Five Sided Christian

"Neo-Reformed" or "Neo-Fundamentalist"?

2012-01-27T08:19:00.001Z

An interesting piece distinguishing between the two labels: http://timgombis.com/2012/01/26/neo-reformed-or-neo-fundamentalist/

Spiritual Milk

2012-01-26T20:24:00.003Z

The Apostle Peter wrote: "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:2-3).

Having spent the last week with our baby son at home, feeding him every 3-5 hours day and night, every day, I feel I have more insight into Peter's meaning in these verses than I ever had before.

From my observations of Jonathan and thinking about this verse, I would say that we might consider the following points:

1. Our feeding has to be regular. Just as a baby feeds to a more-or-less regular schedule, so must we feed regularly in communion with Christ and God's Word.

2. Our feeding has to be our priority. Feeding isn't something Jonathan crams into his life in between "more important things". Alongside sleeping, feeding is his main focus! We are to "crave" spiritual milk, not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.

3. Our feeding has to be trusting. Jonathan relies on me or his mum to prepare his food for him. He trusts us and relies on us completely. So must we trust and rely on God to feed us.

4. Our feeding has to be accessible. Just as Jonathan has to take his food through either his mother's breast or a special bottle, so we must take our spiritual milk in ways that we can imbibe and take into ourselves so that it will actually nourish us. This may affect the ways we choose to consider Christ and his Word such as the Bible translation we use or the other ways we engage with God's Word.

5. Our feeding takes time. Each feed with Jonathan takes between 30-90 minutes. He has to pause to be winded from time to time and to clean his dribbles. We cannot rush our spiritual feeding either or we end up with spiritual indigestion or fail to get sufficient nourishment for us to "put on weight" in terms of Christian growth.

The Birth of My Son

2012-01-12T21:08:00.004Z

My baby son, Jonathan James Miller, was born at 1.49 am on 11 January 2012 at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, weighing 8 lbs 4 oz.

The name Jonathan is from the Hebrew Yonatan and means "given by Yahweh" or "the gift of Yahweh" or as we might put it "God's gift".

It reflects our faith that our son was given to us by God as a precious gift.

His middle name James is after my late and much-missed father and by extension, after me.

Jonathan already has a special place in my heart and I am looking forward so much to sharing the rest of my life with him and his mother who was truly "super-mum" personified throughout the pregnancy, labour, birth and beyond.

Christ as the Faithful Israelite

2012-01-08T23:08:00.000Z

One of the key underlying concepts in the New Testament is that Jesus Christ is the one faithful Israelite through whom God works to bless the world. That is part of what his mission was to be as the Messiah.

Too often in evangelical theology we have been guilty of downplaying or ignoring the fact that Christ was first and foremost the long-promised and prophesied King of the Jews. And it is precisely because he is the Jewish Messiah that he could be the Saviour of the world and the King of kings.

Instead, we often seem to talk as if God could have chosen to use more-or-less anyone as his appointed Saviour as long as he made sure they were sinless (by virtue of the virgin birth), in order that they could end up an innocent sacrificial victim dying as our substitute to take our sins away and give us his righteousness in return.

Now, of course, nothing in this presentation is wrong. It is true that Christ could only be the Saviour because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and was born sinless. It is true he was an innocent sacrificial victim and that he died as our substitute on the cross to take our sins away and rose again that we might be justified in his righteousness. Yet if the story of Israel is missed out and if we ignore the fact that Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah, then we will miss out a whole lot of biblical nuances from the overall picture presented.

God's plan was always to bless and save the world through the Messiah, through the promised Redeemer. As far back as Genesis 3:15 this is promised. "I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." (HCSB).

But it is also clear that the Redeemer would be born not just as a human child, but as one of Abraham's descendants: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3, NIV). "And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed." (Genesis 22:18, NIV).

God's purpose was therefore always to choose Israel as a means of bring salvation to the whole world. Yet, there was a problem. Israel as a nation was far from perfect. Israel was chosen to be "light bearers" for the world: "I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6, ESV). Yet the people time and again chose darkness rather than light. They always revealed themselves to be "in Adam" - just as sinful at heart as all the rest of humanity.

This is why though Israel was called to be faithful to God, it was going to take an extra special Israelite who would actually be able to fulfil the divine covenant promises and fulfil the divinely appointed mission for Israel. It was going to take the Messiah to do for Israel and for the world what Israel could never do for herself.

Christ's coming as Saviour and Lord was not God's Plan B. He only ever had a Plan A: to save the world through Israel.

How he did it is extraordinary in its sheer scale and wisdom and utterly surprising grace. All the gospels make it clear, but especially Matthew's Gospel, that Christ came to re-enact the failed history of Israel in his own life and person, except that where Israel failed over and over again, the Messiah, Jesus would not fail but would fulfil his divinely appointed destiny - all the way to death, his death on the cross, and right through to his rising from the dead on the third day.

Matthew's Gospel is basically structured to show the parallels between Christ's life and Israel's history. Like Israel, Jesus is called out of Egypt (only Matthew focuses on the Egyptian period of exile when being hunted by Herod). He then goes into the wilderness for 40 days (compared to the nation's 40 years in the wilderness). Like Moses with the Ten Commandments, Christ goes up a mountain to teach the people the truth about God's law in the Sermon on the Mount. And so on. Parallel after parallel until we reach that last passover in which Christ offers himself as the unblemished lamb that takes away sin and breaks the power of death.

Through his life, death and resurrection, the Messiah redefines who the people of God are around himself, so that he becomes their representative and what is true of him, then becomes true of them too. This re-booting of Israel as God's people (if we can use that modern phrase) includes such clues as choosing twelve apostles (the number twelve tying in with the twelve tribes of Israel), talking about Christ's people being the true temple of God - and by implication not the Temple in Jerusalem, and so on.

As people respond to the gospel message in faith they enter into union with Christ, become part of the people of God, and receive all the blessings of salvation that belong to God's people in Christ (Ephesians 1).

N. T. Wright sums it up like this (discussing Romans 3:21-31): "And, beginning in 3.21, he provides a fresh answer to the question, an answer not available to writers like 4 Ezra: God has unveiled his dikaiosyne in the faithful Messiah, Jesus, the one in whom at last we find an Israelite faithful to God’s purpose, the one through whose death sin has been dealt with, the one through whom God has now called into being a renewed people among whom Jews and Gentiles are welcome on equal terms."

So much of the richness of biblical teaching is lost if we neglect or silence the link between Israel, Christ and the saving purposes of God. Nothing is lost, and much is gained when we include the fact that Jesus wasn't just acting as a sinless man in his mission, but as the faithful Israelite whose life was fully and comprehensively in line with God's will for the glory of God and the rescuing and renewing of the entire cosmos.

Epiphany

2012-01-06T07:12:00.004Z

Today is widely celebrated in Christianity as "Epiphany" (from the Greek meaning "manifestation" or "sudden appearance") where we reflect on the fact that Jesus came not just for the Jews but for the whole Gentile world also. This was first shown not long after his birth when he was visited by the Magi or wise men in Bethlehem (Matthew 2).

We tend to think of the visit of the wise men as part of the nativity story. But the fact that Jesus was born in a place where animals were kept, but the family were in a house by the time the wise men arrived, strongly suggests that some time had passed between the two events. So perhaps the couple of weeks between Christmas and Epiphany is not so daft.

In the ancient world the division between the science of astronomy and the magical belief of astrology was blurred. The Magi were probably from modern day Iran or Iraq - we don't know if there were three of them - but they must have journeyed a long way and for many months to arrive in Palestine.

The Magi story is one of my favourite passages of Scripture. It tells us so many important things. Most of all it tells us that God's love and God's salvation is for everyone. It's for Gentiles as well as Jews. It's for people whose lifestyle the Scriptures do not approve of (astrology is condemned in the Old Testament as a pagan practice). It's for educated, sophisticated, intellectual people, not just for simple shepherds - the Magi were part of the intellectual elite of Persian culture. And it's for the wealthy as well as the poor - the Magi could afford to present Christ with lavish gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh - very expensive, luxury items of the ancient world.

Christ is for everyone. That's the central message of Epiphany. Isn't that a good reason to celebrate today?

God's Love and God's Glory

2012-01-03T21:41:00.005Z

Here's something that's been puzzling me for a while. Let me try to lay this out as simply as possible, before getting to the questions I have.

