Sinclair Ferguson on Righteousness and Meritoriousness

I was listening to this old talk by Sinclair Ferguson, speaking about the attributes of God. By bouncing off of Deuteronomy 24:13, he makes some thoughtful and helpful comments on how we should think about the idea of "righteousness" as used in the Scriptures...

So we need to dissolve from our understanding of righteousness any notion of meritoriousness that may have crept into our thinking. Righteousness means integrity of relationship to the covenant requirements. And consequently righteous acts in Scripture are thus nuanced. Again, in terms of human righteousness, when the saints in the Old Testament appeal to their own righteousness, they are appealing not to some Old Testament principle of meritoriousness, but to the integrity of relationship in which they stand to God, in terms of the covenant with them he has made. And consequently, righteousness set within this covenant context, manifests itself, in a multifaceted way, and with a series of nuances. Thus for example, Geerhardus Vos, suggests there are at least five different categories employable to expound the nuances of righteousness. Barton Payne in his Theology of the Older Testament suggests that there are nine. But we who like to be simple believers will suggest that we can focus our attention on two of those aspects which point up the vital characteristic of divine righteousness, namely the principle that in Scripture the righteousness of God is manifested both in terrible condemnation and in merciful deliverance. And this is so because of the absolute integrity of God to the revelation he has given of himself in his covenant. And if we lack that perspective, we are bound to minimize in one direction or another, what the concept of divine righteousness means, either limiting it to retributive justice or to love and grace.

Who is the good Samaritan? (Tullian Tchividjian and the Good Samaritan)

As has become something of a habit, I was browsing through the Gospel Coalition site's "Right Now" list of links. I came across Tullian Tchividjian's blog post on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). His conclusion was, "Yes, Jesus and Jesus alone is the Good Samaritan". Like many others, I couldn't really buy it.

This is what I said on a friend's Facebook account when they linked to the article:

"As with many things, I think it is a both/and and not either/or situation. Yes, I think when Jesus speaks parables like this, he is in a purposeful way calling attention to himself and what he does and will do. But I don't think it is only as a substitute or representative. He is also the example. When he says to "go and do likewise", it is not only to expose sin, by some kind of confronting dead end, but it is also to point us in the right direction (cf Calvin's third use of the Law). Sometimes we can over-theologise and over-absolutise etc. I suspect Pastor Tullian's theology is getting in the road of his exegesis..."

Sometimes we can try to be too clever, and miss the obvious. Sometimes we can also be too tunnel-visioned or too monochromatic about seeing Jesus in everything. Sometimes we can be so afraid of legalism and moralism etc, that we are allergic to telling ourselves to "be careful to maintain good works" (Titus 3:8).

The Circumcision of Correct Theology

You who boast in the law dishonour God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:23-29; ESV)

As I was reading Paul's words from Romans 2 (above), and thinking about how it can play out today, it occurred to me that theological correctness can be a kind of circumcision for one kind of modern day "Judaizers".

Tom Wright has used the word "badge" to talk about the way the Jews viewed circumcision (and other works of the Law/Torah, and even just the possession of the Law/Torah, if memory serves me right). This is a helpful analogy. Perhaps more in the past, but badges could serve as proud symbols of membership of your particular club. For some church members, official name tags function as badges of membership. And the thing is, there can be a subtle blurring, where the badge of membership becomes the assurance of membership (although I suppose there is something in the nature of Biblical badges as not only signs, but also seals). Worse though, is when the assurance rests entirely in the wearing of the badge, and it is forgotten that the badge is only a token, when the badge is no longer a sign pointing to something else, but assumes all the substance of assurance. I may not have any real relationships with others in the church, I may only rarely attend the various gatherings of the church, I may never represent the church in the world, but I still have the name tag, and if I'm wearing it, no-one better try and tell me that I'm not a member of the church!

