vision For Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context

Very interesting stuff. I need to think about this more.

Don Garlington is Asking, What's It All About?

2008-08-12T12:06:00.000-07:00

Don Garlington is asking, "What's it all about" when a group of people articulate similar views on 1) the relationship between faith to obedience (Rom. 1:5) and 2) the necessity of works during the final judgment (Rom. 2:13) but some get attacked because of these views but others don't.

Garlington states:

"I ask again, What's it all about? If the likes of Bucer, Schreiner, Candeay, Seifrid, Dunn, Wright, Bird, Mounce, Shepherd, and others of us, are in essential accord as to Rom 1:5; 2:13 (and other texts), then why does there continue to be internecine warfare among believers of the same stripe? Or, more pointedly, why is there a persistent double standard imposed on those who are more alike than different?"

Through my reading of things on Paul and justification,I have asked the same question. But it appears to me that the major reason why some people get attacked and other don't is because one group affirms the Westminster Confession view of Christ's imputation with it's underlying notion of the "covenant of works" (Scheriner, Seifrid, and Bird), while others don't (Wright, Garlington and Shepherd) [1]

[1] I am not sure about Candeay's, Bucer's, Mounce's, or Dunn's views on imputation.

Book Recommendation: Jeffers' The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era

2008-08-09T16:47:00.000-07:00

One of the main problems I have in understanding the New Testament is that I don't know the historical context for these writings very well. So, I was happy to read James S. Jeffers' The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Back of Early Christianity. Jeffers' book is an easy read that covers a variety of topics in the NT era such as: citizenship, slavery, views of life and death, and religion.

I found this book to be extremely helpful and I would recommend this to anyone, who is like me not too familiar, with the NT era.

Jesus and Restoration of Israel

2008-08-05T08:50:00.000-07:00

About a year ago, I started to focus my reading on the gospels (currently, I am reading Bock's Luke Commentary) and the historical Jesus instead of Pauline stuff, especially as it relates to justification and New Paul Perceptive. And so far, I found that the key in unlocking the gospels is the understanding of Jesus' mission and relationship with Israel[1].

Here's a good quote from Scot Mcknight describing Jesus connection with Israel:

"It follows, then that Jesus cannot be understood if the described exclusively, ore even primarily , in the category of a spiritual master, or as one who was primarily concerned with the inner religious life and its disciplines for the individual. First and foremost, Jesus was a Jew whose vision of the proper religious life centered on the restoration of the Jewish nation and on the fulfillment of the covenants that God had made with the nation. The most important context in which modern interpreters should situate Jesus is that of ancient Jewish national disaster. Jesus' hope was not so much the "Church" as the restoration of the twelve tribes (cf. Matt.8:11-12;10:23;and19:28), the fulfillment of the promises of Moses to national Israel, and the hope of God's kingdom (focused on and through Israel) on earth. Thus, when Jesus sent out the Twelve (cf. Matt. 9:35-11:1), the "disciples were not evangelistic preachers sent out to save individual souls for some unearthly paradise. They were couriers proclaiming a national emergency and conducting a referendum on a question of national survival." [2]

[1] For a great lecture on understanding Jesus, check out Rikki Watt's talk dated "January 14, 2001)

[2] Mcknight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context, see pp. 10-11

Photo Update

2008-08-02T18:41:00.000-07:00

Things has been busy over the last few months, so I've been behind with pictures.....

Hmmm....where do I start?

February: Valentine's Day 2008 (ha..ha..okay, I'm way behind...)

March: Dan's cousin comes to visit from Taiwan, Dan's birthday

April: Trip to Dominican Republic.....Click on photo link for more pictures!

May, June, and July....more photos to come!!!!!.

Book Recommendation: Salvation Belongs to Our God

2008-07-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

In the past couple of years, Christopher Wright has quickly become one of my all-time favorite authors, so I was real excited to read his new book, Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible’s Central Story. The book did not disappoint.

In Wright’s new book, he seeks to give a biblical perspective on salvation, using the biblical passage Rev. 7:10 (Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb) as a template.

Here are some things I loved about this book.

The holistic view of salvation by surveying the OT and NT (ch. 1) and recognizing that the Bible makes priorities within salvation. For an example, Wright notes that “being saved from the wrath of God matters a lot more in the end than being saved from illness or injustice (pg. 17- 18).

The emphasis that salvation belongs only to God and that he is the ultimate source of it (ch. 2)

An understanding that blessings includes creational (material) relational (both with God and humans), covenantal, ethical (makes demands), multinational and Christological properties (Ch. 3)

The story of salvation is found deeply embedded in the story of God's covenant with Israel and with the climax of the narrative being found in Christ’s new covenant (pg 88 -93)

I found Wright to be extremely sensitive and wise on how he deals with tough issues like salvation in other religions (pg. 109 – 110), assurance of salvation (pg. 129 -135) and the consequences of those who never hear the gospel (pg. 157 – 171)

Wright gives a great overview of understanding how Christ’s cross and resurrection accomplishes salvation (pg 182 -193).

The book also includes questions after each chapter, so that it could be easily used in a small group.

If John Murray’s book, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied, is the classic book on salvation from an ordo salutis (order of salvation) perspective (I believe it is) than I think Christopher Wright’s book should be the standard for a chronological survey of the OT and NT perspective on salvation for years to come. GET THIS BOOK!!!!

"Reconciling James and Paul": Thoughts on James 2:14:26 Part 3

2008-07-18T06:31:00.000-07:00

So how does James' thought on justification by faith and works (v.24) relate to Paul's thought on justification by faith (Rom. 4 and Gal. 2)? I think James' thought can be harmonizes with Paul's, but I also think it's important to note that James' main point is to stress that good works is important for salvation and not to give a dissertation on how faith, works, and justification (salvation) are related.

Differences in Paul and James

I think the best way to harmonies Paul and James is to note the following differences:

1. Paul and James appears to have different definitions of faith.

Robert Stein notes that "the faith of James's opponent involves merely intellectual assent to propositions such as "God is one." It is a belief that certain propositions are true. Paul's use of the words "faith" and "believe" involves faith in God and his Son. It is not merely propositional, although that element is present. It is also relational! Faith for Paul involves a relationship of grace and love toward God that results in a transformed life" [1]

2. In Romans and Gal, Paul's tension is between faith and "works of the law" (Mosaic law) and not "good works" in general.

Richard Bauckham writes " When Paul refers to "works of the law" (a phrase not used by James) it is with special, though not exclusive, reference to boundary markers, such circumcision and food laws, which symbolized Jewish exclusivity. James, on the other hand, is entirely oblivious to the question of Gentile believers in Christ, and the works he has in mind are acts of neighborly love." [2]

3. Paul seems to have a more realized understanding of justification while James has a more futuristic (eschatological) one. [3]

Conclusion

With these points in mind, I believe James is stressing the importance of the final judgment in accordance with works (Romans 2:), while Paul is stressing the importance of initial or realized justification by faith alone over and against those who are obedient to the Mosaic law [4]

[1] pg 6 of "Saved by Faith [Alone]" in Paul "Not Saved faith Alone" in James by Robert Stein.

[2] pg 1488 of Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.

[3] See Gathercole on pg 234 in "Justification in Perspective" (McCormack), M. Seifrid on pg 182 in "Christ, our Righteousness", and pg 13 and 14 of R. Stein's article mentioned above.

[4] Even though James states a person is "justified by works" and not "will be justified by works". I think James is using proleptic language (bringing in the future verdict into present) to stress the importance of having good works in the present because the final verdict is in accordance with it.

James' Main Point: Thoughts on James 2:14:26 Part 2

2008-07-16T11:01:00.000-07:00

1. Faith without good works can't save someone because it's "dead" (v14-17).

2. Faith without good works is useless and absurd because the demons have faith that mentally asserts in God's monotheistic existence which produces nothing but fear (v. 18-20)

3. Abraham is cited as an example of being justified by works (v.21) in his offering of Isaac (Gen.22) and his faith was somehow completed by this work (v.22) thus confirming God's declaration of Abraham as righteous by faith in Gen. 15:6 (v.23).

4. James summarizes that a person is declared right by God because of works and faith (v.24)

5. Rahab is cited as an example as a person justified by works (v.25)

6. James concludes with a metaphor that compares a body apart from the spirit and faith without works, starting that both of these things are dead (v.26).

Conclusion- I believe that the main point of James 2:14-26 is to stress the importance of good works to Christians over and against the idea that a mental assertion of God's monotheistic existence is enough to get one saved.

Debate on the Topic of Divorce: Instone-Brewer vs Piper

2008-07-16T09:41:00.000-07:00

Last October (I know this is "old" news, but my small group was discussing divorce yesterday), David Instone-Brewer and John Piper had a very informative debate on divorce. Instone-Brewer defends a position which would allow divorce for 1) adultery 2) persistent emotional and physical neglect and 3) abandonment and abuse. [1] Piper responds with a position that only allows for divorce in the case of "fornication during betrothal" [2].

Later, Andreas Köstenberger weighs-in and offers a position that would allow divorce for 1) adultery and 2) non-believer's abandonment of a believer. [3] In another blog post, Köstenberger answers questions in regards to his position, which is definitely worth reading [4]

Divorce is a tough topic and I sympathize with all the position mentioned above, but I think Köstenberger probably has the best interpretation as it relates to the plain biblical texts on divorce, but I am very intrigued by Instone-Brewer use of extra-biblical sources to hash out the meaning of Jesus and Paul.

[1] See Instone-Brewer's CT article, "What God Has Joined: What does the Bible really teach about divorce?" and his short response to Piper's critique.

[2] See Piper's article, critiquing Instone-Brewer, entitled "Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce: A Response to Instone-Brewer's Article In Christianity Today".

[3] See Köstenberger's blog entry, "Clarfying the NT on Divorce"

[4] See Köstenberger;s blog entry, "Q&A on Divorce and Remarriage". *A MUST READ!!!!)

Eternal or Physical Salvation": Thoughts on James 2:14:26 Part 1

2008-07-08T10:51:00.000-07:00

"14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"

Eternal or Physical Salvation?

It's clear from James 2:14 that good works are necessary in faith for salvation? But how is James defining salvation here? Does he mean eternal or physical salvation?

2 Reasons for the Meaning of Eternal Salvation

I think he could mean both, but with more of an emphasis on eternal salvation. I think James 5:13-20 clearly focuses on physical salvation (healing from physical illness) but I also believe eternal salvation is also in view because of the following 2 reasons:

1) The "Crown of Life" reference found in James 1:12 is used in Revelation 2:9-11 as referring to eternal salvation (It's interesting that John uses this phrase in the context of a call for Christians to persevere in suffering and poverty, which is similar to James' context).