1. God does not delight in the death of anyone (Ezekiel 33:11), and God is not willing that anyone perish (2 Peter 3:9), and God would have all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

So:

2. In the free offer of the gospel, God desires everyone who hears the gospel to believe it and be saved.

Yet:

3. God does not actually decree to save everyone since not everyone is saved (if he had decreed it then everyone would be saved, but Scripture is clear some are condemned and lost).

There's a question that is often asked at this point: Q. 1: How can God desire something to happen that he decrees will not happen?

Q.1 That's a very important question in Reformed theology, yet it's not my real question in this post. We'll come to that.

Theologians have basically answered Q.1 in one of four ways. The first three are:

- God doesn't actually desire to save everyone (so the texts quoted in point 1 above do not apply to the non-elect). This is a common Reformed response, but in all honesty it does seem to strain the exegesis of texts that "all" and "everyone" doesn't really mean all or everyone, and will never convince anyone outside the Reformed camp.

- God does decree to save everyone and either achieves or fails to achieve his decree's aim. The universalist says the decree is fulfilled and all are saved; the Arminian/Amyraldian that the decree is not totally fulfilled. Neither seems to be acceptable as the Bible is clear that not all are saved, and also clear that nothing can thwart God's sovereign decree and purposes.

- It's a mystery how it can both be true that God desires to save all, yet decrees to only save some. We can't understand it, we just have to accept it. There's nothing wrong with this choice, except it leaves us feeling a little unsatisfied and may not be acceptable to anyone genuinely questioning this issues.

These are three possible answers. The final solution to this quandary, offered by the likes of John Piper, is that God desires to save all, but decrees not to save all because he desires something else even more than this. So in effect God ranks his desires and so though in itself he may desire something, in light of the overall plan, he chooses at times not to fulfil a desire. Now, according to Piper, what God desires even more than saving everyone and so much that he will let his desire that all be saved go unfulfilled is to display his own glory in showing his righteousness and justice in the just condemnation and punishment of some sinners. (If I'm not being fair to Piper and many other Calvinists here, let me know, but I think I am).

And why does God choose to do this? Because more than he loves anything else, God loves himself and so it is out of divine self-love that God chooses to fulfil his desire to display all his glorious attributes (including justice and righteousness in wrath and punishment).

Now here's my problem and my questions. When the Bible says that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) it uses the Greek word "agape". And agape love is a very special kind of love. It is a love not directed at self. It is a selfless, self-giving love that looks to help and do good to others. It's the very opposite of the kind of "love" that it takes God to have for himself that he would choose to create people with the ultimate purpose of damning them so he can display glory in showing off his justice and wrath. And remember, Scripture does not just say God has this love that focuses on the well-being of "the other" but that God is this kind of love.

So my question:

Q2. If God is agape, selfless love, how can we claim that he chooses most of all to glorify himself out of self-love and as a result then deliberately choose to damn human beings and punish them eternally for his own glory?

My instinct is that the Father revealed in Jesus Christ couldn't do that and so though an ingenious answer to a big theological problem, I'm struggling to accept Piper's answer. Is it really impossible even for us to conceive of a way for God to show his justice without having to condemn millions to hell? Wouldn't the cross itself plus the condemnation of Satan and all the demons be enough for example to show his justice and hatred of sin? If we can think of ways, how much more could the God of infinite wisdom come up with ways to achieve that end at less cost?

That takes us back to the unsatisfactory "mystery" response - that he desires to save all, but decrees to save only some for secret reasons known only to God and there's no way to know how both things fit together.

The only other alternative, as far as I can see, is to accept that God's allows some to be lost, even though he desires their salvation, because he desires their freedom or their genuine love for him more. This would mean that in the act of creation, God sovereignly chooses to glorify himself not in self-love, but through self-less love in the creation of free persons with the possibility of there being real reciprocal love in relationships with them, with human beings who choose God freely, out of love. This would then mean that there would be some who would not choose salvation unless manipulated or coerced so much that it would cease to be a free choice or real love at all. Thus the desire to save all is overcome by the desire to glorify himself, but not out of a selfish need to display justice, but out of a selfless need to love and be loved. At the same time, it can be affirmed that God does display his justice toward those who are lost, and is pleased to do so, but not because he would rather do this than save them; rather it is because he would rather do this than not be true to his own righteous character which requires that he show them justice if they will not accept his offered mercy.

This strikes me as more in line with the character of God revealed in Scripture. However, I am aware such an answer is broadly Arminian or at least Molinist in nature. But does it actually not fit the biblical witness better than Piper's Calvinist answer? I suppose it comes down to the true nature of God's love and the true nature of God's glory in relation to his great project of creation and relationships with beings outside the Holy Trinity.

A Prayer for 2012 (Adapted from Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions)

2012-01-02T09:03:00.002Z

A Prayer for 2012 (Adapted from Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions)

Found this on Trevin Wax's blog and thought it was great and worth sharing.

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T19:18:00.004Z

A very happy new year to all our readers. I hope 2012 is a peaceful and blessed year for you.

2011 Review of the Year

2011-12-31T15:12:00.002Z

What a year of ups and downs this has been!

The year couldn't have got off to a worse start when my dad died on 1st January. Because of the need to have a postmortem exam and delays because of the Christmas and New Year backlog, his funeral didn't take place until 17th January. That period of time is a strange mixture of sharp memories of certain things and a total blur of winter days that passed so slowly while we waited for the funeral.

January was followed by a difficult February as the period of mourning continued. All this happened in the middle of our trying to start a family.

Then at the end of March we found out that Laura was pregnant and suddenly the year took on a completely different complexion as we began the nine month journey towards our baby's birth (a journey we are still on as the due date of 8th January approaches).

All this happened against the backdrop of world events in which the so-called Arab Spring swept through a number of Middle East countries as popular uprisings led to changes in governments.

The same could not be said in Scotland as the SNP was returned for the first time as a majority government at the Scottish Parliament elections in May.

In May too, the minister at our church retired and since then we have been "in vacancy". However, the number and range of good preachers that have taken services since May have been great.

In June, we took our summer holiday to our favourite cottage on the Isle of Bute. It was a good holiday although Laura's morning sickness was quite bad at that stage.

The Scottish summer wasn't great this year. I can hardly remember more than a week of hot sunny weather throughout the three months of June, July and August.

From September through to December, our main focus has been on getting ready for the new arrival. It is amazing just how much needs done around the house and how much equipment needs to be sought, reviewed, bought and assembled. But by Christmas we got there. Because there's no way to know when the bambino will decide to come, you have to be on standby all the time. That makes things exciting, but it also makes things tense, especially now we are in the last few weeks.

As far as my faith goes, it has also been an up and down year, but I feel that I have grown this year in understanding of theology and in trusting the Lord. I feel very content as we head into 2012.

The Problem with the Arminian View of Foreknowledge

2011-12-29T20:26:00.004Z

There are many problems with Arminianism, but one that occurred to me is the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge.

Typically, Arminians believe that God only has simple foreknowledge of what will occur in time. He foresees what will happen and that is all. He then lets it all "play out" so to speak in time. If this is so, then God's foreknowledge is more-or-less useless to him; he knows what will occur, but he is unable to change what will occur. If God has simple foreknowledge of all that will happen in time, then God is unable to change what will occur, for his own actions must also form part of his foreknowledge. Nothing can be different from it is in this world, because God has foreseen and foreknown what will happen.

As I understand it, this does not even leave God with the option of not creating a particular person or allowing a particular course of events to take place, so that the future can be changed, for if God foreknows something, and God cannot change, then what God foreknows cannot be changed either, not even by him.

The God of Arminianism therefore appears to be trapped by his own foreknowledge. This does not seem to me to be in accord with the Scriptures regarding God's sovereignty and ability to bring all his purposes to fulfillment.

This is in sharp contrast with Calvinism where God ordains the future and so could have ordained anything he wanted, and it is also in contrast with Molinism where God foreknows a range of possible worlds and chooses to actualise one of them. It is also in contrast even with Open Theism where God knows possible worlds, but not which one will be realised until free choices are made. Instead, in the simple foreknowledge view, God simply knows what will occur and there appears to be no way for this to be changed, even though God may hate what is going to occur.

In any event, Arminians must face exactly the same criticisms they level at Calvinists. It is common for Arminians to say to Calvinists things like: if your God chooses to allow sin to occur, he is the author of sin. But if God foreknows that sin will occur and does not stop it, he is also morally culpable by any normal reckoning. And if God cannot stop it, then he is not sovereign at all. But according to simple foreknowledge God logically cannot stop evil from occurring or his foreknowledge would be different, which is impossible given the classical view that God's omniscience is immutable.