Sometimes I think our confessions to theological correctness become a badge carrying too much weight, causing too much boasting. Sometimes the theological orthodoxy of our doctrinal statements, and of our confessed allegiances (as Calvinist, Evangelical, Reformed or whatever), becomes the substance of our assurance of membership in Christ, even if that alone is the bulk of the substance of that assurance. What if we have the purest summary of the gospel in our official confession, but we never really engage with others to communicate the gospel to them? What if we clearly teach predestination and grace, and are notoriously proud or arrogant as Christians? What if our stated core values proclaim the love of God and reconciliation and forgiveness in Christ, but we are always divisive and fault-finding? "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision." Our theological badge indeed is of value if we live out our theology. But if our theological confessions are only a badge, maybe there is little value in wearing it. And perhaps we may also see that some others who don't wear the same badge, actually do better at living out the theology. May our praise not be from man but from God.

Excellent Biblical diagrams, illustrations and infographics

I was looking today for a chart or table that showed the kings of Israel/Judah, and found a real gold mine. It is a site called visualunit.me, with stacks of very well done charts, diagrams, illustrations, infographics etc to help teach and explain Bible content and theology etc. It is by an AFES staff worker, named Mark Barry, as well as others. I remember 20 years ago seeing the various ZondervanCharts books by H. Wayne House etc. I haven't looked at any recent updates to the Zondervan ones, but these online ones at visualunit.me are excellent - very clear, well-coloured and presented, slick and modern looking.

Here are a few samples, including the one I found about the kings...

Sometimes we make things too complicated..

Just a somewhat random reflection.. sometimes we make our theology too complicated! I think especially as "Reformed" and "Evangelical" types we are excessively careful to be too academic and too analytical etc. I suspect it also some kind of hang-over from Modernism or Foundationalism or Idealism something like that. (Hmm, not really sure what I'm talking about here, right, haha!) It seems we always want to have our theology in neat boxes, with perfect straight edges, very controllable etc. We seem to want our theology to be clearer than Scripture is. Maybe actually it is driven by a fear of the unknown, or perhaps a pride in being (more) right. Worse is when we spend all out time making sure we are (more) right, and neglect the basics of prayer (with emphasis on being relationals with God!), Bible reading, obedience. We can be afraid of experience because it is not objective enough, but perhaps we often don't have enough experience in the basics, such that all our theologizing smacks too much of ivory tower syndrome. Well, no more details today. Will just say, I'm a control freak, very particular and analytical, but hopefully reforming... semper reformanda!

Sabbath, Fourth Commandment and Lord's Day for Christians today?

I have recently been in some discussions about the essence of the fourth commandment (cf Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15). I thought I would compile some of the notes here. They are very abbreviated, with little justification, but here they are anyway, as something of a summary of my present thought...