9"'I know your tribulation and your poverty but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.' -Rev. 2:9-11

2) There are a bunch of verses that suggest the need for good works (sanctification) in order to receive eternal life (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal 5:16-24, John 5:29, Mathew 25:31-46, 2 and Peter 3:11-13)

Conclusion

I believe that James is stating that good works are usually necessary for eternal and physical salvation [1].

[1] In regards to physical salvation, I do believe James realize that physical death can occur despite a Christian, who lives righteously (cf.James 5:6) so that one's holiness doesn't guarantee a person's good health.

I am a Basketball Genius:Celtics in 6

2008-06-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

On June 6,2008, Pat Mcconn emailed me this:

"would you say celtics chances are better or worse than 20%?"

I responded with this:

"i think you will be surprised with boston's defense. even though their offense have been shaky, their defense will always be there and you can't really measure/feel that until you see them play a particular team. how many people thought the pistons were going to win?

Boston in 6...PERIOD"

Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

2008-06-09T17:41:00.001-07:00

Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness is a fascinating book, which argues that the best way to read the Gospels as history is to see them as eyewitness testimony.

In order to establish this point, Bauckham seeks to argue against the popular scholarly belief that the Gospels, as we now have them, was a product of a long process of anonymous transmission by the early church communities, which usually results in the notion of ditching the original testimonies of Jesus and replacing them with their own views of Jesus. Instead of this, Bauckham seeks to ground the writing of Gospels with the testimonies of eyewitnesses therefore bringing it more closely to the form in which the eyewitnesses told their stories about Jesus.

I thought this was a great book and I am sure I will be referring to it for years to come.

TULIP - The Calvinist Rabbit

2008-06-02T19:43:00.000-07:00

A month ago our friends let us "rabbit-sit" their bunny, TULIP.

Here's TULIP with his buddy, Bear-Bear, after discussing "Unconditional Election" (Bear-Bear is an Arminian).

Here's TULIP running upstairs to read John Owe n's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise in Which the Whole Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed

Here's me giving TULIP a carrot after she explains "Limited Atonement" to me.

Remembering "Common Grace"

2008-05-29T11:09:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I think we evangelicals stress the biblical idea that "all people are sinners" (Romans 3:10) so much that we forget that unregenerate (non-Christians) can do good (in the sense below) and please God. I think we need to be reminded of the Reformed doctrine of "common grace".

Below are two quotes from Louis Berkhor, stressing the fact that 1) Unregenerates can do good and 2) God does show favor to them.

"Reformed theologians generally maintain that the unregenerate can perform natural good, civil good, and outwardly religious good. They call attention to the fact, however, that, while such works of the unregenerate are good from a material point of view, as works which God commanded, they cannot be called good from a formal point of view, since they do not spring from the right motive and do not aim at the right purpose. The Bible repeatedly speaks of works of the unregenerate as good and right, II Kings 10:29, 30; 12:2 (comp. II Chron. 24:17-25); 14:3,14-16,20,27 (comp. II Chron. 25:2); Luke 6:33; ROM 2:14,15."

"Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God....Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God´s love. And if they who are the objects of God´s redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35: ROM 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God´s revelation is not dependable on this subject."

Book Recommendation: The Rise of Christianity

2008-05-11T07:09:00.000-07:00

Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity is a fascinating book that seeks to answer the rapid growth of Christianity through social science.

In general, Stark believes that the rapid growth in Christianity was due to the early Christians establishing and building a strong, loving, and beneficial community in a chaotic and deprived context.

Stark writes:

"...let me suggest here that Christianity revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent urban problems. To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced epidemics, fires and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services (pg. 161)".

One of interesting things from this book was Stark's comparison of how the early Christians and pagans dealt with the devastating epidemics (plagues) by which the Christians were willing to loose their lives for their loves one but the pagans weren't. Stark quotes Dionysius, who describes these events (pg.82-83):

"Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and curing others, transfered their death to themselves and died in their stead"

"The heathen behaved in the very opposite way. At first onset of the disease, they pushed the sufferers away and fled from their dearest, throwing them into the roads before they were dead and treated unburied corpses as dirt, hoping thereby to avert the spread and contagion of the fatal disease; but do what they might, they found it difficult to escape."

It's important to note that Starks also confirms these general differences from non-Christian sources (Julian and Thucydides) (pg. 83-85).

Book Recommendation: Meet the Rabbis

2008-05-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

A while back, Amazon.com recommended that I read Brad Young’s book, Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teaching of Jesus, and because I didn’t know anything about the rabbis I decided to save it to my Wishlist. A month ago, I finally bought it and I just finished it on vacation to Punta Cana.

The book is structured into 3 main parts:

Introduction to Rabbinic Thought
Introduction to Rabbinic Literature
Introduction to the Rabbis

And here’s a quick list of things that I found interesting and helpful:

That it’s important to understand the rabbis in order to better understand Jesus- (Young parallels rabbinic thought to Jesus' to illuminate some of his thoughts)
A good reminder that not all Pharisees are legalistic hypocrites (pg. 7-8)
The role of the Sanhedrin and the importance of Torah after 70 C.E. (Ch. 4)
The many parallels between Rabbinic and New Testament (Ch.5)
The relationship between the Mishnah ,the Talmud (Jerusalem and Babylonian), and Midrash (Tannaitic and Amoraic)
An overview of the major rabbinic leaders (Ch.11)

I recommend this book to anyone, who wants to gain a better understand of the rabbis. Also, for a better review check-out Dr. Craig Blomberg’s review.

I Guess I Won't Be Using These.......This SUCKS

2008-05-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

Book Recommendation: Keller's The Reason of God

2008-05-03T05:29:00.000-07:00

Tim Keller’s book The Reason of God:Belief in an Age of Skepticism is one of the finest apologetic Christian books I have ever read. The book is structured into two parts. In the first part (The Leap of Doubt), Keller goes through several topics that challenged the reasonableness for the Christian faith:

1) There Can’t Be Just One True Religion (Chapter 1)

2) How Could a Good God Allow Suffering (Chapter 2)

3) Christianity Is a Straitjacket (Chapter 3)

4) The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice (Chapter 4)

5) How Can A Loving God Send People to Hell (Chapter 5)

6) Science Has Disproved Christianity (Chapter 6)

7) You Can’t Take the Bible Literally (Chapter 7).

Then in the 2^nd part of the book (The Reasons for Faith), Keller gives positive reasons for Christianity such as the problem of sin (Ch. 10) and the reality of the resurrection (Ch.13).

I really appreciate this book for its clarity and faithfulness in addressing tough questions and in presenting the gospel, while giving a sense of deep humility. This is definitely now my go to book for apologetics.

Slide of Death

2008-04-19T13:25:00.000-07:00

NBA PLAYOFFS - 1st Round Picks

2008-04-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

Lakers over Nuggets in 5
Boston over Hawks in 4
Rockets over Jazz in 7 (this pick is made with my heart)
Jazz over Rockets in 5 (with my head)
Cavs over Wiz in 6
Mavs over Hornets in 5
Magic over Raptors in 6
Suns over Spurs in 7
Pistons over 76er in 4

IT'S FINALLY COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-04-15T10:17:00.001-07:00

The Doctrine of the Christian Life- John Frame

Picture of Channing Chen

2008-04-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Craig A. Evans at HBU on April 17th to 18th 2008

2008-04-04T10:06:00.000-07:00

I just found out that Dr. Craig Evans, a very respected NT scholar will be speaking at HBU on April 17 to the 18.The title of his presentation will be 'Fabricating Jesus- How Today's Society Distorts the Gospel', which appears to be based on his most recent book.

Here's the schedule.

Man vs. Lobster

2008-03-26T14:17:00.000-07:00

The Suffering Son of Man

2008-03-21T11:57:00.000-07:00

In Mark 8:31, Jesus astonishes his disciples by telling them that he as the Son of Man (Messiah) must suffer and die yet rise three days later.

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. - Mark 8:31

This concept of linking the Son of Man (Daniel 7) with suffering and death (Isaiah 53) was astonishing unique. Rikki Watts writes:

"On the other hand, although the suffering element of Isa. 53 was widely ascribed, sometimes vicariously to Moses (Mekilta, b. Sotah) and possibly to an eschatological figure (Testament of Benjamin), this did not extend to either Daniel's son of man or the Messiah, who evoked instead glory and vindication. Jesus' predicating his messianic Son of Man identity with Isa. 53's suffering was apparently utterly unexpected, as was the consequent notion that Israel's peace would come through his bearing, even to death, the Deuteronomic wounds and sickness of idolatrous Israel's exilic judgment." [1]

So let us take this weekend to marvel at our Lord and Savior, who took upon the curse of Israel and thus the world's.

[1] pg 182 from Commentary on the NT Use of the OT edited by Carson and Beale

Witherington on The New Perspective on Paul

2008-03-14T09:46:00.000-07:00

Ben Witherington has posted on his blog an article, entitled "The New Perspective on Paul and the Law" from his forthcoming book on NT Theology and Ethics, called The Indelible Image. I found his article pretty informative on his view of justification and the final judgment by which he sees moral apostasy as having a negative affect on someone's final salvation. Witherington writes:

"This is why the stringent warnings we noted about those Christians who could be excluded from the Dominion of God at the end for persisting in a certain course of disobedience such that they could be characterized as adulterers, thieves and the like, must be taken absolutely seriously. Final salvation, while it cannot be said to be caused by works of any Law in Paul’s thinking, can indeed be negatively affected in the end by persisting in sin such that a moral apostasy (or some other sort of apostasy) is committed, according to several key Pauline texts. All of this helps us to understand the ethical seriousness of Paul’s moral remarks and why he so often offers up such strong imperatives to his converts."

But I was perplexed in reading Witherington's understanding of Sander's, Dunn's, and Wright's view of the New Paul Perspective (NPP), especially as it relates to Judaism. Witherington seems to think that the proponents of NPP don't believe that Judaism required people to be obedient for salvation, but they just had to be in God's covenant in order to saved. He writes:

" In short, there are severe problems with the analysis of Paul in the New Perspective, whether we are thinking of the analysis of Sanders, Dunn, or even Wright. Paul believed that works and obedience in Judaism indeed affected righteousness, life, and salvation, the question is whether he carried such a belief forward into his Christian faith. If the old caricature of Judaism as a graceless and legalistic religion is certainly false, the New Perspective does not seem to have adequately represented the way Paul contrasts what is true in Christ and what he believed was true under the Mosaic Law."