Reading the Bible for Life

2011-12-26T10:09:00.003Z

Are you looking for a Bible reading plan for 2012? I came across the "Reading the Bible for Life" plan today: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/readthebible/

What I thought was interesting was that it seeks to put the readings in roughly chronological order. If you are like me, you will always have found it tricky to work out where the prophets fit in with the Old Testament historical books, and also why the New Testament letters do not come in the order they were written.

This plan will help you get an overview of the Bible's story line by ordering the readings into a timeline and you can use it with whatever Bible translation you normally use.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T19:35:00.002Z

Merry Christmas to everyone. We pray that you will know and experience the blessing of God this Christmas day and always.

I've been struck this year by this verse in Luke's Gospel that I've heard now at 2 or 3 services and bible studies during the last few weeks: "Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord."

Three titles in a single verse, each with something important to teach us about the baby born in Bethlehem whose birth we celebrate today.

Saviour - The name Jesus means "The Lord saves". And Jesus is the Saviour of the world, the one appointed by God to rescue humanity from its wickedness and stupidity. It is only by trusting in him that we can escape the punishment that we all deserve for rejecting God and failing to love either him or our neighbour as we should. The baby born in Bethlehem is therefore of supreme important to the lives of each one of us.

Messiah - The word "Messiah" in Hebrew means "the anointed one". In Greek, the same name is "Christ". This is the title of God's chosen and anointed King, foretold in the Old Testament. He would be a descendant of King David, born in Bethlehem, who would grow up to rule God's people and all the nations of the world. This is a reminder that Christianity is grounded in Jewish history and Old Testament prophecy.

Lord - The "Lord" is also the title accorded a king, but "Lord" (Adonai in Hebrew or Kurios in Greek) is also the way the personal, covenant name of God was normally referred to in Scripture. It is very likely Luke is here telling us that Jesus the Messiah is none other than Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come to earth as a human being. As another title of Jesus says - he is Immanuel, which means "God is with us".

Putting these three things together, the birth of Jesus is about the promised King of the Jews coming to earth and revealing himself to be God incarnate, God become human flesh and blood, with the purpose of delivering and rescuing sinners, bringing them into God's kingdom, and preparing them to live for all eternity in a relationship of love with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No wonder we celebrate his birth with this great Christian festival year after year. No wonder we also sing with the angels:

Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those who have his goodwill (Luke 2:14).

Middle Knowledge and the Five Points of Calvinism

2011-12-21T21:17:00.014Z

Introduction

This is an essay that seeks to explore the concept of middle knowledge and its possible impact on the doctrines of grace or five points of Calvinism. Admittedly, the nature of this discussion is quite philosophical while still seeking to be scriptural. It is also inevitably speculative and therefore not something that can be defended dogmatically. In other words, it is at best, one way of seeking tentatively to look at the issues; I cannot claim it is the only way we could look at them.

Middle Knowledge

Middle knowledge is the doctrine that a part of God's foreknowledge in eternity allows him to know what would happen at any point and to any person in his creation given any set of variables. In particular, through middle knowledge God knew what free creatures would freely do in any possible situation. And then through a combination of direct or indirect divine action, divine persuasion and/or divine permission, he can thereby create the particular world or actualise the situation the God chooses by making the free and undetermined future action of a free creature nonetheless certain to occur.

The massive advantage of this teaching is that it provides a theological and philosophical basis to simultaneously affirm divine sovereignty and human freedom; in fact it teaches divine sovereignty through creaturely freedom.

With this doctrine of middle knowledge in our theological arsenal, we can revisit the traditional five points of Calvinism in a way that preserves the particularism of Calvinism while overcoming many of the criticisms classical Calvinism faces. I prefer to talk about creaturely freedom or creaturely free will rather than either 'libertarian free will' or 'compatibilist free will' because I think it gives a clearer, better and more biblical picture of the Creator–Creature relationship and it sounds less like pieces of philosophical jargon. It also reflects the fact that I believe that in some matters we have libertarian free will and in some matters we have compatibilist free will.

As I define it, 'creaturely freedom' or 'creaturely free will' means that we are free to choose what to do or not do in any situation and at any given moment. But this does not mean we are uninfluenced in our choices by both internal and external factors. These include natural and physical limitations (we are not free to fly through the air by flapping our arms or run at 100 mph for example), character limitations (our fears, ambitions, consciences, moral code, loyalties to family and friends, etc) and divine limitations. Using middle knowledge, God as our creator and sustainer, can perfectly influence us to do his will without in any way compromising our creaturely freedom or invoking anything so crude as coercion or force. Middle knowledge allows God to choose from all the myriad of possible worlds to actualise the one in which all creaturely free choices exactly match his own plans and purposes for the cosmos.

Some Calvinist theologians object at this point to middle knowledge, saying that it is an unnecessary stage in the series of divine moments of foreknowledge. They argue that only God's natural knowledge of all possible worlds and God's free knowledge of this particular world that he foreordained are necessary. However, I still think middle knowledge is a useful theological tool precisely because it introduces what might be called a 'causal break' between God and evil, since it accepts a true notion of divine permission for events to occur even though God does not delight in nor approve of them. It allows us affirm comprehensive divine sovereignty without having to accept a mechanistic determinism.

The Middle Knowledge Calvinist (or perhaps "Reformed Molinist" would also be a suitable description) recognises that God self-limits himself from many theoretically possible worlds once he sets certain parameters for how the world he wants to create should be. So, God knows in his 'natural knowledge' all possible worlds, all possible people and all possible events without limitation. This would include worlds where the earth is flat, or orbits two suns, or where people have three legs, or where the Fall did not happen. It would include worlds where God saves no-one at all or where he saves everyone. All these would be possible worlds that God knows as possibilities in his natural knowledge of everything. After all, nothing is impossible for God (Luke 1:37). Yet in middle knowledge God knows a smaller number of worlds that would actually be possible, given certain choices God makes in his sovereign decree. We might call this subset of truly possible worlds feasible worlds for God to make. But it is crucial to note that, unlike more Arminian-minded Molinists like William Lane Craig, the 'reduction' in number of worlds from the possible to the feasible is not because of the free choices of the creature (Craig believes, for example, that there was no feasible world in which everyone would freely believe in Christ and be saved). Rather the middle knowledge Calvinist claims that the reduction from possible to feasible worlds is only due to the free choices of the Sovereign Lord himself.

In fact, it does not take much to see that there are many important choices that God made in eternity that would reduce the number of feasible worlds from an infinite number of possibilities down to (let us say for the sake of argument) a mere billion trillion feasible worlds. This would include such choices as allowing creatures to make choices according to creaturely freedom rather than rigidly pre-programming behaviour like robots. The reason for this would be to allow for creaturely love for God and the possibility of a genuine relationship between Creator and creatures. Similarly, God must have decided in eternity that in order for Jesus Christ to be a Saviour, the actualised world would need to be one in which the Fall takes place with all its consequences for humankind. So, given that choice, all possible worlds in which the Fall does not occur are ruled out as feasible. And so on until God's middle knowledge leaves God with one world that he chooses to actualise or bring into being as the world.

It should be apparent that the traditional Calvinist doctrine of the decrees sits separately from middle knowledge, but can fruitfully use the concept of middle knowledge to explain the how of providence as it accounts for how God can bring about his decrees perfectly without compromising human freedom. To be clear, in the Middle Knowledge Calvinism model proposed here, God is not constrained from achieving any of his purposes by middle knowledge (as is the case in some forms of Molinism where what is feasible is less than what is possible because of creaturely freedom), but rather in this model God uses middle knowledge to bring all his purposes to perfect fruition while granting a genuine creaturely freedom. The only thing that constrains God, and reduces what is feasible from what is possible, is his own sovereign purpose and will.

The Five Points of Calvinism

Traditionally, the five points of Calvinism are known as Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints (giving the well-known TULIP acronym). Elsewhere I have written about the problems with the traditional names and suggested other names for each of these Calvinist teachings: Comprehensive Sinfulness, Absolute Predestination, Particular Redemption, Effective Grace and Security of Believers (CAPES). However, the important thing is what Calvinism teaches and not what we call the doctrines.

Middle Knowledge is helpful in explaining and modifying some of the rougher edges of these doctrines, more in line with Scripture in some places in my view. I think it allows Calvinists to affirm a lot of what Arminians believe while also embracing the distinctive Calvinist truths. In other words we affirm more but scarcely less than what Arminians believe.