• There is an abiding application of the 4th commandment, since the creation until now. Sunday as the Lord’s Day has become the holy/special day for Christians, rather than the Saturday Sabbath, as recognised in the New Testament and early church history. This is the day that Christians regularly assembled together for worship, encouragement and edification. There seems to still be a set day, the Lord’s Day. I understant that the Lord’s Day has always been considered as the first day of the week, both in Scripture and in early church history. (I think some of the shift has to do with a practical distinction between Mosaic Jewish administration and new Christian administration, and part because the new age has already begun on the first day of the week, when Jesus rose from the dead.)
• The essence of our Christian observance of the Lord's Day is of keeping the the day holy and distinct from our other days. That day is specially the Lord’s, where the other six are in a sense more left to us and our particular needs in this age. The Sabbath day was never just about the past, but also about the future hope of entering God’s rest (of which the promised land was a typological fulfilment, clearly not being the real thing, but meant to make the people think in those terms). I understand that the Sabbath was primarily about hope (and not primarily about judgement or whatever else). And that hope is now kept holy by us on the Lord’s Day instead. The Lord’s Day is then a special day to look forward to the perfect rest to come (as the Gen 2:1-4 seventh day was the holy perfection of the creation account), and enjoy the anticipation of that. So part of the essence of the day is still a resting from this-worldly employment (to provide for our this-worldly needs), and depend upon and enjoy the Lord, living by his word alone (so to speak). A day when we shouldn’t be trying to make money, or force others to make money for us (like our slaves, servants, oxen, donkeys etc, to use Ex 20/Deut 5 terminology). It is a day of joy in the Lord. A day of delight. A day of holy desire and hope.
• There are some aspects of OT Jewish Sabbath requirement that are not required in the same way for Christian believers on the Lord’s Day. There is a greater sense of freedom, joy and closeness with God for the Christian community, than there is in the OT Jewish economy. You see that for example in the difference between restricted access to God’s throne in the tabernacle/temple system, and the free access and boldness we are given as Christians. I think part of that has to do with the “typological” distinctiveness of Israel amongst the other nations, and how that needed to be displayed outwardly and legally etc, since as a whole community they did not have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts individually. And there is this kind of shift when it comes to how we think of observing the Lord's Day as the Christian holy day.
• The difference between Ex 20 and Deut 5 also shows us that the essence of the 10 commandments is not tied to the precise and entire wording in a over-legal way.
• Hebrews 3-4 is not about a “Lutheran grace not works” type of rest. I think it is about a future rest, and actually still points to a continuing Sabbath observance as we look forward to entering the rest of God which Jesus has already entered (for himself as the new Adam, and also on our behalf).
• The Col 2, Gal 4 and Rom 14 passages are more about Jewish-type holy days, not about the Christian Lord’s Day (since the context of all these passages has to do with Jewish-influenced wrong thinking coming into the church).
• I have heard many people say that Jesus broke the Sabbath. I don't think Jesus broke any OT requirement of the Sabbath, since he had to fulfil all righteousness and perfectly keep the law. What Jesus broke was only the interpretation of the law by some contemporary Jews.
• When it comes to questions of practical situations, of what we should and shouldn't do, one principle is, if I don’t think I should do it, I shouldn't require others to do it for me, or encourage others to do what I wouldn’t do. (cf Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.) However, on the other hand there are issues of necessity, and mercy, and the dangers of Pharisaical extremes, similar to the “Corban” situation, where one thing is overemphasised at the expense of something else, and it becomes emphasis on a man-made rule, rather than issue of real sin. Or where detailed rules are contrived, which go beyond God’s requirements. And this is where things become complicated in the real situations that we face.
• Yes, technically, we could say the “Lord’s Day” is not to be called “the Sabbath”, however I don’t think it is wrong, and often is helpful, to use the shorthand of referring to it as the “Christian Sabbath”. Particularly because we don’t have the same kind of confusions with the prevalence of Jewish influence today (at least not to the same degree and in the same form, eg food laws and circumcision are not as big an issue for us today as it was in the NT)

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...

Calvinism is making a comeback?

In another one of the Yahoo groups I participate in, someone pointed out this article in Christianity Today:

Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback and shaking up the church

It is an interesting read about the resurgence of Calvinistic/Reformed teaching amongst the American Evangelical scene, particularly the young Evangelicals. For good and ill, I think this last quote captures some of the distinctive post-modern essence of contemporary perspectives of Calvinism today:

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

Actually, this quote reminds me of something I read in a John Frame book, called Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (full version, with some updates, available online from this page). Here is some of what he says:

My wife once regularly attended a neighborhood Bible study, with women from Roman Catholic, Charismatic, Arminian, Dispensational, and Episcopal backgrounds as well as some fellow Presbyterians. However, it never became a doctrinal battleground, she says, because the study always focused on the text of Scripture. The women sought to avoid technical theological jargon and tried simply to do justice to what the Bible taught.

Certainly they studied some passages that were heavy with doctrinal content. Romans 9 was one. When the group read Romans 9, Calvinist and Arminian together marvelled at God's control of history including the his control of the human heart. When they got to chapter 10, all with one accord were challenged with the responsibility of human beings to preach the gospel. No one insisted on the dogmatic terminology of "free will" on the one hand, or of "unconditional election" on the other. Romans 9 and 10 spoke for themselves, as it were, and bound these Christian women together in praise and fellowship. All sincerely and warmly received the scriptural message.

Perhaps someone will say that they missed something! A Calvinist might reply that unless we bring in the theological concept of unconditional election, we cannot possibly understand Romans 9, and that therefore the ladies in question were rejoicing in ignorance. An Arminian might say the same thing about "free will." But if God did not inspire Paul to write the words "unconditional election," why should we insist that those precise words-- or the words "free will"-- are necessary to express his meaning?