I don't think this is correct. I believe NPP proponents have tried to maintain the balance of grace and obedience in their notion of "covenantal nomism". Dunn states:

"It is important to note...that Sanders did not characterize Judaism solely as a "covenantal" religion. The key phrase he chose was the double emphasis, "covenantal nomism". And Sanders made clear that the second emphasis was not to be neglected. The Torah/law was given to Israel to be obeyed, an integral part of the covenant relationship, and that obedience was necessary if Israel's covenant status was to be maintained. Even if obedience did not earn God's grace as such, was not a means to "get into" the covenant, obedience was necessary to maintain one's position in the covenant, to "stay in" the covenant. So defined, Deuteronomy can be seen as the most fundamental statement of Israel's "covenantal nomism". Given the traditional emphasis on Judaism's "nomism" it hardly surprising that Sanders should have placed greater emphasis on the "covenantal" element in the twin emphasis. But in his central summary statements he clearly recognized that both emphases were integral to Judaism's self understanding" [1]

HT (Denny Burk)

[1] Quote taken from Don Garlington's article "The New Perspective on Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades on". This is a must read article if you want a nuanced understanding of the NPP.

Doug Moo: Fresh Thoughts on Justifcation in Paul and James

2008-03-07T14:51:00.000-08:00

A couple weeks ago, Doug Moo gave a lecture at Denver Seminary on justification entitled "Fresh Thoughts on Justification in Paul and James" by which he tries to deal with the tension between justification by faith and final judgment according to works.

I found it interesting to hear Moo's changing view of justification, having an "already and not yet" aspect by which the "not yet" includes a direct judgment based on our faith. This moves Moo away from the traditional reformed-view (i.e. John Piper) by which our works or faith are only evidences that we are truly in Christ rather then having any direct connection in God's judgment. On the other hand, Moo's changing view moves him closer to people like Mark Seifrid or Simon Gathercole, who see a direct relationship to human subjectivity (faith or good works) and God's judgment with the differences being that Moo doesn't believe that we are evaluated based on our works but only through our faith.

I also found it interesting to hear a seasoned Pauline scholar say that he is still refining his thoughts justification.

Rockets Play Day 2008 Part 2

2008-03-03T18:25:00.000-08:00

Mission: "Getting High Fives"

1. Me and Landry - Mission Accomplished

2. Me and Novak - Mission Failed

3. Ben and Landry - Mission Accomplished

4. Ben and Tmac - Mission Accomplished

Ben and I are so COOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Rockets Play Day 2008 Part 1

2008-03-03T18:01:00.000-08:00

Rocket's Play Day 2008 consisted of:

1) Me on the Rocket's court

2)Ben shooting some 3s

3) nachos

4) Me and Shane

5) Getting Landry's autograph

R.T. France: "Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis"

2008-02-29T16:58:00.000-08:00

I just found a very helpful article entitled "Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis" by R.T. France which deals with how evangelicals, who hold to inerrancy, can still produce helpful exegesis for biblical studies.

France concludes with this helpful comment:

"To return, then, to our original question:does the evangelicals commitment to a high view of Scripture, which entails inerrancy, automatically exclude him from the use of the critical methods which are the rules of the game of academic biblical study? In fact just the opposite is the case: he has, if anything, a stronger incentive than any one else to work hard and critically at his exegesis, for he believes that what is interpreting is the word of God, and therefore should spare no pains in discovering what it really means. If anyone is obliged to pracitse the most rigorous grammatico-historical exegesis, without taking short cuts or fudging the issue, it is the evangelical. His doctrinal position obliges him to do the very thing the pundits demand, to study the text of Scripture critically in the light of all available knowledge relevant to it. He can, and should, have a real positive contribution to make to responsible exegesis, what is what academic biblical study is, or should be, all about."

Life is Over

2008-02-26T10:32:00.000-08:00

Reports: Yao done for season with stress fracture in left foot

God's OT Commandments: "Not Too Difficult"

2008-02-23T17:08:00.001-08:00

"God's commandments is not too difficult, nor is it beyond your reach. The law is not among those things that the humble person does not bother with (Ps.131:1) or that even the wise find beyond their understanding (Prov. 30:18). It is not, therefore, impossibly idealistic, impracticable, unachievable. We have noticed eariler the balance achieved between ideal standards and eartly realities. The idea that God deliberately made the law so exacting that no body would ever be able to live by it belongs to a distorted theology that tries unnecessarily to gild the gospel by denigrating the law. The frequent claims by various psalmists to have lived according to God's law are neither exaggerated nor exceptional. They arise from the natural assumption that ordinary people can indeed live in a way that is broadly pleasing to God and faithful to God's law, and that they can do so as matter of joy and delight. This is neither self-righteousness nor a claim to sinless perfection, for the same psalmists are equally quick to confess their sin and failings, fully realizing that only the grace that could forgive and cleanse them would live wise enable them to live again in covenant obedience. Obedience to the law in the OT, as has been stressed repeatedly, was not the means of achieving salvation but the response to a salvation that was already experienced"

-pg 290 of Christopher Wright's commentary on Deuteronomy

Learning to Cook (Pizza)

2008-02-21T14:00:00.000-08:00

Christmas in Canada

2008-02-15T18:07:00.001-08:00

We spent the Holidays visting relatives in Canada this year (Chen tradition). It was Dan's first time in Canada, seeing snow, skiing, ice skating, etc. Check out more photos on our Kodak Gallery:

Christmas in Canada

I Hope J. Kidd Goes to Dallas

2008-02-14T10:16:00.000-08:00

Do you remember when the spurs were wanting to get jason kidd and get rid of tony parker? but the spurs kept parker and went on to win 2 more championships (2004-05, and 2006-07) with parker playing a huge role in each ot them. the mavs' situation reminds me of this, but i think they are going to do the opposite and get rid of their young and quick point guard, which will be bad because now the Mavs won't have anyone to guard the quick pgs in the west- tony parker, nash, williams, paul, and of course RAFER. as a rocket fan, I am hoping that this trade happens

Garlington Reviews Piper's Book

2008-02-13T14:04:00.000-08:00

Don Garlington has written a review of John Piper's book The Future of Justification: Response to N.T. Wright. Garlington concludes his review with this:

"In sum, Piper’s response to Tom Wright is worth reading for those interested in the seemingly never ending debate over justification. On the couple of issues noted above, I should think that Piper has the better of the argument. But for the most part, he has failed to demonstrate that Wright is wrong. The claim that the latter’s paradigm for justification “leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ‘ah-ha’ experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity” (24) is simply too subjective to be a useful criterion. In a nutshell, this book is mostly a defense of traditional doctrines, with a minimum of persuasive exegesis and a heavy reliance on confessionalism.

As a pastor, it is understandable that Piper has a pastoral concern. But is Wright’s theology of justification so dire that it is apt to result in Piper’s “double tragedy?” I think not, especially given Piper’s concessions as indicated above. In my estimation, Wright is the one who has “delivered the goods” when it comes to penetrating exegesis and, dare one say, fresh insight into the letters of Paul. It is also understandable that Piper would want to allay the “confusion” he senses on the part of his church members. However, I must say that such “laypersons” would have to be theologically literate indeed to tackle this book, not least its microscopic footnotes. Otherwise, the confusion is liable to remain!

As much as anything, this book is flawed by its near phobia of anything that smacks of newness and freshness, which, for Piper, must be suspect by definition. This is why we are exhorted to be suspicious of “our love of novelty” and eager to test biblical interpretations by “the wisdom of the centuries” (38). Agreed, but surely “the wisdom of the centuries” includes our own century. Wright is precisely correct: we are “to think new thoughts arising of the text and to dare to try them out in word and deed” (quoted on 37, italics added). Dr. Piper would do well to remember Matthew 13:52: “And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old’.” I would say the appropriate response to matters “new” and “fresh” is not skepticism but the Beroean spirit of searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). "

Craig Evan on the Importance of Cognate Literatures

2008-02-09T16:20:00.001-08:00

In Craig Evan’s book, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, he expresses the value of being familiar with canonical cognate literatures (OT Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Early Church Fathers, and etc.) because they help clarify the following exegetical concerns [1].

1. The meaning of words.
2. Syntax
3. The meaning of concepts
4. History
5. Historical, social, and religious context
6. Exegetical context – that the noncanonical writing quite often shed light on the interpretation of the OT passage quoted or alluded in the NT.
7. Hermeneutical context – helps us understand how biblical literature was interpreted and what role it played in the life of the Jewish and Christian communities of faith.

[1] pg 3-5

Marshall on "The Kingdom of God"

2008-01-31T10:59:00.000-08:00

Jesus' establishment of the Kingdom of God involved in the creation of a new group of people.

"We must next ask what Jesus envisaged as the result of the establishment of the Kingdom of God (KG). The traditional hope was, as we have seen, for the setting up of a new kingdom in the presence of God at the end of the age in a cosmic setting; it would be composed of people who loved and served God and who lived together in righteousness and peace under the rule of God and his agent the Messiah. The Jews believed that they themselves would compose this people. The KG is thus a corporate entity and consists of people. Hence the mission of Jesus involved the creation of a people who would be the objects of God's rule and who would receive benefits of his rule. Since Jesus warned the people of Israel that as a nation they were in danger of being rejected by God, he must have envisaged the creation of a new people, incorporating elements of the old people but also open more widely and constituted by a new allegiance to himself as disciples and taught them that they must obey his words. The conclusion is irresistible that response to the message of the KG was identical with acceptance of Jesus as Master.

The new Israel is constituted by its allegiance to the Messiah." Kingdom of God expands through God's agents (the church)

"For we have seen that God acted in Jesus to establish his rule and that the concepts of the Messiah/Son of man and the KG are indivisibly joined together. But in the Messiah or Son of man is the leader of a group who are not only subject to God as King but also act in unison to spread the KG. The idea that the KG expands of its own accord independently of the action of God's agents is thoroughly false. Jesus called the Twelve and Seventy(-two) to share in his work, and he told them to preach that the KG had drawn near and to perform the signs of its presence. The KG extends as it is proclaimed and as the signs of its presence are performed. If Jesus came to bring the KG, we must be conclude that his followers were commissioned by him to carry out the same task. It must be questioned, therefore whether Taylor is right in saying that 'laboring for the coming of the Kingdom' is not the teaching of Jesus himself. On the contrary, this is precisely what he called his followers to do. To proclaim the Kingship of God is to preach the KG, for it opens up to people the possibility of responding to the message by acknowledging God as their king".

The Church should be concerned with evangelism and discipleship

"The Church consists of people who acknowledge God as king and who are committed to proclaiming his kingship and witnessing to his realty in their own lives as individuals and as a community. Put in other words, this means that a primary task of the Church is evangelism carried out in the power of the Spirit. But such proclamation is not simply aimed at conversion of individuals. The Church must also spell out the nature of obedience to God both spiritually and morally, just as Jesus did. The proclamation of the KG will include the declaration of God's condemnation of what is evil and hypocritical in the lives of people both as individuals and as members of communal bodies in business and government. To say this obviously raises questions about the extent to which protest in the name of God should be carried out I action as well as in words, but there is no room here to take up the point. We must be guide by the example of Jesus, who forbade his followers to use violence, but who did things, like associating with tax collectors and sinners, that outraged his opponents and made them even plot to kill him".