1. Total Depravity / Comprehensive Sinfulness

This is the teaching that all human beings are spiritually dead and enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, including the heart, mind, will and body, not that every person is as evil as possible.

This point is agreed by all evangelical Christians, Calvinist and Arminian alike. We agree that all human beings are sinners, at enmity with God, and morally unable in ourselves to either turn from our sins or exercise faith in Christ.

The advantage middle knowledge brings to the doctrine of humankind's comprehensive sinfulness is, as previously noted, that it gives an account of how an omnibenevolent God who creates a "very good" creation, can be certain the Fall would occur without actually causing the fall to occur. He does it through a sovereign decision to permit the Fall combined with middle knowledge of what Adam would do if placed in certain circumstances.

2. Unconditional Election / Absolute Predestination

Unconditional Election (also known as absolute predestination or sovereign election) is the doctrine that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself and this choice is not based on any foreseen characteristic or condition in the elect such as virtue, merit, or foreseen faith; rather, the choice is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

This doctrine is the same in Middle Knowledge Calvinism and in traditional Calvinism.

In Middle Knowledge Calvinism, God chooses to actualise the world in which all the elect exist and either receive salvation through faith during their lives or if they are incapable of responding to the gospel (e.g. dying infants and the mentally handicapped) they are saved by God's mercy alone because of Christ's saving work alone. God does not choose the elect on the basis that he uses middle knowledge to foresee who will believe (as in Arminian and Arminian-like Molinist models); no, he chooses the elect simply because he loves them and wants to save them, and then creates this world knowing that they will be saved in it (that they will believe the gospel, while the non-elect will not).

3. Limited Atonement / Particular Redemption

It is in the area of the extent of the atonement that Middle Knowledge Calvinism offers what I would say is the first significant improvement over some classical Calvinistic presentations. The doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption is more complicated than simply stating that Christ died only for the elect, and in no sense for the non-elect. More accurately, the Calvinist doctrine has been stated by the likes of William Shedd, A. A. Hodge and R. B. Kuiper is that Christ died with intention of saving only the elect and with no intention of saving the non-elect. Middle Knowledge Calvinism affirms that the divine intent is to save only the elect. Therefore, Middle Knowledge Calvinism must be distinguished both from Arminian and Amyraldism.

But middle knowledge Calvinism can also affirm that Christ's atonement was sufficient to save everyone without exception and the divine intent was that it should be so. Though there is no intention to actually save the non-elect, it can be affirmed that Christ died with the intention of making salvation possible for the non-elect. He is therefore a sufficient Saviour for everyone and has died to offer salvation to everyone, including the non-elect. God does not offer the non-elect something in the gospel that does not exist. Because Christ dies to make an atonement sufficient to save everyone, when the gospel is preached to the non-elect, they really are invited to come, they really are offered salvation that objectively exists for them, and if any of the non-elect were (hypothetically) to believe in Christ, they really would be saved just as the elect would be, for then their sins too would be expiated.

Yet, through middle knowledge, God has chosen to actualise a world in which knows that the non-elect will not believe and therefore not be saved. God does not need to do anything to bring about the unbelief of the non-elect; he simply leaves them in the sinful state they are already in by nature. He passes them by. He merely allows the non-elect to freely choose condemnation and does not prevent it, having chosen to create this particular world in which this will be the case. Thus, Middle Knowledge Calvinism is closely akin to classical infralapsarianism.

Middle Knowledge Calvinism affirms the classic Christian formulation that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. Some Calvinists have argued against this formulation. Their view appears to be that the atonement is both only sufficient and only efficient for the elect. But this seems overly restrictive and hard to reconcile with many parts of Scripture where Christ is said to have died for "the world", "all" and "everyone". Middle Knowledge Calvinism on the other hand affirms both parts of the formulation without restriction: Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. And it was God's plan that Christ would die sufficiently for all with the intent of making salvation objectively possible for everyone and that Christ would die effectively for the elect with the intent of actually saving them only.

This is fully in line with the Reformed confessions, particularly the Canons of Dort (the original five points of Calvinism). In the Second Head of Doctrine:

Art. 3 - "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

Art. 6 - "And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."

Art. 8 - "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever."

This means the Middle Knowledge Calvinist to preach an unrestricted and passionate free offer of the gospel to everyone. It allows us to say to all without any dissemblance that God does indeed love everyone and desires everyone to come to Christ and be saved; it allows us to say that Christ died for everyone, and that God invites and offers everyone salvation to everyone if they believe in Christ. Clearly, then the Calvinist free offer of the gospel offers just as much as any Arminian presentation of the gospel. This Calvinism is not about reducing what the Arminian can preach, but going beyond what the Arminian can preach to show another layer of divine purpose operating above and behind God's invitations and offers.

In fact, it is because the non-elect wickedly reject God's love, and the salvation that was truly sufficient for them and available to them that their condemnation is magnified and justified all the more - yet at the same time the middle knowledge Calvinist can assert that even this was part of God's purpose for the non-elect.

We can therefore affirm that in one sense God must desire the non-elect to be saved and in another sense clearly he chooses in his sovereign purpose not to fulfil that desire. More accurately perhaps, God's desire for the non-elect is that they are given the free and genuine choice to accept Christ and be saved or reject Christ and be lost.

This means that the free offer of the gospel displays God's ardent desire to have even the non-elect saved if they will believe in Christ. As a thing in itself, the salvation of any human being is something God desires as much as any human being desires it. Yet at the same time, in the overall plan of history, God allows the non-elect to be lost if they reject Christ and creates a world in which he foreknows through middle knowledge that they will not turn to Christ.

We can never really fathom God's mind on this subject of why all are not saved, but ultimately that is as true of classical Calvinism, Arminianism and even Open Theism as it is of middle knowledge Calvinism. We can go as far as the Scriptures allow us to go and then we can only say "God is love", "the judge of all the earth will do right" and trust God that there is a good and wise purpose operating behind all things, even the things that break God's own heart to allow. In the end, the only reason that presents itself as to why God can permit the damnation of the non-elect, a choice which genuinely saddens him and which scripture reveals is not something God delights in (Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37), is because there is some other mysterious or hidden purpose (Deuteronomy 29:29) that God fulfils through allowing something he hates to happen. God may permit a person to exist for a good and necessary purpose in the overall scheme of things though it is not a purpose that results in that individual's salvation. Such is what we find in history, so it must in some sense be within God's purpose (Isaiah 46:9-10; Ephesians 1:11; Romans 11:33-36). In Paul's language of Romans 9, God as potter is free to create some pots for good and important but ordinary uses. Such biblical characters as Satan, Pharaoh, Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot would seem to fall into such a category.

The advantage Middle Knowledge Calvinism has is that because God only needs to foreknow what the non-elect will do and passively allow them to do it, it seems clearer than in some traditional formulations that God has no causal relationship with sin (God is not the author of sin), and therefore the non-elect have only themselves to blame for their eternal punishment and death.

4. Irresistible Grace / Effectual Grace

This brings us to the fourth point of Calvinism, which we call "effectual grace". Like all other forms of Calvinism, Middle Knowledge Calvinism affirms that salvation is all of grace. Humankind lies dead in sin and it is only through a monergistic work of the Holy Spirit to make the sinner able to exercise faith in Christ.

Effectual Grace is the doctrine that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save and, in God's timing, overcomes in the elect the resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that when the Holy Spirit comes to a person with effective grace, the person's will is changed so that they can then believe, repent, and come freely and willingly to Christ. It is important to note that such saving grace does not coerce or force a person to believe against their will. Rather the Spirit works to irresistibly persuade them to accept Christ. In my view it is inherent in the Creator-Creature relationship that God has the ability to effectually and infallibly persuade in this way.

However, in a similar way to the formulation that Christ died sufficiently for all and effectively for the elect, we can also affirm that while God's grace is always effective to bring the elect to faith, his grace is also sufficient to bring everyone to faith, but it is resisted and made ineffectual by the non-elect.

This way of looking at God's grace means that everyone who hears the gospel is rendered capable of accepting or rejecting Christ. Yet God knows through middle knowledge that only the elect will be willing to believe and will believe when the Holy Spirit works in them to bring them to faith. He also knows that in the world he has actualised the non-elect will not believe and will resist the Holy Spirit's work. The middle knowledge Calvinist acknowledges this is in line with God's decree, plans and purposes.