I have no doubt that the women understood Romans 9 and 10. Would the theological terms have helped them get a better understanding? Perhaps in some Bible studies, but not in this one. In this particular case, introduction of technicalities would have produced unnecessary quarreling-- certainly not the response the Apostle Paul (and God, the ultimate author) intended the text to evoke. And the use of such terms might have exaggerated the extent to which Paul himself had a technical theological purpose in writing these chapters. I have no doubt that an avoidance of technicalities in this particular context gave the women a better understanding of the passages than they would have had otherwise.
Paul wrote these chapters at a time when the Calvinist/Arminian, even the Augustinian/Pelagian, debates were still future. He was not trying to persuade Arminians to become Calvinists, or the other way around. It is not wrong for us today to use these passages to help resolve the controversy. It is wrong to suggest that that is their only legitimate use, or even their chief use, or that the texts can be understood only in the context of that debate. Rather, there are other contexts too; other uses-- such as the ones Paul actually had in mind.

Certainly divine sovereignty and human responsibility are major themes of these passages. But one may appreciate both these themes without concentrating on the historical controversies over them. The ladies in the Bible study praised God's sovereignty, and they accepted the scriptural challenge to their own responsibility. And they did it without argument, without debate, simply listening to the word of God. For them, for an hour or so, the church was one.

Are there not times even in our local church life when it might be best simply to let the text speak (more or less! for we are still "explaining" it to one another) for itself? Do we always have to point out, in expounding Romans 9 and 10, how our party is right and the other party wrong? Does not that very emphasis keep us from appreciating certain nuances and emphases in the passage? Does not that practice exaggerate the importance of the historical controversy?

My wife (like me a good Calvinist) says that it is not hard to convince people of Calvinistic teachings when you avoid using Calvinistic jargon. I agree. Beyond this, there is a slogan among the Reformed that "anyone who prays for another's conversion is a Calvinist." I'm not sure where that came from; it has been attributed to Warfield, Van Til, Vos.. I agree with that too. If you pray for the soul of another, then you believe that person's decision is in the hand of God, not merely a product of the person's "free agency." But many pray like Calvinists, while proclaiming Arminian theology. That doesn't seem consistent to me, but I welcome their prayers, and I'll be happy to have them pray with me for the conversion of sinners. So perhaps my wife's point can be taken a further step: for there are people around who are Calvinists in one degree or another (evidenced by their words and actions), who would not use the Calvinistic jargon, who would, perhaps, even repudiate it.

It seems to me that what we call Calvinism is simply a spelling out of the heart-instincts of all believers in Christ. I can easily persuade myself that the whole church will be Calvinist eventually, if we allow people to read Scripture as it stands, without feeling that we have to rub their noses in historic controversy. There is a certain "smarty pants" theological attitude in wanting to show people of the other party that our team was right all along. We sometimes feel that we need to do that in order to make our case maximally cogent; but in fact that attitude detracts from the cogency of our case. We give people the impression that in order to acknowledge the biblical principle they must also acknowledge us, our denomination, our historical traditions. But no. Biblical principle deserves their allegiance. Our "team" does not necessarily deserve it.

Ephesians 2:15 and Torah Abolished?

I was discussing Ephesians 2:15 on the Theology List, and thought I would include a compiled copy here. Essentially, the question being addressed is: What does Paul mean by the term 'the law' and in what sense is it abolished?

A common Reformed approach is to use the threefold division of the law and say that Paul is here really talking about the ceremonial law when he uses the term 'law'. Hence the ceremonial law is abolished, but the moral law remains. But while I think categorizing it to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah and not the moral law is a helpful simplification to explain what is going on, I don't think it does full justice to the text. In Eph 2:15 I think Paul means the Torah generally and as a whole, rather than a more theological distinction between ceremonial and moral law.