- The Hope of a New Age: The Kingdom of God in the New Testament by I.Howard Marshall

Learning to Cook (Tacos)

2008-01-29T12:40:00.000-08:00

Smitten

2008-01-27T14:54:00.000-08:00

Dan and I watched Juno this past week. We're smitten- Watch it, and you will be too!

Jesus the Resurrected Messiah

2008-01-25T20:39:00.002-08:00

In N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, he notes that the Messiah was generally supposed to do three things [1]:

Win the decisive victory over the pagans
Rebuild or cleanse the Temple
In some way or other to bring true, god-given justice and peace to the whole world

Why did the early Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah when he seemed to have failed his mission?

Wright notes that the early Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah because he rose from the dead.

“To this question, of course, the early Christians reply with one voice: we believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah because he was raised bodily from the dead. Nothing else will do. And to this the historian has to say: yes, this belief would produce this result. If the early Christians believed that Israel’s god had raised Jesus from the dead, they would believe that he had been vindicated as Messiah despite his shameful death. “ [2]

But what about the Messiah’s mission of accomplishing the 3 things mentioned above? Did the early Christians abandon the Jewish model of the Messiah? Wright notes that the early Christians didn’t dump the existing Jewish model but allowed this belief to be transformed in four ways [3]

It lost its ethnic specificity: the Messiah did not belong only to the Jews
The ‘messianic battle’ changed its character: the Messiah would not fight a military campaign, but would confront evil itself
The rebuilt Temple would not be a bricks-and-mortar construction in Jerusalem, but the community of Jesus’ followers.
The justice, peace, and salvation which the Messiah would bring to the world would not be a Jewish version of the imperial dream of Rome, but would be God’s dikaiosune, God’s eirene, God’s soteria, poured out upon the world through the renewal of the whole creation.

[1] pg 557

[2] pg 563

[3] pg 562-563

Andy's Resurrection Party Videos

2008-01-21T13:44:00.000-08:00

Andy's Resurrection Party Pics

2008-01-21T13:32:00.000-08:00

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 4

2008-01-16T10:45:00.000-08:00

In conclusion:

1. Piper’s book, “The Future of Justification”, is a great example how to engage in theological debates.

2. Piper’s and Wright’s views of justification differs mainly in that Piper believes in imputation and Wright doesn’t

3. Piper believes Wright's view of justification won't give 1) Christ sufficient glory and 2)provide Christians adequate assurance for salvation (I disagree) .

4. I wished Piper's new book would have engaged more with the thoughts of Don Garlington in order to establish his idea of imputation- the idea that we need more than forgiveness from the cross to satisfy God’s holiness and perfection.

5. Piper is concerned with Wright's view of the final justification because goods works are directly connected to it and not because works are earning our salvation.

6. Wright's view of works and the final justification appears to be close to Simon Gathercole's views although he believes in imputation

7. The exegetical basis for the doctrine of Christ's imputation is very complex (See Simon Gathercole's quote)

With that, I glad to say I am done with this topic. In the end, I think both Piper with his "Christian Hedonism" and Wright with his "creation/Israel/Christ" story approach, are tremendous blessings to the church. So go read and enjoy both of them!!!

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 3

2008-01-14T10:15:00.000-08:00

Before the book, I thought Piper was critical of Wright's view of the final justification because he thought Wright was advocating a view of “merit-based” salvation by which our good works earns God's final verdict. But this isn't the case for Piper clearly states that this is not his problem with Wright’s view. Piper, reciting Wright's understanding of the final judgment, states:

"In other words, Paul believes that all men will face a final judgment (law-court) in which people will "be vindicated, resurrected, shown to be the covenant people"- this is, justified by works. When he says "by works," he does not mean by legalism or by merit or by earning, but by the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through" (pg.104)

So, what is Piper's problem with Wright's view of the final judgment? I believe Piper doesn't want good works to have a direct connection (basis) with our final vindication, which he believes will prevent the" double tragedy" of not glorifying Christ properly and hindering assurance of salvation (pg.186 -187) [1]. For Piper sees good works as having an indirect connection with our final vindication, that is he sees "the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification" (pg. 110). A diagram of Piper's view would look like this:

WORKS --->(evidences of being in Christ) --->CHRIST--->(basis of final justification)--->FINAL JUSTIFICATION

And Piper believes that Wright seems to be advocating a view of good works that have a direct connection (basis) for our final vindication (pg. 125-128). A diagram of Wright's view would look like this:

WORKS---> FINAL JUSTIFICATION

(I know this linear diagram above is too simplistic, and it doesn't take into account other elements of Wright's thought so to do some justice to him, it's important to note 3 things that relate to his view of the final justification: 1) Christians are connected to Christ's death and resurrection which provide forgiveness of sins and new life. 2) Christians are given the Holy Spirit to change their hearts so that we can have faith and good works 3) A Christian's future justification is based on the pattern of one's life is certain because of present justification by faith (Assurance of Salvation)) [2].

Again, it's important to note that Piper problem with Wright isn't that obedience is "earning" our final vindication (pg.104), but his direct connection between good works and the final justification- in Piper's view good works are only evidence that we are in Christ, who God looks at for our final justification.

My personally thoughts on this matter is that both these options are acceptable. For no one is saying that our works are meriting or earning our salvation and both seem to believe in 1) unconditional election 2) substitutional atonement and 3) perseverance of the saints.

But what about the direct connection with good works and the final justification? This issue must ultimately be addressed exegetically, but for now I take some comfort, knowing that conservatives like Simon Gathercole, who believes in imputation, appears to see a direct connection between goods works and the final vindication. And it also seems that Piper's indirect view of works just pushes forward the process of God's examining our good works, which in his case, is to see if we are in Christ which then allows us to be justified on the basis of him rather than Wright's view of works directly effecting our final justification (Again, the issue involved isn't related to merit).

Finally, what about imputation? This is a difficult issue and once again I receive more comfort from Gathercole, who states:

"A statement by Robert Gundry on the (non) imputation of Christ's righteousness in particular has sparked a response by John Piper, and Gundry and Don Carson have also entered the same debate from different stances. It is not my purpose here to enter this debate. But it should be said that there is clearly a great deal of diversity of opinion on the matter. This is, of course, not sufficient in itself to let discretion take the better part of valor. But in case, the diversity seems to arise out of the complexity of the New Testament evidence, not because one side is particularly hidebound to tradition and the other wallowing in the desire for novelty or for doctrine that is more amendable to culture. I would not myself deny this traditional understanding of imputation. Still, because of the complexity of the issue, I would propose that the requirement that is is specifically Christ's righteousness that is imputed to believers should not feature on evangelical statement of faith. To make such a finely balanced point an article of faith seems a dangerous strategy. Nonetheless, it is very clear that justification is still Christological through and through. Both the cross and the present action of Christ are the vital grounds of justification."

[1] See my pervious post on my thoughts on Piper's "double tragedy"
[2] See Wright's "The Shape of Justification" and "Justification, "The Bibical Basis and it's Relevance for Contemporay Evangelicalism".
[3] pg 223 of "Justification in Perspective: Historical Development and Contemporary Challenges", edited by Bruce McCormack

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 2

2008-01-09T16:17:00.000-08:00

With this being said, I still don't think Wright's view of future justification is as dangerous as Piper thinks. Piper articulates his two main concerns (" the double tragedy") at the end of his book (pg.186 -187):

1. The lack of imputation of Christ’s active obedience will lead to good works "nullify the very beauty of Christ and his designed to display (pg. 187)" because it might try to add to "the perfection and beauty and all sufficiency of Christ's obedience in securing the reality that God is for us" (pg 187) Basically, Piper is saying that Christ will not be glorified if we deny imputation. I won't comment too much on this, but I find Piper's statement to be” out of bounds” for this type of conversation because both Piper and Wright want to glorify Christ in their thinking but differ on their interpretation on how God seeks to glorify Christ. One could (wrongly) say that Piper is dishonoring Christ by attributing him with something he didn't do like give us his perfect obedience. I don't find these kinds of statements very helpful in these type of theological discussions.

2. The lack of imputation of Christ’s active obedience will lead to the works of love to be "severed from their root in the Christ-secured assurance that God is totally for us" (pg.187), that is Piper believes it will lead to the lack of Christian assurance of salvation. Two things in response to Piper's statement, first, Wright articulates a view of how to obtain assurance that is practically similar to Piper, that is, they both say people should look to Christ not their good works for confidence in their salvation. Second, Wright's view of justification seems to be inadequate for assurance only because Piper believes that God demands for perfect obedience must be satisfied by two things: 1) Christ's death, bring forgiveness and 2) Christ's perfect obedience imputing righteousness to believers. But I don't think Piper has decisively established the latter point- the need for more than forgiveness to satisfy God’s holiness and perfection, even though his current book wasn’t aimed to rehash all of the arguments he made in his previous book, “Counted Righteous in Christ” which seeks to establish the doctrine of imputation. I would have like to see Piper more engaged in Don Garlington’s criticisms [1]. I thought it was interesting that Garlington is not cited once in Piper’s new book.

[1] See Garlington’s articles entitled: 1) Imputation or Union with Christ? A Response to John Piper 2) Imputation or Union with Christ? A Rejoinder to John Piper

[2] See Piper’s brief response to Garlington’s first article here.

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

2008-01-09T16:07:00.001-08:00

I was going to write a long review on Piper's new book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright, so that I could lay my previous thoughts on these issues to rest:

1. "The Doer of the Law Who Will be Justified": Romans 2:13

2. Piper and Wright on “Future Grace”

3. FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 1

4. FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 2

5. Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

But I didn't write anything because I figured Wright would probably respond in his own words.

Recently, a commenter asked me if I felt that "Piper's depiction of Wright's view was correct in Chapter 8, which is entitled ""Does Wright say with Different Words What the Reformed Tradition means by "Imputed Righteousness"? So I figured I would share a little bit more of my thoughts on Piper's book, particularly as it relates to the question above. My short answer is "yes", Piper correctly shows that Wright doesn't believe in the traditional idea of imputation.

Piper summarizes the traditional Reformed of imputation on pages 124:

"In historic Reformed exegesis, (1) a person is union with Christ by faith alone. In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his (a) wrath-absorbing death, (b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and (c) his vindication- securing resurrection. All of these are reckoned-that is, imputed- to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the "dead," "righteous,'" raised” believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God.

Then Piper correctly a point out that (2b) is missing from Wright's theology, the belief that Christ's perfect obedience is imputed to believers (pg 125). From this, Piper believes that Wright seems to be closer to the idea of impartation (inner transformation) rather than (Christ's) imputation as the basis for our final vindication (pg. 125-128)

I believe all this is correct. In my reading of Wright, he doesn't appear to believe the idea of Christ's perfect obedience to the law being imputed to believer, this is plainly seen in Piper citation of Wright's lecture "Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1" on pages 121- 123.