It is important to note that there is no difference between effective and non-effective grace, the difference lies only in the reception such grace is given in the case of the elect and the non-elect. Yet this difference lies not in the elect themselves, but in God's sovereign choice to actualise this world in which they will come to faith. The grace to the non-elect displays God's love and mercy to them as much as it does to the elect, and shows God's desire for their salvation, even though this is a desire that God chooses not to fulfil because of other desires he has chosen to fulfil instead (otherwise we should have to believe in universal salvation).

Middle knowledge Calvinism remains distinct from Arminianism therefore because we see a distinction between God's intentions towards the elect and towards the non-elect, something Arminians do not accept. However, this does mean that, along with Arminianism, middle knowledge Calvinism teaches that although human beings are dead in sin and totally depraved, there is a prevenient grace (a gracious operation of the Holy Spirit that precedes faith) that brings every hearer of the gospel to a position in which they have the genuine choice to accept or reject Christ. This is in line with several of Christ's parables such as the Parable of the Sower where some respond to the gospel outwardly or for a period but then fall away. God sends prevenient grace to all. God brings all who hear the gospel to within "touching distance" of salvation if they would but take it.

God need only choose to actualise a world in which the elect believe in Christ, but the non-elect choose not to believe in Christ. He does not have to - and he does not - cause the non-elect to have damning unbelief. So, accepting Christ is therefore something the elect freely do, but only because God has foreordained this world to be actualised in which they do so. There is therefore no room for boasting on the part of the elect. While on the other hand, rejecting the offer as the non-elect do, only shows the perversity of sinful humanity and the justice of their condemnation.

By this means, God is able to bring his purposes to fruition and save everyone he chooses to save, bringing salvation to the elect alone while not restricting grace to the elect alone. God knows through middle knowledge that the non-elect, when brought to a genuine position that they could accept or reject Christ (through prevenient grace), nonetheless will certainly reject him without exception. God does not need to do anything to bring this about, he needs only actualise a world in which they will stubbornly refuse even when God has drawn them to within grasp of saving faith, even though Christ has done everything necessary to save them. Thus the condemnation of the non-elect is revealed to be supremely just and a sin that can be laid solely at each condemned sinner's own door.

5. Perseverance of the Saints / Security of Believers

The fifth point of Calvinism is traditionally known as the Perseverance of the Saints though as Reformed theologian Roger Nicole has pointed out, this wording seems to put the emphasis on the believer's effort in persevering to the end, whereas the doctrine is really all about God's persevering with the believer to the end. A better description is the security of believers due to God's grace and saving purposes.

The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot ultimately be frustrated by human beings or by anything else, it follows that those whom God has called into a salvation relationship with himself can never be lost or unsaved, but will instead continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return to the faith at some point before they die. So according to this doctrine, none of the elect will ever be lost.

Using middle knowledge, God makes sure that the elect are only placed in circumstances where they will ultimately choose to persevere and so never face circumstances in which they would choose to permanently abandon their faith. Middle knowledge provides an excellent model to explain how God "will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13). Middle knowledge also allows us to affirm that the warnings in Scripture regarding apostasy are real (e.g. Hebrews 6:4-6). The choices the elect face to keep going or abandon the faith are real choices. In theory any of us could choose to stop believing. Not even the elect are forced to stay Christians against their will. But because of God's will and his middle knowledge, he knows in what circumstances a believer would choose to persevere when faced with such a choice and then he can actualise the world in which no elect person actually falls away.

On the other hand the non-elect who appear to believe for a time are permitted to fall away, though they are then revealed to have been professing Christians only.

Conclusion

As I said at the outset, my thoughts on these matters are by definition somewhat speculative and tentative. I don't claim to have exhaustively explored the links and outworkings of middle knowledge and Calvinism, and the thoughts here are only that - some initial thoughts. But it seems to me that there is value in combining these ideas as they provide a possible way to hold the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom in balance.

Providence and Prayer

2011-12-17T14:05:00.004Z

Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?
Terrance Tiessen
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 2000

This book on providence and prayer is great. It is one of the best Christian books I have read this year. In it, Tiessen explores various models of God's providence and how the various views have an impact on how we might view intercessory prayer.

Tiessen presents a total of eleven different models of providence. The first ten models he presents with meticulous fairness, presenting each model in as positive a light as possible (as if being presented by a proponent of the view) without negative criticism. The models presented range in a spectrum from "semi-deism" at the one extreme through to "fatalism" on the other extreme. The viewpoints explored include:

The Semi-Deist Model
The Process Model
The Openness Model
The Church Dominion Model
The Redemptive Intervention Model
The Molinist Model
The Thomist Model
The Barthian Model
The Calvinist Model
The Fatalist Model

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that Tiessen presents a fictional scenario to begin with in which a man's son who is a missionary has been kidnapped with two others and is being held for ransom in a foreign country. The father then goes to his church prayer meeting and people pray for the men who have been kidnapped. Each chapter ends with how a person holding to each of the models of providence might pray in the circumstances in line with what each model teaches.

Towards the end of the book, Tiessen changes approach from a neutral presentation of facts to a more polemical approach favouring an eleventh model of providence which is his own preferred choice. Tiessen calls this view "Middle Knowledge Calvinism" (hereafter "MKC"). MKC is an attractive model somewhere between Molinism and Calvinism.

MKC differs sharply from Molinism because it rejects libertarian free will and accepts compatibilist free will - that we have a free will to make choices voluntarily, but not independently of our own desires, characteristics, circumstances, etc. Because God can influence these things, he is able to achieve his plans and purposes through the free choices of human beings without using anything like force or coercion. In effect, God has an infallible ability to influence us to do what he wants through doing what we want.

MKC is basically a form of infralapsarian Calvinism. The only difference being that in Tiessen's MKC, God does not need to positively foreordain everything in order to foreknow it will happen. Because he has middle knowledge of everything a free creature would do in any set of circumstances in any one of an infinite number of possible worlds, God merely has to choose to realise or "actualise" the particular world in which what human beings do what he wants to fulfil his purposes. God's will is then perfectly carried out while human beings act perfectly freely in the world God chose to actualise. The difference in Tiessen's view from standard Calvinist models is that MKC gives a much greater place to God's permission of events to achieve his purposes. If God knows what creatures would do in particular circumstances, all God has to do is create this particular world in which those circumstances arise to render certain future events without having to directly control them or even cause them. Due to middle knowledge, much of what happens in history only has to be left to happen because it is foreknown, though God is still free to intervene or display his power in direct action whenever he wishes to do so.

It seems to me that MKC is an excellent model of God's providence that preserves the biblical teachings on God's sovereignty and on human responsibility and freedom. Tiessen's view combines the sound aspects of several different models of providence. Although basically Calvinist, it also incorporates the key idea of middle knowledge from Molinism, and the concept from Open Theism that God's emotional responses to events are real and not merely anthropomorphisms.

Tiessen's book concludes with a chapter on how MKC offers a useful background to a sound doctrine of prayer.

Though not an easy read in that it deals with some of the most complex issues in theology, Providence and Prayer is not a technically difficult book. The chapters are all well-written and clearly explain the ideas involved in each model presented. It deserves to be better known that it is. It is a classic treatment of the doctrines of providence and prayer.

Middle Knowledge Calvinism Links

2011-12-10T19:37:00.003Z

Here are some interesting links on Calvinism and Middle Knowledge.

It seems to me that there is some theological mileage in seeking to combine the Calvinist insights of God's glory, God's sovereignty and God's purposes and plans with the Molinist mechanism of Middle Knowledge for actually achieving those plans and purposes without denying human freedom. However, not all Calvinists agree and some are critical of such a proposal. Both pro and anti links are included here:

http://nearemmaus.com/2009/11/21/the-tulip-of-middle-knowledge-calvinism/

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/05/shunning-middle-knowledge.html

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp455-467_JETS.pdf

http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000122/article.pdf

http://www.theopedia.com/Compatibilist_middle_knowledge

http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/middle-knowledge/

http://www.michaelgleghorn.com/documents/ADefenseofDivineMiddleKnowledge.pdf

http://www.nobts.edu/faculty/itor/lemkesw/personal/Tiessen.htm.html

http://www.edstetzer.com/Molinism-%20How%20to%20be%20a%20consistent%20infralapsarian.pdf

Understanding Advent

2011-12-09T10:39:00.002Z

I don't think I've ever understood the waiting for the birth of a baby through the advent season as well as I do this year. As we wait for the birth of our son due on 8 January, I really felt a fresh insight into what Mary and Joseph experienced in those months, weeks and days before Jesus was born.

Of course there is a lot of emotion and sentiment in this as we have a unique "study guide" to advent in our lives this year, but this is something that will stay with me forever.