If we use the language of threefold distinction into moral law (ML), ceremonial law (CL) and civil law (SL), we would like to say that Torah = ML + CL + SL, as if it could be so neatly divided that way. Eg the decalogue would be ML, holiness code CL, and rules relating to Israel as a nation-state SL. And in fact, probably we can categorize it like that if it is helpful. But now let me make another category called Universal Law (UL), coining my own terminology, and define it as the universal expression of God's eternal character as it applies to humanity. The simplification we would like is to equate 'moral law' with 'universal law', as if we can seamlessly move between this concept of Universal Law, and what we can select out as Moral Law from the Torah, and really they are one and the same. But I don't think it is so simple. I would instead say that the kernel of this 'Universal Law' is contained within the husk of the Torah. In fact, ML, CL and SL (if we take them to be the constituent parts of Torah) are all expressions of UL within that husk, though perhaps ML seems most clearly so. But each are specially packaged expressions of UL adapted specifically to the OT Israel situation. When the Scriptures use the word 'law', I think usually it has Torah specifically in mind, but the emphasis may vary between UL, ML, CL, SL or Torah as a package possibly extending to the whole OT (though I can't think of a case where SL would be emphasized, except perhaps where the emphasis is on some of the penalties). Now this is still a simplification, but to me, a better nuanced one than simply ML, CL, SL.

Coming back to Eph 2:15, as mentioned already, I think Paul means Torah as a whole package in this case, and not even just the CL aspects, although they might be more prominent. I don't think he means you could literally cut up all the words of Torah, and just remove the ceremonial ones, and that is all that was abolished. IMO the Torah is the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The ceremonial law was the superficial and tangible expression of that difference, but I think it is much deeper than that. The Jews prided themselves as in possession of the Law as a whole (cf Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Deut 4:8) and that possession, as well as the content of the law itself, set them apart from the Gentiles, and excluded the Gentiles. But the abolishment of the husk does not mean that the kernel of 'universal law' is abolished, nor even that the Torah is abolished in some absolute sense, so as to have no direct relevance to the Christian. Rom 3:31 makes clear there is some sense in which Torah is not abolished but rather the opposite. As does Matt 5:17ff. So I think in Eph 2:15, with respect to the Gentiles, the abolishment of Torah has to do with abolishing it as a legal or constitutional document which divides Jew and Gentile, thus also separating the Gentiles from God (according to Torah).

Actually, I would clarify further and say that Paul is actually speaking at two levels at the same time. Not only did the Torah exclude the Gentile, it also condemned the unbelieving Jew, and was a burden of death to them (and I don't think it would be just the ceremonial aspects that condemned them, cf Rom 2-3). Without the Torah being written on their hearts, the Torah only condemned them, and led to hostility between Jews and God also. Hence while the Torah held the prospect of peace with God and access to God (cf Eph 2:12), in practice it still left most Jews condemned before God. And hence also in that sense Christ not only brings peace and reconciliation to the Gentile, but also to the Jew who was already 'near' (Eph 2:16-17).

So in what sense is Torah abolished, and in what sense does it remain? In the tradition of Covenant Theology, with an emphasis on continuity, I don't think things have to be repeated in the NT for something in the OT to be relevant. What the OT teaches regarding God and man (to use Calvin's paradigm) still remains relevant today, and is by no means abolished. It is only the strict legal or constitutional character that has been abolished, which by no means undermines the revelatory character of the OT. I think Paul means to talk of the Torah as a whole being abolished, but that is not to be taken as a stand-alone, absolutised statement. The best analogy I can think of is the distinction between spirit and letter of the law. The letter is abolished, but the spirit remains. Kind of like what commonly happens when one pastor replaces another in a church. In letter the old pastor may have no official relationship with the church, but in spirit he often still remains an influence (whether in person or just as a memory), though it is not usually a good thing for the new pastor ;-) But here, what remains of the Torah is a good thing and we can and should keep going back to the letter of the Torah to find that spirit. And in fact the preservation of every letter of it is important to preserve the spirit of it also.