I guess I Know My Bible

2008-01-09T10:45:00.000-08:00

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

The Essence of Christian Forgiveness

2008-01-04T07:57:00.000-08:00

"For herein lies the essence of Christian forgiveness: On the account of his divinity, Christ could and did shoulder the consequences of human sin: so the penalty for wrongdoing can be detached from wrongdoers. And since on account of his humanity Christ could and did die on behalf of sinners, they, in effect, died when he died; so guilt can be detached from wrongdoers. When we forgive those who have wronged us, we make our own God's miracle of forgiveness. Echoing God's unfathomable graciousness, we decouple the deed from the doer, the offense from the offender. We blot out the offense so it no longer mars the offender. That is why the non-remembrance of wrongs suffered appropriately crowns forgiveness" - pg 208 from Volf's book "The End of Memory".

Hamilton's God's Indwelling Presence

2008-01-01T18:51:00.000-08:00

Dr. James Hamilton’s book, God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments, seeks to prove that OT believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit unlike NT believers after Christ’s resurrection.

It’s important to note that Dr. Hamilton draws a distinction between regeneration, which he believes the Spirit actively participates in giving life to the hearts of both OT and NT believers and indwelling of the Spirit, which he concludes only occurs in NT believers after the resurrection. Hamilton defines regeneration as “God’s work of granting to humans the ability to hear, understand, believe, obey, and enter the kingdom” (pg. 2) and indwelling as “God’s abiding, positive, covenant presence in believers through the Spirit” (pg.3) which helps maintain faith.

Hamilton’s proposition begs the question of “how OT saints remained faithful to God if they were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit”. Hamilton answers this question by stating that God’s presence in the tabernacle and the temple provides the “sanctifying effect upon them” (pg. 163)

I believe the upshot of this book is that it stresses the dramatic shift in salvation history caused by the death and resurrection of Christ. Where once God's presence and salvation was located in Jerusalem (Temple) but now it's located in God's people by faith in Christ. Hamilton rightly notes this implication in his last chapter entitled "Results and Relevance for Today" (pg. 161-169)

Dr. Hamilton’s book is grounded in convincing exegesis and I found most of my questions against his thesis answered. So if you want to learn more about the Holy Spirit, you should definitely get this book.

Learning to Cook (Baked Potatoes)

2007-12-30T11:57:00.000-08:00

Top Books of 2007

2007-12-28T10:40:00.001-08:00

1. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright - John Piper gives us a great example on how to engage in theological controversy and does a great job in representing and understanding Wright's view on justification.

2. Lord Jesus Christ Devotion of Jesus in Earliest Christianity - Larry Hurtado builds a historical case for the divinity of Christ based on the early church early devotion to him.

3. Shadow of the Temple:Jewish Influences on Early Christianity - Oskar Skarsaune shows that early Christianity was build upon a very Jewish world-view.

4. The Mission of God:Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative - Christopher Wright illustrates that the entire biblical narrative from the OT to the NT is grounded in a missonal God, who aims to bless the nations. A must read!!!

5. Hell Under Fire:Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment - A great defense of the traditional view of hell (eternal punishment) over and against the idea of annihilation from a variety of conservative scholars (Bock, Moo, Beale). I particularly enjoyed Bock's article on the OT thoughts on the afterlife and Sinclair Ferguson's article on how to preach on hell.

6. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, Beyond the New Perspective - Francis Watson gives a great exegetical study of Paul which seems to take seriously it's historical and social context.

7. Fundamentalism and American Culture - George Marsden gives a penetrating historical account of Fundamentalism. A must read in understanding Fundamentalism.

8. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament - Christopher Wright has written a great book on understanding Jesus in his OT context. Probably my favorite book of the year.

9. Iustitia Dei A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification - Alister McGrath gives a historical account of the doctrine of justification. I learned a lot from this book and especially the notion that the doctrine of justification was pretty diverse throughout history.

10. Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement - Brant Pitre has written a thought-provoking book on understanding how tribulation, exile, and restoration relate to Jesus.

Volf's The End of Memory

2007-12-26T07:49:00.000-08:00

In Miroslav Volf’s book, "The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World”, he teaches us how and for how long we should remember wrongs committed by others.

Volf teaches that we should remember in light of the “Exodus and Passion” narratives, which provides the appropriate framework in understanding God, who provides unconditional grace, affirms justice, and aims for communion and reconciliation. (pg. 121)

As for the question of “how long we should remember wrongs committed against us”, Volf teaches us that during the new heaven and earth we will not remember them after they have been appropriately dealt with and reconciliation between the offended and offender has occurred. It’s important to note the non-remembrance of wrongs during God’s consummated kingdom is a result of our minds being “rapt in the goodness of God and in the goodness of God’s new world”. (pg 214)

Not only has Volf drawn from scripture and other capable thinkers (Luther and Barth) in dealing with this subject but he includes his personal experience of being harshly interrogated as a Yugoslavian soldier thus producing a mature, challenging, and thoughtful book.

God’s Promises

2007-12-12T17:46:00.000-08:00

In Christopher Wright’s “Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament”, he reminds us that God doesn’t give his people “flat predications” but promises which involves more of a personal and dynamic commitment. Wright states that because there is a relationship behind God’s promises “the material form in which it is fulfilled may be quite different from the literal form in which it was original made, and yet it is no less a valid fulfillment of the promise. (pg. 71)”

To help the reader understand this point, Wright gives a wonderful analogy of a father and a son. He writes:

“Imagine a father who, in the days before mechanized transport, promises his son, aged 5, that when he is 21 he will give him a horse for himself. Meanwhile the motor car is invented. So on his 21^st birthday the son awakes to find a motor car outside, ‘with love from Dad’. It would be a strange son who would accuse his father of breaking his promise just because there was no horse. And even stranger if, in spite of having received the far superior motor car, the son insisted that the promised would only be fulfilled if a horse also materialized, since that was the literal promise. It is obvious that with the change in circumstances, unknown at the time the promise was made, the father has more than kept his promise. In fact he has done so in a way that surpasses the original words of the promise which were necessarily limited by the mode of transport available at that time. The promise was made in terms understood at the time. It was fulfilled in the light of new historical events. (pg 71)”

I think this idea is helpful in understanding things like God’s promising the land of Canaan in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:8) to his people and Paul redrawing it to include the whole world (Romans 4 :13).

The Ultimacy of Evangelism

2007-12-12T15:48:00.000-08:00

What is the relationship between evangelism and social action? In the past, I have come to the conclusion that evangelism is primary or a priority over and against social action, but recently, I was challenged by Christopher Wright’s thinking on the subject in his book, The Mission of God. Wright doesn’t like describing the relationship between evangelism and social action as one of primacy or priority because of the following reasons:

“The language of the “priority of evangelism” implies that the only proper starting point must always be evangelistic proclamation. Priority means it is the most important, most urgent, thing to be done first, and everything else must take second, third, or fourth place. But the difficulty with this is that (1) it is not always possible or desirable in the immediate situation, and (2) it does not even reflect the actual practice of Jesus” -pg. 318

Wright then suggests that we describe the relationship of evangelism and social action as one of ultimacy rather than primacy. He writes:

“Mission may not always begin with evangelism. But mission that does not ultimately include declaring the Word and the name of Christ, the call to repentance, and faith obedience has not completed its task. It is defective mission, not holistic mission” –pg 319

The Chens go to Washington

2007-11-03T21:12:00.001-07:00

We visited Washington DC a few weeks ago, and we had a blast!! What a fun and exciting city!! We had a great time with Monica and friends. Here are a few pics from our trip.

Tour of the capitol.
Lincoln Memorial
Corcoran had a Lebowitz and Ansel Adams exhibit. Really cool!

Loved how all the Smithsonians are gratis. Dan being goofy.

Bored in the subway station.
Dan, Monica, Julia, Christine, Andy.

Dan and Geoff.

Washington Monument.

National Mall.

Tour of the White House. Last stop on the tour was a visit to the Press room. Thank you to Geoff, and Justin, for being so kind to take the time to take us on this special tour. It was one of our favorite parts of our trip.

Life in Pictures

2007-09-25T16:56:00.001-07:00

A few pictures
that recap the highlights
from the last few months.

Vacation to Tulum, Mexico. One year anniversary!! :) Thu and Van's shower. Monica graduates Berkeley!! After a year of medicine and some other things, Julia starts the 2nd year of residency, and the 1st year of anesthesiology. Random visits by Clifford.....always a treat!! (Literally, he brings us cookies and pecan pie!) Monica visits Houston en route to DC, her next new home. We celebrate her birthday, but forget to take pictures. So we substitute with cute baby picture (see left). Phuong's bachlorette party in Cozumel. More fun in the sun for Julia. Vanessa's baby shower!! Lots of pink, yummy snacks, and a diaper cake. Danny gets engaged!! Congrats to Danny and Katie!! Harriet and Chuck get married!! Congrats to the newlyweds!! Eric and Fiona visit, and we have the 2nd annual crab fest at the Crab House in Kemah. Julia's Birthday! Dan made me add this picture. We've been buying a lot of baby presents this year, but Dan's proudest present is the one below: Baby Air Jordan's for Baby Alex. :)

Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Part 3)

2007-09-16T14:52:00.001-07:00

Hurtado notes two important features of Jewish monotheism:

"First, in addition to refusing to accept and worship any of the other deities of the Roman religious environment, conscientious Jews also maintained a distinction between the God of Israel and any of the exalted figures who could be seen as prominent in God's entourage, such as principal angels or revered human figures like Moses or Enoch. This distinction was most clearly maintained in discouraging the worship of these figures; and devout Jew insisted that worship was to be given to God alone".