When you see a pregnancy close up, I can't help but think it gives some kind of extra insight into the mystery of the incarnation itself. The creator of the world really did come to us through the wonder of a pregnancy, the trauma of a birth, and the helplessness of a new born baby.

A Short Guide to Just War

2011-11-13T08:35:00.010Z

On Remembrance Sunday when the nation remembers the War dead in two world wars and in post-war conflicts since 1945, I thought I would outline briefly why I think the concept of "Just War" (or Bellum iustum) is an acceptable ethical position for Christians to take, as opposed to outright pacifism that regards all military action as an evil to always be avoided no matter what the circumstances are.

The first thing to say is that for followers of Jesus, war is never a good thing - it is always an evil. The way of Christ is the way of love and peace. The Christian ethic is to love our enemies, not wage war against them. And there are no exceptions. We are to love all our enemies, just as God loves all his enemies. So war is never good, it is always evil. And it is always a failure of politics and a sign of broken human relationships. There is never "glory" in war, only regret and sadness that "it came to this."

Now, this must be set alongside a second important point. This world is fallen in sin and imperfect. All human beings are fallen in sin and imperfect, and so all governments and nations are by extension fallen in sin and imperfect. This state of affairs means that sometimes we only have the choice between two courses of action that in themselves are evils. And in this situation, we should choose the lesser of two evils. This seems to me to be a pragmatic necessity in a fallen world. In such circumstances, the lesser evil is ethically excusable.

Just War theory is a particular application of this principle. It recognises that there are occasions when war is the lesser of two evils and it can be justified where it prevents a greater evil from taking place or where it will lead to greater evils being prevented.

Just War theory is often thought of as a Christian theory, which of course it is in one sense as many Christian thinkers have taught versions of Just War theory. However, its origins go back further than Christianity to Ancient Rome and philosophers such as Cicero. And it has also been advocated as a theory by non-Christian philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.

There are two main parts to Just War theory: Ius ad bellum - the right to go to war and Ius in bello - the right conduct of war. Some modern theorists have also added a third category: Ius post bellum - right actions after war is ended. They can be briefly outlined as follows.

Ius ad bellum - the right to go to war

1. Just cause: There must be a just reason for the war. War is never justified simply to punish a nation, or to gain territory or for economic gain. There must either be danger of great loss of innocent life or gross violations of basic human rights.

2. Comparative justice: There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of a conflict, but war can only be justified when the injustice suffered by one party is significantly greater than on the other side.

3. Competent authority: Only properly constituted governments or authorities can wage war.

4. Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose, not as a pretext to implement other intentions.

5. Probability of success: War should not be waged for a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

6. Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

7. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the ius in bello principle of proportionality in how the war is conducted.

Ius in bello - right conduct in war

Once war has begun, Just War theory also has a bearing on how a conflict should be fought.

1. Distinction: We must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. And acts of war should only be directed towards enemy combatants. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction.

2. Proportionality: Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

3. Military Necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

4. Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them, mistreat them or kill them.

5. No means malum in se: Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are simply considered as always evil in themselves. Examples would be mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons).

Ius post bellum - right post-war conduct

1. Just cause for termination: War should be terminated when there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

2. Right intention: War should only continue until war aims are reached. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

3. Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

4. Discrimination: The victors must differentiate between political and military leaders, combatants and civilians. Punishment should be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.

5. Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community would not be permitted.

Conclusions

It is clear from these criteria that a totally "Just War" started, conducted and concluded justly is a rare thing indeed in history and there have often been wrongs and excesses on all sides in historical and modern conflicts. It is also clear that while a conflict such as the Second World War was a "just war" overall (in that Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Militarism surely had to be stopped), there were parts of the conduct of the war that were not right. I don't think the fire bombing of Dresden or the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ethical options for the Allies. This means there were sins on all sides that should be regretted.

Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between approving of a war or its conduct and supporting those who fought in it. Whatever view we take of military conflict we have to love and care for those who have served in the armed forces, and on this day, everyone should remember those who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.

Divine Foreknowledge and Divine Providence

2011-10-18T22:12:00.002+01:00

I have enjoyed reading a couple of "counterpoint" type books in the areas of divine foreknowledge and divine providence. For those who don't know what "counterpoint" books are - they are an increasingly popular way of exploring controversial areas of theology. The books typically present between two and five (usually four) positions, each with a main essay written by a proponent of that view and then critiqued by the other contributors to the book.

For example the book I read on the nature of divine foreknowledge has four high calibre theologians all doing battle with each other. Greg Boyd puts forward the case for open theism, David Hunt that for simple foreknowledge, William Lane Craig that for Molinism and Paul Helm the case for a Calvinist understanding of foreknowledge based on foreordination.

I tend to find that when I read material by a good proponent of a view (rather than only reading critiques of views by those who disagree with a position) I get a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of that position. On some occasions, I have found my own views often challenged, usually sharpened and occasionally changed as a result.

In the volumes on foreknowledge and providence, I was particularly challenged by Greg Boyd's contributions. I had only heard of "open theism" from a distance and have heard it dismissed as heresy - painting God as a being who cannot know the future and denying the doctrine of divine omniscience. But reading Boyd's articles - which I have to say were the most strictly biblical in the volumes (I mean the other contributors tended to be much more philosophical in their essays, where Boyd tended to stick closely to looking at the biblical texts) - has left me with a strange feeling that the "openness theme" in Scripture is one that has not been sufficiently noted in evangelical theology, while classical theism seems much more aligned to Greek philosophical concerns and notions of perfection. Much of what I have read on open theism I would say misrepresents what its best proponents actually teach. For example, Boyd has no problem saying that God can foreordain some things; his question is whether God need therefore foreordain all things, or if some future things can be left open and undecided beforehand. It is also wrong to say that God strictly speaking cannot know the future. It is true that open theists say that the future is not known by God, but they point out this is because God sovereignly chooses to leave it open to some degree, not because he lacks the ability to know it if he wanted to.

All that, is not to say that I have suddenly jumped ship from the Reformed camp. Far from it. But I have found it challenging and interesting to read a completely different point of view and I am left with the uneasy feeling that Calvinists too easily dismiss texts that don't quite fit with an easy label of "anthropomorphism". Boyd's points are well taken - what does it mean that God regrets something, if God doesn't in fact regret it; or that God was planning to do one thing and then decides to do something else as a result of something that happens; and how exactly do we explain the biblical picture of intercessory prayer if God not only already knows what we will pray, but decided that we would before time began and knew his answer from eternity? Perhaps most significant, how can it be that Christ can say that to see him is to see the Father if God is truly unaffected either to increase or decrease his perfect happiness by anything that happens in the world.

I didn't feel that any of those who responded to Boyd in the books really engaged with him at the textual/exegetical level and tended to dismiss rather than refute the view Boyd put forward.

The question I have is this: can the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty (particularly sovereign grace in salvation) somehow co-exist with a view that God does experience emotional changes and perhaps does not exhaustively settle everything ahead of time? I have no answer to these questions yet after reading Boyd's essays.

I hope my thinking will settle down to something approaching normal soon!

For the record, the two books I'm referring to are:

James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy (eds): Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views
Dennis W. Jowers (ed): Four Views on Divine Providence

God in the Shadows

2011-10-04T07:20:00.001+01:00

God in the Shadows
Brian Morley
Christian Focus Publications 2006

This book is subtitled "Evil in God's World" and is a good overall textbook on what theologians and philosophers call "the problem of evil". This treatment of the subject is written from an evangelical Christian perspective.

The problem of evil can be stated quite simply in this question: How can it be that there is evil in the world created by a all-good and all-powerful God? The problem being, so philosophers state, that if God can stop evil but doesn't then he isn't wholly good, yet if God cannot stop evil but would, then he isn't all-powerful.

Brian Morley's book looks at this issue and these presuppositions and subjects them to biblical and theological examination.

The book begins with looking at what Morley - and Christian theism generally - would say are wrong answers to the problem which include:

1. There is no God
2. There is no real evil
3. God is not really all-powerful
4. God is not really all-good

He then examines a number of answers that have been put forward to show that there are reasons why an all-good and all-powerful God might nevertheless permit evil to exist in the world he created. These include the following arguments:

1. The free will defence - God gives human beings real choices. We are not mere robots or actors who don't realise we are acting out a pre-written play. As soon as freedom is given to a moral creature, it is possible to choose evil instead of good.