John of Damascus on the Doctrine of God

This is my Church History paper looking at John of Damascus' teaching from the first book of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, as a representative of Eastern Orthodox theology:

John_of_Damascus_on_the_Doctrine_of_God.pdf

After a brief sketch of the historical setting of the work, it is divided up for consideration. The book is categorised into three sections: 1. What can and cannot be known about the Triune God; 2. Logical proofs concerning the Triune God; 3. Beliefs explained concerning the Triune God. Each of these sections is discussed, also considering the historical and contemporary relevance of what John writes. The value of an appreciation of the mystery of God is noted, as are the contributions and distinctions of John's Trinitarian conceptions. Some similarities with Scholastic writings are also pointed out.

Packer on Eschatology

Eschatological is one of those words which gets used a lot, but IMO most of the time most people don't know what it really means :-) For me, I think it is only over the last few years that I have begun to get a proper handle on the significance of eschatology. Now I think it is of fundamental importance in better understanding the Scriptures, and God's purposes in Christ. Too often, in a man-centred way, we just think of eschatology in terms of what will eventually happen to me, in the future, as it relates to me: life after death, heaven and hell, bodily resurrection, last judgement when Christ returns. However, there is a bigger picture with eschatology, which has to do with the whole Biblically anticipated age to come. This age to come includes the list of things I just mentioned previously, but is also more expansive that that. And the real crunch point is that the age to come is not just future, but it has already and really begun in the coming of Christ. In Christ's resurrection, the new creation has already begun. And as we are born again of the Spirit, the new creation has already begun in us, yet still waiting for perfection and completion. So every Christian is an interface or intersection between this present evil age and the age to come, and all the Christians together (ie the church) are a preview of the new humanity of the age to come, constituted in Christ. It seems to me it is very important to understand both the 'now and not yet' as well as the ultimate goal or telos of eschatology, if we are to better understand the perspective and meaning of Scripture. For example, I think we often think about OT Israel being fulfilled in the NT church. Yet I think ultimately both Israel and the church are better understood as pointing to the ultimate reality of the new humanity of the kingdom of God in eternity, in the consummated age to come. The church is a better representation of the new creation than is Israel, but it is still not a perfect representation.

Anyhow, recently I read some J. I. Packer on eschatology, and he made some helpful comments I thought I would record here. They come from Honouring the Written Word of God (Paternoster, 1990), in the chapter entitled "The Challenge of Biblical Interpretation: Eschatology"...

Eschatology is the study of the last things, God's future, God's fulfillment of his purpose of perfecting his creation by eliminating from it the disorder brought into it by sin and reconstructing everything in its final perfect form. Further, the biblical presentation of this great theme is like an ellipse with two foci, a single oval figure with two points inside it each of which is just as central in its significance as the other. The two foci are global eschatology (which has to do with the future of our Lord Jesus Christ and this whole world) and personal eschatology (which has to do with the future of the individual Christian and the individual unbeliever). [p.200]
The perspective set forth in the New Testament is what is usually called inaugurated eschatology, that is, the belief that the kingdom of God is here and the powers of the kingdom are at work already. The gospel is the good news that heaven has already begun here on earth for those who are Christ's. The long expected king of Old Testament prophecy has come. [p.200]
Never underestimate the theological significance of eschatology. In the schools, very often eschatology has been the poor relation in the theology courses. Coming last it has often been, to speak frankly, skimped in teaching. Partly, I think, this is because professors have not always known what to say. In addition, everyone who works in the classroom knows things often take longer to teach than you anticipate, so that the final bit of any course nearly always gets skimped. That's universal teaching experience. But it is a very sad thing that eschatology should ever be skimped because, as you can already see, it is a matter of enormous importance, very much a part of the glory of the gospel and very important for every Christian to understand... Eschatology is first the key to understanding the unity of the Bible... Eschatology is, further, the clue to understanding the nature of the Christian life. That life is essentially a life of hope, a life in which nothing is perfect yet but the hope of perfection is set before us... Third, eschatology is the key to understanding the shape of world history... The people of God have always been at the centre of world history... Finally, eschatology is supremely relevant for teaching the gospel in these days, considering what we are up against. On the one hand, there are utopian hopes, false hopes of different kinds offered by different people... On the other hand, we face a great deal of pessimistic hopelessness on the part of people who feel that they have seen through the false hopes of society and now have no hope at all... We need to speak loudly and clearly about the glory of the Christian hope. The world needs to hear that word from our lips. [pp.201-202]
the Bible is an Oriental book, and its testimony to the future is given in Oriental fashion. It is given in a pictorial, evocative, evaluative and imaginative way, rather than in the sort of reportorial prose which is informative in the way that a newspaper report of things is informative. This is the way that the Oriental mind, through which God gave us his Word, focuses and formulates and presents these coming realities. [p.203]
As wise persons preparing for vacations tidy up, pack their bags and get ready well in advance, so should we prepare for the meeting with Jesus that will close our lives in this world. Keep short accounts with God and 'live every day as if thy last', just as the hymn says. And while our life continues, let us work and pray for the advancing of the kingdom. When Christ appears publicly in this world, in what posture should he find the church? Praying for revival and planning world evangelism, surely. Let us see that when he comes for us, whether it is soon or late, those are the tasks in which he finds us engaged. [p.212]