"Second, the Jewish monotheistic stance forbade apotheosis, the divinization of human figures, and thus clashed with a major theme in pagan religion of the time. "

-pg 95

Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Part 2)

2007-09-14T17:10:00.000-07:00

Hurtatdo's 4 historic forces/factors that initiated and formed an early Christ-devotion:

1) Jewish exclusivist monotheism
2) The impact of Jesus, particularly the polarizing effects of his career (people either loved or hated him)
3) Revelatory religious experience that communicated that Jesus had been given heavenly glory and that it was God's will for him to be given extraordinary reverence in their devotional life.
4) The encounter with larger religious environment, particularly the dynamics of countering Jewish polemics and of differentiating and justifying Christian devotion over against the dominant pagan practices. [1]

[1] pg.78

Give God the Glory for Our White Garments

2007-09-13T10:13:00.000-07:00

The call to be faithful to Christ is no small matter. For instance, John writes in Revelation 3 about Christ's word to the church in Sardis (Asia Minor):

Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. (Revelation 3:2-5)

In these verses, Christ warns some Christians to repent in order to avoid judgment (v.3) and commends others, who have not "soiled their garments" (v.4) and thus will be receiving the benefits of walking with Christ in their white garments (v.4-5) and having their names never blotted out of the book of life (v.5) It's interesting to note that these white garments are later described as having been washed in the blood of Christ (Revelation 7:13-14) and made up of our faithfulness (righteous deeds) that will allow us to be properly covered and dressed for the presence of Christ (Revelation 19:7-8) [1]

13Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" 14I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev. 7:13-14)

7Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory,for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure"— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. (Rev. 19:7-8)

If our righteous deeds are necessary to make ourselves ready for Christ's presence, how should we go about doing them? I think Piper said it best:

We do our righteous deeds, and therefore it is fitting that heaven cry out: "The Bride has made herself ready." But we do not do them in our own strength. They are a gift from God—prepared before the foundation of the world that we might walk in them (Ephesians 2:10). And therefore it is even more fitting that heaven cry out, "Give God the glory." [2]

[1] The connection between Christ's blood and the empowerment towards righteous deeds can also be seen in verses like 1 Peter 1:17-19, 2:24 and 3:18

[2] Sermon by John Piper, "Worship God", Revelation 19:1-10

Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Part 1)

2007-09-01T13:45:00.000-07:00

There are some scholars who believe that worship of Jesus Christ did not originate with the original Jewish-Christian groups but appeared later, after a long period of time, in a more Hellenistic-Christian groups.

In Larry Hurtado's book, "Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity", he argues against the idea above by making 3 points [1]:

1) Early stage of devotion to Christ
2) Unparalleled and intense devotion to Christ
3) Devotion to Christ was made in the context of strict Jewish monotheism

[1] pg 2 and 3

Expectations For John and Jesus

2007-09-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

Zechariah's expectations:

1) Israel's redemption (Luke 1:67) through the house of David (v.69)
2) Saved from our enemies (Romans/Herod?) (Luke 1:71,74)
3) Fulfillment of Abraham's covenant (Luke 1:72)
4) Allow Israel to serve God without fear but in holiness (v.75)
5) God's return to Zion (v.76)
6) Forgiveness of sins (v.77)
7) Peace (v.79)

Mary's expectations:

1) Jesus will be the Son of God (Luke 1:32) and receive the throne of David (v.32)
2) Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob forever (v.33)
3) Save Israel from their sins (Matthew 1:21)

Wise Men's expectations:

1) Jesus as the king of the Jews (Matt.2:2)
2) Jesus as the shepherd of Israel (v.6)
3) Jesus as worthy to be worshiped (v.2)

Simon's expectations:

1) Consolation of Israel (Luke 1:25)
2) Jesus will be a light to the Gentiles (v.32)
3) Jesus will be for the glory of Israel (v.32)
4) Jesus will be appointed for the falling and rising of many in Israel (v.34)

Anna's expectation:

1) The redemption of Jerusalem

Christ's Victory

2007-08-22T10:14:00.000-07:00

One amazing thing about the gospel is that Christ provides both justification (forgiveness) sanctification (progressive innate holiness until the 2nd coming) and glorification (innate perfect holiness after the 2nd coming) to those who receive Him as Lord, Savior, and treasure. I think it's important to remember that if God ,through Christ, doesn't provide glorification ( the perfect and holy resurrection of our bodies) then sin and death would not be ultimately defeated (1 Corinthians 15:54-58). For if God's plan of redemption just provided forgiveness of sins and thus allowed us to go to a spiritual realm called heaven (Phil 1:23 and 2 Corthinians 5:8- which would be great too a large degree) then Satan/sin/death would have ultimately foiled God's good and physical creation (Genesis 1).

But since Christ has physically risen from the dead and because Christians are connected by faith to him, we will also rise (Romans 6) thus we can sing of Christ's victory now and forever.

"Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O death, where is your
victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56The sting
of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who
gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corthinians
15:55-57)

Gathercole and Justification Part 3

2007-07-31T15:18:00.000-07:00

Simon Gathercole has an interesting view on God's final judgment. First, Gathercole believes that Paul’s Jewish contemporaries anticipated in a final judgment based on works.

“[T]he function of works, then, is, for Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, not primarily to mark them out as distinct from Gentiles but to secure vindication at the eschatological judgment. This is what is most immediately in view in Romans 3:19-10: Paul is opposing the idea that his Jewish contemporaries will be vindicated by God at the final judgment on the basis of a wholehearted obedience to the law. [pg. 239]

Secondly, Gathercole thinks Paul's principal disagreement with his Jewish contemporaries is the idea that sinful man (the flesh) can’t receive “God’s transforming grace” not that the final judgment is based on works.

“Paul particular complaint is that this impossible for the flesh, for the sinful person who has not received God’s transforming grace in Christ. Paul is not opposed in principle to the idea of final vindication on the basis of obedience; in this respect he agrees with his Jewish interlocutor (Rom. 2:7-10) What he disputes is the ability of the flesh to obey sufficiently to attain this justification (Rom. 8:3,7) [pg.239]

“In the light of this, then, Paul can be seen to be opposing the confidence of Jews in final vindication on the basis of obedience to the law. Again, this is not because he disagrees with the eschatological framework of his Jewish contemporaries or because he thinks obedience is unimportant but, rather, because he views obedience to Torah as impossible without the transforming power of Christ and the Spirit. [pg.240]

Lastly, Gathercole has some interesting thoughts on the relationship between “initial justification” and “the final judgment”, with the link being perseverance.

“Can this diversity, even within Paul himself, be accounted for? If can as long as we do not have a monolithic conception of justification whereby it only ever refers in the New Testament to the justification of the ungodly. A particularly important clue comes in the Jesus tradition from Matthew 12. The New Testament does not offer two ways of salvation, one by faith and one by works. Rather, the category of those who are justified by faith is coextensive with those will be justified on the final day after a whole life of perseverance. The two groups are identical; there are none who begin in faith but, as a result of not obeying, are not vindicated. Similarly, for Paul, it does not make sense to speak those who have somehow managed to obey outside faith. Obedience is the “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, etc.). [pg.235]

[1] These quotes are taken from the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

Gathercole and Justification Part 2

2007-07-30T21:58:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, Gathercole has a unique view of how God justifies the ungodly. Normally, I think of justification as occurring after regeneration and faith, but Gathercole seems to have justification as creating the latter two.

Gathercole, speaking on the “potential dangerous” of Protestant view, writes:

“The principal trouble is if one supposes that God can declare something to be the case (namely, that the sinner is righteous) but that in reality the opposite state of affairs persists: in God’s eyes, that believer is justus (“righteous”), but his or her real being is fundamentally as peccator (“sinner”). We should more properly consider that God’s “speech-acts” are what determine reality; they do not merely create an alternative, Platonic reality. If God declares a sinner to be righteous, then he or she really is righteous. Reality at the forensic level (justus) is no less real then the reality made up of human actions (peccator).” [pg. 226]

Later Gathercole writes:

“In the light of the explanation of justification as a declaration with creative power, it is proper to see it as constituting a true definition of the being of the believer. The believer has not had an infusion of moral righteousness but is determined by God- in the cross- to be righteous. The righteousness here should not be understood either as an infused moral power or as covenant membership (as we will see in discussion with Wright below). According to Paul, when we are reckoned righteous, it is not that we have done what God requires, such that he is recognizing the status quo. Rather, even as we are ungodly, he declares us righteous. By God’s creative word, then, we stand as embodying everything that God requires. In our identity and being we have been determined righteous by God”. [pg 227].

Towards the end of the Gathercole’s essay, he states that “God’s creative word” gives faith in order to allow Christians to meet God’s entire requirement:

“Paul says “yes” to the alternative “instrumental cause” of faith, which he understands as trusting God’s promise. By divine decision, this reckoned as righteousness. That is to say, the believer is reckoned as having accomplished all that God requires. Justification then is not merely a reckoning as being in covenant membership. It is something bigger- God’s creative act whereby, through divine determination, the believer has done everything that God requires. [pg 240]

Thank Mike

2007-07-30T16:38:00.001-07:00

All of FPC is indebted to Mike Chiu's humble service at the church. If it wasn't for him, FPC wouldn't have experienced the great successes and joys over the years or be where it is at today. About 10 years ago, Mike was left as the only godly shepherd at FPC EM after the departure of most (and later all) of the adult leaders. From there, Mike could have easily left FPC for green pastures but instead decided to stay to help the remnant of youth still at the church, thus laying the foundation for its future successes and blessings.

Without Mike, there would have been no John Potter, Powerball, study on Romans, graduation banquet at Pepper Tree, Mexico and New Orleans mission trips, basketball goal, lock-in, corny jokes, bowling, stupid Jedi/Ninja videos, Darko, Marie nicknames, City Fest, Wii, help on school projects, worship team, expository preaching, membership class, good bbq at that one retreat, Chi Chi's summer group, Wilson turning CRAZY at the sight of a wasp, no "Silly, Billy, or Killy", Circle of Death, Chicken butt, and retreat shirts with a chicken on it.

Maybe the statement above is overstated and that we in some measure would have experienced all these things at FPC even without Mike, but I know for a fact it wouldn't have been the same enjoyable, life changing, and God-exalting experience without him. So as Mike leaves for San Diego, we should all remember to "thank Mike".

Seifrid and Alien Righteousness

2007-07-16T20:19:00.000-07:00

"Faith spans the gap between the present and the day of judgment. It is the true worship, which sets the believer in constant movement forwards, and which counts as righteousness before God (Phil. 3 verses 3, 9). Paul has it as his aim 'that I might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but the righteousness which through "the faith of Christ", the righteousness from God on the basis of faith' (verse 9). Here he has in view the day when God will examine him, and hopes to meet that judgment with the 'righteousness of faith'. The righteousness Paul desires come from God, 'on the basis of faith'. Faith, not the righteousness from the law, constitutes piety before God. Yet this righteousness accorded to faith is an 'alien righteousness', which does not belong to Paul as his righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness are present only "in Christ'. The 'faith of Christ' is faith which has its source in him, in his death and resurrection (verse 9). Paul's thought here is very close to his discussion of Abraham's faith in Romans 4. The 'righteousness from God on the basis faith' is at once absolute gift and recompense of obedience. "

- from Mark Seifrid's book "Christ, our Righteousness" pg. 90

Gathercole and Justification Part 1

2007-07-14T11:55:00.000-07:00

In Simon Gathercole’s essay “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond” [1], he describes a view of the righteous that is “found in Christ”and how it relates to justification that is different to what I am accustomed to. Normally, I am use to hearing Christ’s fulfilling all of the law in order to earn salvation (Christ’s active obedience) [2].