2. That suffering is used to build character - in other words, that there are ways in which our character can be shaped through the suffering we go through. For example, suffering the grief of losing someone close to us might give us the empathy, sympathy and compassion to help other people who are grieving in ways that wouldn't be the same if we hadn't gone through it. I don't think this is a strong argument as it doesn't really explain why there is suffering in the first place; rather it is an argument for how some good can come out of evil, but for me that's a different point.

3. The justice defence - that the world is sinful and we are all sinners. Sometimes, "evil" or suffering comes to us in response to our own actions. On some occasions, the link is natural: if we do harmful things to ourselves like over drinking, taking drugs or smoking, for example, then there is a price to pay for this. If our health suffers as a result, such suffering should be expected. Sometimes the link is moral: although it is unpopular to say it, Morley doesn't shy away from saying that sometimes bad things happen to bad people. Finally, there are times when there is no link and a person suffers who has "done nothing to deserve it." However, in a fallen world where sin has consequences, there is often what military theorists would call "collateral damage". Morley points out the Bible has a different understanding of responsibility to our western philosophical ideas. Sometimes there must be corporate responsibility and individuals suffer because of the sins of a nation or a society.

There are a number of other chapters dealing with subjects such as illness, war, poverty, etc. And there is a useful chapter on looking at the world from the eternal viewpoint of heaven and hell to come (putting suffering now in perspective).

I thought this was an excellent book addressing some of the most difficult theological and pastoral problems. Definitely recommended.

Anti-Abortion and Pro Death Penalty

2011-09-22T07:31:00.001+01:00

According to an online article by N. T. Wright: "You can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty."

This is in many ways a typically pithy Tom Wright remark. Unfortunately, it is absurd. Maybe Wright cannot reconcile it in his mind, but I can't see anything inherently illogical about affirming both. What he seems to leave out of the equation is justice. He puts an absolute value on life so that it is wrong to take life no matter what the circumstances. Presumably Wright is a pacifist who would also oppose all military action or war no matter what the reason for it? Otherwise I would say: "Wright can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and the death penalty and pro-death on just war."

The Bible takes a different view and I would argue a more realistic view. The biblical teaching, it seems to me, can fully reconcile opposing abortion (with exceptions such as where the mother's life is physically in danger or where the pregnancy has been caused by rape) and supporting the death penalty for murder. The first opposes the deliberate taking of a baby's life that does not deserve to die; the latter supports the judicial taking of life in just punishment for having taken another person's life.

Now, that's not to say I would support re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK at this time. In our current system I wouldn't. We would need far greater safeguards than we have before I think the death penalty could be sanctioned (such as the death penalty for perjury where the false evidence results in someone being executed and the need for two witnesses before the death penalty would be justified).

I know many Christians and others take different views on these matters. That's okay. But it does no good to overreach ourselves in argument as Wright does from time to time. It's quite possible to argue against abortion and against the death penalty - that's fine. But it's not illogical to argue differently in the two different cases. On this one, Wright is simply wrong.

September 11th - Ten Years On

2011-09-11T21:48:00.001+01:00

As in a previous generation everyone "knew where they were" when President Kennedy was assassinated or when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, for my generation, everyone "knows where they were" on 11th September 2001 when the planes were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I had just started working in a new job. I remember I was in the office and when a couple of colleagues came back in from lunch they told me what had happened having seen the news on a pub television.

That evening, going home, it was possible to listen to a running news commentary on events all the way from the office to my bus stop. It was a warm "Indian summer" evening in Glasgow and every vehicle in town had its radio on and the driver's window open and they were all listening to the news coverage. Already by 5.00 pm UK time there was a special edition of the Evening Times (Glasgow's evening paper) showing pictures from New York.

For the rest of the day I think I watched wall-to-wall news, finding it hard to comprehend what had happened and finding it impossible to understand. Of all the wicked acts than humankind has perpetrated on each other, this seemed to rank with the very worst. The visceral impact of global news including live footage and later capturing the planes crashing on camera seared the images into all our collective consciousness.

Even though we are ten years on, I do not believe enough time has yet passed to be able to gain a true perspective on what impact the attacks will have on world history.

Sovereignty and Freedom

2011-09-10T17:03:00.002+01:00

I have just finished reading Kenneth Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach and found it very interesting. Rather than attempt another book review, I thought I'd write a bit my own thoughts that have been sparked from the book.

Salvation and Sovereignty really deals with two different subjects that Keathley chooses to link, but which need not be linked. Firstly, he outlines the idea of Molinism, which is a remarkable theological idea that claims to be able to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the genuine freedom of human beings. Molinism accuses Calvinism of defending God's sovereignty at the expense of real human freedom (Calvinism usually teaches that we make choices, but those choices are controlled by God, to which philosophers object that if that is so then human "freedom" is actually only an illusion). Molinism also accuses Arminianism of defending human freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty (Arminianism usually teaches that because God gives human beings libertarian free will, he chooses to not exercise his sovereignty in some areas).

The intriguing idea in Molinism is that God can perfectly and sovereignly control what happens in the world through foreknowledge and creation. Keathley writes: "Molinism understands God to carry out his sovereign plans through His exhaustive foreknowledge." (p.9) Calvinism by contrast sees God in sovereign control through foreordination. The difference is that Molinism is compatible with libertarian free will (that we have the genuine power and ability to choose between two alternatives), whereas Calvinism is only compatible with compatible free will (that we have the ability to choose only what we desire or want to choose).

Although there are variations, Calvinism sees God's sovereignty working like this (it is important to note that in the following numbered lists both for Calvinism and Molinism, these "moments" of foreknowledge are not temporal, they are logical - all of these things are eternal):

1. God's necessary foreknowledge - God knows all that could be - all the things he could do, all the different universes he could create, and all the different events that could happen in all those universes.

2. God's decree - from all that could be, God decrees what will be.

3. God's free foreknowledge - based on 1 and 2, God knows what will be in the reality he creates.

This means everything that happens in the universe takes place because God foreordained or predestined that it would take place. Such an arrangement means that human beings cannot have libertarian free will. It means that all our choices and all our actions were determined before creation began by God. And we are simply living out what God has already ordained should happen in his creation. In this scheme human beings can have apparent choices that seem real to us but the truth is that what we will choose is determined by our desires and our wills and these are determined for us ultimately by God himself. So we are not coerced by God, because we choose to do what we want, but what we want is determined by God. This is known as compatibilist free will.

Molinism works slightly differently. It sees God's sovereignty working like this:

1. God's necessary foreknowledge - God knows all that could be - all the things he could do, all the different universes he could create, and all the different events that could happen in all those universes.

2. God's middle foreknowledge - from all that could be, in an infinite number of potential worlds, God knows what human beings with libertarian free will would do given any number of possible different choices they might have in all possible circumstances.

3. God's decree - from all that could and would be, God decides to actualise or create one of those possible universes, i.e. this universe, this world.

4. God's free foreknowledge - based on 1, 2 and 3, God knows what will be in the reality of this universe.

The difference between this and the Calvinist account is obvious. Here God does not foreordain what we will do, though he does know what we will do in the actual universe he chose to create (and so in a sense ultimately decides and ordains what will be in this world). This allows God to "work all things in accordance with the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11) while leaving human beings to make genuinely free choices.

This way of looking at foreknowledge, predestination and providence seems to me to have much to commend it, though I would add a caveat that my thoughts are only preliminary at this stage. From what I have read, the strongest objection to a scheme like this is what has been called "the grounding objection". The grounding objection says that God's middle knowledge of what free creatures would do in any set of circumstances he creates is impossible because there are no grounds for explaining how God could know such a thing. This may be a strong objection for philosophers, but for anyone familiar with the Bible, I cannot see how this is a valid objection at all. We may not be able to explain how God can know something, but that is very different from saying that God cannot know such a thing. I cannot see how the only way God can know the future is by foreordaining it. "For nothing will be impossible for God." (Luke 1:37).

If this was all that Molinism involved, or at least Keathley's version of it, then I think many Christians who recognise that God is in sovereign control of all things because it is what they find in the Bible, would be ready to give Molinism serious consideration.

However, and it is a huge "however", Keathley switches to a different subject in the rest of the book. Rather than only looking at middle knowledge or MolinismArminian third corner of his theological triangle: God's desire to save everyone without exception.

Molinism seems to offer an interesting account for divine sovereignty and human freedom, but it becomes unacceptable to the Calvinist once this third leg is added to the stool. As the discussion progresses it is soon apparent that Keathley's commitment to libertarian freewill and God's desire to save everyone (head for head) is absolute (these of course being bedrock Arminian positions) and inevitably his commitment to God's sovereignty is soon diluted.