Classic Calvin on Justification

I was reading some of the Institutes today, and came across a few quotes which were keepers. Concerning Justification. Here they are (with bold highlighting of some of the classic Calvin phraseology that caught my attention)...

Osiander laughs at those men who teach that “to be justified” is a legal term; because we must actually be righteous. Also, he despises nothing more than that we are justified by free imputation. Well then, if God does not justify us by acquittal and pardon, what does Paul’s statement mean: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing men’s trespasses against them” [2 Corinthians 5:19]? “For our sake he made him to be sin who had done no sin so that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” [verse 21 p.] First, I conclude that they are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God. Included is the means: that God justifies by pardoning, just as in another passage justification is contrasted with accusation. This antithesis clearly shows that the expression was taken from legal usage. Anyone moderately versed in the Hebrew language, provided he has a sober brain, is not ignorant of the fact that the phrase arose from this source, and drew from it its tendency and implication. Where Paul says that righteousness without works is described by David in these words, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven” [Psalm 32:1; 31:1, Vg.; Romans 4:7], let Osiander answer me whether this be a full or half definition. Surely, Paul does not make the prophet bear witness to the doctrine that pardon of sins is part of righteousness, or merely a concomitant toward the justifying of man; on the contrary, he includes the whole of righteousness in free remission, declaring that man blessed whose sins are covered, whose iniquities God has forgiven, and whose transgressions God does not charge to his account. Thence, he judges and reckons his happiness because in this way he is righteous, not intrinsically but by imputation. [Institutes 3.11.11]

Here they have an ingenious subterfuge: even though they have not devised it themselves but have borrowed it from Origen and certain other ancient writers, it is still utterly silly. They prate that the ceremonial works of the law are excluded, not the moral works. They become so proficient by continual wrangling that they do not even grasp the first elements of logic. Do they think that the apostle was raving when he brought forward these passages to prove his opinion? “The man who does these things will live in them” [Galatians 3:12], and, “Cursed be every one who does not fulfill all things written in the book of the law” [Galatians 3:10 p.]. Unless they have gone mad they will not say that life was promised to keepers of ceremonies or the curse announced only to those who transgress the ceremonies. If these passages are to be understood of the moral law, there is no doubt that moral works are also excluded from the power of justifying. These arguments which Paul uses look to the same end: “Since through the law comes knowledge of sin” [Romans 3:20], therefore not righteousness. Because “the law works wrath” [Romans 4:15], hence not righteousness. Because the law does not make conscience certain, it cannot confer righteousness either. Because faith is imputed as righteousness, righteousness is therefore not the reward of works but is given unearned [Romans 4:4-5]. Because we are justified by faith, our boasting is cut off [Romans 3:27 p.]. “If a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But God consigned all things to sin that the promise might be given to those who believe.” [Galatians 3:21-22 p.] Let them now babble, if they dare, that these statements apply to ceremonies, not to morals. Even schoolboys would hoot at such impudence. Therefore, let us hold as certain that when the ability to justify is denied to the law, these words refer to the whole law. [Institutes 3.11.19]

I wonder what Calvin would say about Bishop Tom Wright and his views on justification...

(PS thanks to Bob Vincent whose page I copied from because my Battles edition of the Institutes was on a different computer...)