In Gathercole’s “Forgiveness and Justification” selection, his view of how righteous relates to justification becomes clearer through his equating the term “righteous” with “forgiveness”. He writes while commenting on Romans 4:1-5:

“Despite numerous attempts by a wide variety of very different interpreters to avoid the face, Paul seems here to be defining the reckoning of righteousness as forgiveness of wrongs, covering sins, and not reckoning sin.” [pg 224].

From there, Gathercole explains why defining “righteousness” as “forgiveness” is tough for some people to do.

“The reason for the difficulty that interpreters have with this idea stems, it seems, from understanding forgiveness in too minimalistic terms. It is sometimes regarded merely as wiping the slate clean, which leaves us at zero-where we have no record of sin against us but no positive righteousness either. Paul, however, combines forgiveness with blessed and justification (Rom. 4:6-8) and also with reconciliation and justification (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Forgiveness appears, then not merely as a clearing of the account; it has (and there is a thoroughly Pauline mixing of metaphors) relational contours as well. Justification is not forgiveness in the sense of forgiveness of a debt in abstraction from a relationship (e.g. a waiver of a debt to a bank). Rather, it is forgiveness of a personal wrong (disobedience and offense against God’s glory), such that forgiveness of the personal wrong means restoration of the relationship. And restoration of the relationship is tantamount to talking of divine acceptance, since the initiative needs to come from the divine side. There has perhaps been too much separation of images such as justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation when such a separation does not really seem to work with Paul: for him, one image often suggests another (Rom.3:24-26;5:8-9; 2 Cor.5:17-21)” [pg 225]

[1] This essay is found in the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

[2] Gathercole in discussing the current debates surrounding imputation states plainly that he holds to traditional view of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. See pg 223

No More ICEEs

2007-06-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

My beautiful doctor-wife, Julia, sent me to get a blood test last week. And I found out that I am high in Triglycerides, which means:

1. Eat less of foods high in sugar ('sweets' like candy, cookies, cake, pie; non-diet sodas; fruit juices).
2. Eat less of the foods high in rapidly-digested starches (white bread, rice, potatoes, noodles or pasta). The 'Sugar Busters' diet book, available in most bookstores, suggests alternatives like whole wheat bread and pasta, brown rice, and sweet potatoes (without marshmallows or brown sugar topping).
3. Limit your intake of alcohol to no more than 2 drinks a day.
4. If your triglyceride level is very high, avoid alcohol altogether.
5. Eat more broiled or baked fish (twice a week). The best sources of healthy 'omega-3 fatty acids' are fatty fish like salmon, herring, sardines, trout, and tuna. If you don't eat fish often enough, you could take 3 fish oil capsules a day (or the number needed to supply the recommended total of 1 gram of omega-3 fatty acids EPA & DHA).
6. Minimize your intake of saturated fat by following the guidelines above.
7. Exercise as close to daily as possible, for at least 30 minutes each time (walking, jogging, biking, etc.)
8. Lose weight if you are overweight or obese, and keep your weight as close to ideal as possible

I also found out that I am "pre-diabetic" which means:

1. Limit sweets in diet.
2. Increase exercise
3. No more ICEEs

It's time for a new lifestyle. Which should be easy since I got friends to encourage me like Pat, who said: "haha. you don't need any more cookies, fatso."

Ezekiel 18 and Individual Sins

2007-06-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

Ezekiel 18 addresses how God not only takes into account Israel's corporate sin but also the sins of the individual (v.1-4) for "the soul who sins shall die" (v.4). Even though God punish the wicked for their sins (v.10-13), he also gives life to the righteous, who is described as obeying God's commandments (v.5-9):

"5"If a man is righteous and does what is just and right-- 6if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, 7does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, 9walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully--he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 18:5-9)

And if the wicked (v.10-13) repents and turns to God, his or her sins will be forgiven (v.21-23).

"21"But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" (Ezekiel 18-21-23)

But if the righteous (v.5-9) departs from faith, he will be punished (v.24)

24But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:24)

Ezekiel 18 ends with a call to repent and turn to God with "a new heart and new spirit", which seems to echo the New Covenant (Ezekiel 37:14 and Jeremiah 31:33)

30"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.^[c] 31Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." (Ezekiel 18:20-32)

It's interesting that Ezekiel's audience considered God's way of life and punishment as unjust (v.25-27) in the OT, which appears to be solved by Christ's propitiatory death in the NT (Romans 3:21-26).

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-16)

The New Covenant in Jeremiah 30-33

2007-06-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

New Covenant= Regeneration and Justification?

When I first heard of the New Covenant I thought it just consisted of 1) Regeneration (law written on the “heart” (Jer. 31: 33)) and 2) Justification (forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31.34)) as expounded in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts (REGENERATION). And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more(JUSTIFICATION)".

The Return from Exile and The Restoration of Israel and Judah

But as I examine the surrounding context of Jer. 31:31-34, it seems that the “regeneration” and “justification” elements are situated in the “Return from Exile” (Jer. 30:3, 10,18, 31:6,8-9.10,16-17,21, and 32:37) and the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” (Jer. 30:3.7,10,11,17-20,22,31:1,4,38,40 and 33:6-9,11, 14) motifs.

An example of the“regeneration” element being found in the context of the “Return from Exile” and the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motifs can be found in Jeremiah 32:37-41:

“37Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place (RETURN FROM EXILE), and I will make them dwell in safety. 38And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 39I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever (REGENERATION) , for their own good and the good of their children after them. 40I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul (RESTORATION).”

Also an example of the "justification" element being situated in the “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motif can be found in Jeremiah 33:6-9:

6Behold, I will bring to it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security. 7I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first (RESTORATION). 8I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. (JUSTIFICATION) 9And this city[c] shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it (RESTORATION).

Conclusion

So maybe when the Jews of Jesus’ and Paul’s day heard the term “new covenant” (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25), they thought of “regeneration” and “justification” in the context of Return from Exile” and “Restoration of Israel and Judah” motifs

Ballin

2007-06-09T12:29:00.000-07:00

Check-out John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, and Thabiti Anyabwile ballin. (HERE)

And check-out The Office fellas below:

Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

2007-06-08T15:05:00.000-07:00

I love both of John Piper's and N.T. Wright's writings and I also believe both of these guys are precious gifts to the church. Beyond this, I know Piper's upcoming book will do justice to Wright's view of justification even though they will probably and ultimately disagree because of their different views on "imputation of Christ's active righteousness".

I believe Piper's biggest problem with Wright's view of justification is his belief that works will some how "merit", "earn", or "be credited for" our final justification. In some sense, Piper is right to note this, for Wright clearly states that Christian good works will some how be "credited" for our final justification. Wright states

"What we are not encouraged to do is to draw up a checklist of things done and not done, to weigh them against one another and thereby to arrive at the final verdict. This suggests that Paul is being careful not to endorse the merit-measuring schemes that, despite not being at the covenantal heart of Judaism, nevertheless played some role in discussions of final judgment" [1]

"What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him." [2]

Add to this, Wright's open denial of Christ crediting his perfect obedience to Christians (imputation) and it seems we got a problem. Wright states:

What I do object to is calling this truth by a name which, within the world of thought where it is common coin, is bound to be heard to say that Jesus has himself earned something called ‘righteousness’, and that he then reckons this to be true of his people (as in the phrase ‘the merits of Christ’ [3]

In Piper's theological system, he also believes in the necessity of Christian good works at the final judgment, but he can describe these good works as "evidences" or "fruits" of truth faith and not something that "earns" justification because in his system, Christ's has already perfectly obeyed the law and thus "earned" and is the "basis" of the Christians' justification. Piper commenting on Romans 2:6-10:

(I)n general, there are two possible answers to this question. One says that eternal life would be based on perfect obedience if anybody had it. But nobody does, and so the only way to eternal life is by faith in Christ. The other way says that God never promised eternal life on the basis of good deeds, but always makes good deeds the evidence of faith that unites us to God in Christ, who is the basis of eternal life.

The other answer would say, it means that God does indeed give eternal life to those who persevere in obedience not because this obedience is perfect or because it is the basis or the merit of eternal life, but because saving faith always changes our lives in the power of the Holy Spirit so that true believers persevere in doing good. In other words, a changed life of obedience to God's truth (verse 8) is not the basis of eternal life, but the evidence of authentic faith which unites us to Christ who is the basis of eternal life. [4]

So within Piper's theological system, Wright will always be a "semi-Pelagian", no matter how many times he states that Christians are saved by grace. But it's important to note that in order for Piper to make Wright fit into his theological system, he needs to first prove that God requires perfect obedience from all men for salvation, which I believe is a very hard thing to do [5].

[1] Wright's Romans commentary pg 440

[2] Wright's essay “New Perspective on Paul"

[3] Wright's essay "Paul in Different Perspective"

[4] John Piper's sermon, "The Final Divide: Eternal Life or Eternal Wrath, Part 2"

[5] See "A Defense of the “Active Obedience” of Jesus Christ In The Justification of Sinners: A Biblical Refutation of Norman Shepherd on the Perceptive Obedience of the Savior" by Brian Schwertley

Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile

2007-06-07T16:55:00.000-07:00

Brant Pitre's book, " Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile" is one of the most interesting and stimulating books I have ever read. In the book, Dr. Pitre carefully works through OT, NT, and 2nd Temple Jewish sources and concludes:

"Jesus, speaking of himself as both Son of Man and Messiah, deliberately took the suffering of the tribulation upon himself in order to atone for the sins of Israel, sins which had led them into exile. Because he saw this tribulation as nothing less than an eschatological Passover, he sought to inaugurate it in both word and deed and thereby, to bring about the End of the Exile and the restoration of the twelve tribes in a New Exodus." - pg 506

Rockets' Play Day

2007-04-03T17:20:00.000-07:00

Rockets' Play Day consisted of:

shooting on the Rocket court (I missed all 8 three-pointers...I was nervous)

free hotdogs
free nachos and sodas
BillyBen with Big Jake
Ben with J. Ho (the real one)

me and Luther

Shane playing ping-pong with the kidsBen with Novak
Yao with the people
Yao playing air hockey with the kids

And Dirk scaring the kids

Federal Telephone Excise Tax Credit

2007-03-31T09:12:00.000-07:00

Don't forget to claim the Federal Telephone Excise Tax credit, which saves you anywhere between $30 to $60 bucks depending on the number of exemptions you claim.

Check out the details at Money Girls.

My Job as a CPA

2007-03-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Iustitia Dei Part 6: Protestant's View of Justification (1530-1730)

2007-03-10T07:00:00.000-08:00

1. Justification is defined as the forensic declaration that believers are righteous, rather than the process by which they are made righteous, involving a change in their status rather than in their nature.

2. A delibrate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within humans). Although the two are treated as inseparable, a notional distinction is thus drawn where none was conceded before.

3. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification,is defined as the alien rightousness of Christ, external to humans and imputed to them, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to them, located within them, or which ins any sense may be said to belong to them. God's judgement in justification is therefore synthetic rather than analytic, in that there is no righteousness, within humans which can be considered to be the basis of the divine verdict of justification; the righteousness upon which such a judgement is necessarily based ins external to humans.

[1] pg 212-213

Iustitia Dei Part 5: Justification and the Sacraments

2007-03-06T16:18:00.000-08:00

"In conclusion, it may be stated that the medieval period saw that justification of the sinner firmly linked to the sacramental life of the church, a sound theological link having been established between justification and the sacraments. This linking of justification to the sacramental system of the church has profound theological and pastoral consequences, of which the most important is the tendency to assert iustificatio extra ecclesiam non est. Although the theologians of the medieval period were aware that God was not bound by the sacraments, the tendency to emphasise the reliablity of the established order of salvation, of which the sacramental system is part, can only have served to convey the impression that the sinner who wishes to be reconciled God must, de facto, seek the assistance of a priest"

- Alister McGrath pg. 127 of Iustifitia Dei

Active and Passive Justification

2007-03-04T15:38:00.000-08:00

In the past, Reformed theologians made a distinction between active and passive justification according to McGarth's book,IUSTITIA DEI. McGrath commenting on both: "The distinction refers to the act of God by which the sinner is justified (active justification), and the subjective feelings of grace subsequently evoked in the conscience of the justified sinner(passive). God acts to justify and humanity is passive in receiving this justification. The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that God's act of justification, in which the sinner is declared righteous, is perfect, accomplished once and for all, whereas the realisation by humans of this state of justifcation is imperfect, in so far as it is based upon the feeling of grace evoked in this conscience" (pg. 271)

Therefore, it seems that Reformed theologians believed that regeneration (if I can safely say faith comes from "regeneration") came both prior and posterior to justification with the "divine/objective" justification coming before regeneration. McGrath states: "the Reformed theologians were able to state that faith was posterior to objective, and prior to subjective justification" )pg. 272)

Bruce McCormack and Calvin

2007-03-03T19:16:00.000-08:00

In Bruce McCormack’s article “What’s at Stake in Current Debates over Justification?” the author notes that the (Reformer’s view of justification) "break with Medieval Catholicism was actually less than complete due to a residual commitment to Medieval Catholic understandings of regeneration and a shaky grasp of the relationship of justification and regeneration.”(pg. 84) based on the Reformer’s failure to directly engage in ontological issues.

McCormack cites that both Luther (pg.94) and Calvin failed in this regard. What is particularly interesting is to hear Calvin articulate a relationship between justification and regeneration that has the latter FOLLOWING the former (I always thought Calvin believed regeneration came first).

McCormack writes “Calvin makes justification to be logically prior to-and the foundation of – that bestowal of the sort of adoption by means of which the believer is regenerated. On this view, regeneration would have to be seen as the logical consequence of the divine verdict registered in justification. In sum, Calvin’s understanding of justification is strictly forensic or judicial in character. It is a matter of a divine judgment, a verdict of acquittal. And the means by which it is accomplished is imputation”.

Even though Calvin’s states this plainly, McCormack later notes that Calvin became less clear of the relationship of justification before regeneration in his other writings on soteriology (pg 101 -103) and Eucharistic feeding (pg.104). McCormack notes that lack of clarity was a result of Calvin refusing to engage in ontological questions (pg .105).

Iustitia Dei Part 4: Gabriel Biel and Pactum

2007-03-02T15:46:00.000-08:00

I wonder if Gabriel Biel is the first covenant theologian?

"Gabriel Biel's doctrine of justification is based upon the concept of a pactum (covenant) between God and humanity which defines the conditions which humans must meet if they are to be justified, as well as emphasising the divine reliability. The present order of salvation, although radically contingent, is nevertheless totally reliable and strictly immutable. Thus God, having freely and of his liberalitas determined to enter into such a binding contract with humanity, is now obliged to respect the terms of that covenant. God gives grace to those who 'do their best', precisely because of God's decision and promise to behave in this way."

pg 87 of Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Iustitia Dei Part 3: Medieval Period

2007-02-25T15:39:00.000-08:00

"From its beginning to its end, the medieval period saw justification as involving a real change in the sinner - an understanding which precludes any distinction between iustification and regeneratio. The processus iustificationis includes regeneration or renewal as one of its integral elements, making any such distinction intensely problematic. The notional distinciton that came to emerge in the sixteenth century between iustificatio and regeneratio (or sanctificatio) provides one of the best ways of distingushing between Catholic and Protestant understanding of jusification, making the Reformers' discontinunity with the earlier western theological tradition."

-pg 71-72 Iustiitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Frame Reviews Wright's "The Last Word"

2007-02-22T16:11:00.000-08:00

John Frame has written a review on N.T. Wright's book, "The Last Word", and concludes that:

"Wright is right to say that God’s word, and specifically Scripture, is more than doctrines and commands. But if inspiration confers divine authorship, and if God’s word is true speech, then it becomes very important, within the context of the kingdom narrative, to believe God’s doctrines and to obey God’s commands. Indeed, as Wright notes, the very nature of narrative poses the question of whether the events described “really happened:” that is, what should we believe about them, and how should we act in response. But then narrative itself implies doctrines to be believed and commandments to obey.

That is what the Bible wars are about. One can believe everything Wright says about the narrative context of biblical authority and still ask responsibly whether the words of Scripture are God’s words to us. Wright’s book does not speak helpfully to this question, nor does it succeed (if this was Wright’s purpose) in persuading us not to ask it. So, like the worship books mentioned earlier, The Last Word does not discuss what is most relevant to the controversy. It proposes a context, but a context is not enough. Two people who accept Wright’s proposal may nevertheless differ radically on the question of whether the Bible is the word of God.

Many of us would like to get away from the debates of the liberal/fundamentalist controversy. But if Scripture is God’s very word, then we cannot be indifferent to its doctrinal and ethical authority, or silent against attacks on that authority. Wright has done some great work in defending the truth of Scripture, and it is evident in the present volume that he has scant regard for the scholarship of enlightenment skeptics like those of the Jesus Seminar. So he has himself entered into the Bible wars. But are these wars merely contests to see who is the better scholar, or is the word of God itself at issue? If the latter, much more must be said and done."

Iustitia Dei Part 2

2007-02-14T09:05:00.000-08:00

Augustine of Hippo view of justification:

"Justification is therefore essentially a "making right", a restoration of every facet of the relationship between God and humanity, the rectitude of which constitues iustitia. Iustitia is not conceived primarily in legal or forensic categories, but transcends them, encompassing the 'right-wissing' of the God-human relationship in its many aspects: the relationship of God to humankind, of humans to their fellows, and of humans to their environment. Justification is about 'making just'-establishing the recitiude of the created order to according to the divine intention. Although it is clear that justification has legal and moral ramifications, given the wide scope o f Augustine's concept of iustitia, it is not primarily a legal or moral concept" [1]

[1] pg 51 of Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath

The Golden One Arm and Mark Cuban

2007-02-10T09:22:00.000-08:00

Gilbert Arenas continues to talk about his "Golden One Arm" against DeShawn Stevenson. You guys can catch the video below of the $20,000 bet in acton below. (Also check-out Cuban's rant about D.Wade)

Iustitia Dei Part 1

2007-02-10T08:55:00.000-08:00

"For the first 350 years of the history of the church, its teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined. There had never been a serious controversy over the matter, such as those which had so stimulated the development of Christology over the period. The patristic inexactiude and occassional apparent naivety on the question merely reflects the absence of a controversy which would force more precise definition of the terms used. If the first centuries of the western theological tradition appear be characterised by a "work-righteousness' approach to justification, it must be emphasised that this was quite innocent of the overtones which would later be associated with it" [1]

[1] pg 38 of "Iustitia Dei" by Alister McGrath

Happy BDay Alan

2007-02-08T16:03:00.000-08:00

Photo Sharing - Upload Video - Video Sharing - Share Photos

Wright on Being a Christian

2007-02-07T15:20:00.000-08:00

"Made for spirituality, we wallow in introspection. Made for joy, we settle for pleasure. Made for justice, we clamor for vengenance. Made for relationship, we insist on our own way. Made for beauty, we are satisfied with sentiment. But new creation has already begun. The sun has begun to rise. Christians are called to leave behind, in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokeness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our fully human role, as agents, heralds, and stewards of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what it means to be Christians: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God's new world, which he has thrown open before us"

- NT. Wright from "Simply Christian" pg 237

Gary Haugen and International Justice Mission

2007-02-02T19:31:00.000-08:00

Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission is speaking at First Presbyterian Church of Houston on Feb. 11,2007 (Sunday). It should be really good. Below is a preview of IJM in action.

Flashback to November: Travels to Vermont and Boston

2007-01-29T18:38:00.000-08:00

This past November, we were blessed with the opportunity to visit Alan, Vanessa, Mike, and Lisa in the NH/Vermont area. The area was gorgeous, and we had a great time visting all the charming spots around the area. We also traveled with Walter, Elaine, and Henry to Boston afterwards to enjoy some great shopping and eats.

Rockets Weekly

2007-01-29T10:20:00.000-08:00

With two big wins last week (SA, POR) and home games against Phi, Sea, and New Orleans, the Rockets are looking pretty with their 27-16 record.

Baller of the Week - Tracy Mcgrady. With the Rockets' offensive struggling a little against SA and Portland, TMAC led the team to 2 victories by shooting 62.5% from the floor and averaging 32.5 points.

Predictions for the Week - 3 Wins and 0 Losses

Danny Riding Dirty

2007-01-26T15:09:00.000-08:00

Ben Witherington and The Environment

2007-01-26T08:40:00.000-08:00

On Dr. Witherington's blog, I asked him, "Why Christians should care about the environment?", and he gave, I think, a great answer:

"There are several reasons: 1) of course it is in part because we are fouling our own nest and it hurts other human beings; 2)I believe that the church is always supposed to be about the business of making this a better world by offering up a whole Gospel, both in its spiritual and a social dimension. I recognize of course that the new heaven and new earth will only come in any full sense after Jesus returns. This is what the NT says. However, I also know that Jesus wants to find us being about the Father's business when he comes. And that business involves the salvation and redemption of the world, not just of human souls. So any alleviation of human misery is something that honors our God who will one day bring the resurrection and the new heaven and new earth."

Also over the past couple of weeks, Dr. Witherington has written several articles on his blog about the environment that are worth checking out:

1) Evangelicals and Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming
2) Global Warming and Evangelicals Part Deux
3) The Smoking Gun--1600 Page Global Warming Report Out Soon

Rockets’ Weekly: "0-3"

2007-01-22T17:23:00.000-08:00

With three tough losses last week and just two games (SA and Portland) this week, the Rockets should get some time to recover from injures and get back on track.

Predications for the Week: 1 Win (Portland) and 1 Loss (SA)