Whereas, in principle, when Keathley first discusses God's use of middle knowledge, it looks as if as a mechanism this could be how sovereignty and freedom are reconciled, the triangle collapses if a desire to save everyone is added. The reason is obvious - if not everyone is saved (and the Bible rules out universalism) then either God's desire to save all is thwarted (subsumed to sovereign free will) or else God cannot absolutely or simply desire the salvation of everyone. He can desire it one sense, and not desire it another however (which is what Calvinism has always taught) but that's a different discussion.

Keathley proceeds to add the third corner of the triangle and unfortunately does dilute God's sovereignty. Other ideas are soon added to muddy the waters. We are told that rather than this world being one of an infinite number from which God can perfectly accomplish his will, that in fact there would be no possible world in which all human beings would choose salvation. So if God truly desires to save all, he cannot achieve that desire in any universe he chooses to create. That is unacceptable biblically and philosophically. Biblically it is clearly unacceptable because the Bible teaches that "whatever he desires, that he does" (Job 23:13, NRSV). Other verses confirm that God is able to do all he pleases: Isaiah 46:9-10, Daniel 4:35, Psalm 135:6. Philosophically it is unacceptable because if there are an infinite number of possible worlds, then it would seem obvious there must be one in which everyone would say "yes" to salvation. If for no other reason than there must have been a possible world in which those who say "no" are never created.

This essay is only a preliminary look at one of the most difficult subjects in theology. But it seems to me that if we jettison the Arminian presupposition that God only wants to save everyone and keep the idea of God using his foreknowledge to create the world to perfectly accomplish his plans, there is no reason why this theological concept cannot instead be joined with Calvinism's particularism - that God chose to save some and not save others for his own glory. So rather than, as Keathley maintains, that God chose to create a world in which the number of the saved is maximised (there was no possible world where even one more person is saved?), God chose to create a world in which his own glory is maximised.

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:36).

For Whom Did Christ Die?

2011-09-06T13:42:00.000+01:00

For Whom Did Christ Die?
R. B. Kuiper
Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 2003

This is a short scholarly book first published in 1959 by R. B. Kuiper (1886-1966) who held a number of academic positions including Professor of Practical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary 1933-1952 and later President of Calvin Theological Seminary.

The book's title is in the form of a question and its subtitle is "A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement." The substance of the book looks at a variety of answers to the title's question. The first three answers are discussed and found to be unscriptural:

(1) "Unrestricted Universalism" - the view that Christ died for all without exception and saves all without exception.This view is criticised because it fails to take proper account of the Bible's teaching that only some rather than all human beings are saved, and those not saved are to be punished in hell.

(2) "Arminian Universalism" - the view that Christ died for all without exception but saves only some, namely those who believe. Kuiper's main criticism of this view is that it fails to deal properly with Scripture's teaching that Christ's death is effectual in what it achieves (e.g. reconciliation, redemption, etc. not mere possible reconciliation or redemption).

(3) "Barthian Universalism" - discusses the singular views of Karl Barth and the Neo-orthodox theologians. Barth redefined many Scriptural doctrines so as to completely change their meaning. To give just one example Barth taught that "predestination" is an ongoing process during time, rather (as the word suggests) a determining of events before time.

In the final two chapters, Kuiper turns to what he believes is the scriptural truth:

(4) "Scriptural Particularism" - In this chapter Kuiper reviews the biblical evidence that Christ's death was only intended by God to save the elect (that is only those it actually does save).

(5) "Scriptural Universalism" - In some respects this was the most interesting chapter of them all. Here Kuiper says that although the only saving intention in the atonement is towards the elect, that does not rule out other intentions towards the non-elect or towards people generally. These include the free or universal offer of the gospel and the all-sufficiency of the atonement, plus the non-redemptive benefits of common grace. This approach seems very similar to Bruce Ware's multi-intentional approach to the atonement (dubbed by Mark Driscoll as "Unlimited Limited Atonement") and fits well with precursors in Charles Hodge and William Shedd in the 19th century. Kuiper makes the point that to say "Christ died for the elect only" as the full summation of the Calvinist position is actually incorrect. Limited Atonement in the likes of the Canons of Dort is more complex than that. Limited Atonement is that Christ died in the place of the elect, and to save the elect only; but it never rules out dying as representative of and to give other blessings short of salvation to others as well.

We should be grateful to Wipf and Stock for republishing this useful book and I commend it warmly to all thoughtful Christians, in particular Calvinists who want to understand better what "limited atonement" means and doesn't mean.

Sinclair Ferguson's Sermons on Romans

2011-08-21T18:24:00.000+01:00

Found this excellent resource. Sinclair Ferguson's Sermon series on Romans. http://ow.ly/68KoY

Paul: Fresh Perspectives

2011-08-11T13:04:00.001+01:00

Paul: Fresh Perspectives
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005

Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.

This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.

Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".

In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.

This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).

This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.

In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.

I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.

That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.

The Lost World of Genesis One

2011-08-07T22:07:00.000+01:00

The Lost World of Genesis One
John H. Walton
Inter-Varsity Press 2009

John Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, one of the leading Christian liberal arts colleges in the United States. He has written a number of books including a commentary on Genesis in the well-respected NIV Application Commentary series.

The Lost World of Genesis One is a controversial book, no doubt about that. If it's claims are correct, Christians have had one of our most central doctrines wrong for the best part of the last two thousand years.

Walton's argument is that our normal way of reading Genesis as an account of the material creation of the universe is wrong. According to Walton, Genesis One has nothing to say about what could broadly be called the scientific view of origins, or how matter came into existence, or how life came into existence. Instead, Walton says that Genesis One operates within a very different worldview. Walton says that Genesis One describes functional creation. It is about how God assigned functions to things that were already in material existence, and how God fits them into the created order he has created, which is focused on the practical matter of an environment suitable for human beings to inhabit and thrive in. To give just one example, how the sun was materially created is nothing to do with Genesis One, whereas the text teaches that God functionally assigned the sun to mark times and seasons and give light during the day.

Walton argues for his interpretation on the basis of comparisons with other ancient creation accounts, evidence of the worldview of people in Old Testament times, and analysis of the Hebrew text. He is adamant that it is anachronistic and invalid to read our modern concerns, with our modern worldview, back into the Genesis text.

Walton's argument is clearly laid out in 18 propositions (one per chapter) that link up and build on each other.

I have to say that as someone who favours the framework/analogical interpretation, Walton's view seems to strike many similar notes. In one of the chapters he points out that much of what he says could easily be incorporated into the framework view and I think this is correct. However, I still have a problem with Walton's central idea that Genesis One has nothing to do with material origins. I think the evidence he puts forward for this is not as convincing to me as it is to Walton himself. I'm no Old Testament professor of course, but I find it hard to jettison centuries of exegesis on the evidence he puts forward.

I remain more comfortable with the view I hold that Genesis One is a polemical, didactic and analogical framework. In other words, I still think Genesis is a literary account of material origins and their functionality, rather than a literal account of functionality only. This means that Walton has many useful things to say, but I cannot see this view being accepted in the mainstream of evangelicalism any time soon.

Tom Wright for Everyone

2011-08-07T20:55:00.000+01:00

Tom Wright for Everyone
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011

This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:

Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).

Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.

Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.

In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.

My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.

If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.

For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.

Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.

Reclaiming Genesis

2011-08-07T19:33:00.001+01:00

Reclaiming Genesis
Melvin Tinker
Monarch Books 2010

Reclaiming Genesis is more an exposition than a commentary dealing with the first twelve foundational chapters of Genesis. These chapters are foundational, not just for the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch, but for the whole Bible.

The book consists of ten chapters, each basically dealing with one chapter of Genesis, except for Genesis 7 (part of Noah's story on the ark) and 10 (a genealogy from Noah's sons).

Tinker takes a literary approach to the early chapters of Genesis and sees the primary meaning of these chapters in theological and polemical terms. He also argues that there is no need to accept a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) standpoint and even accepts that theistic evolution would be a compatible view with Genesis, so long as we only accept evolution as a mechanism under God's control. It is evolutionism - the naturalistic view that the life in the universe came about and continues without God - that the Christian view of creation cannot accept.

Rather than on the 'how" of creation, Tinker's chapter on Genesis One focuses on the chapters polemics against paganism, and a functional view of creation whereby God fits the universe to be "the theatre of his glory" (Calvin) and fills it with creatures.

A similar viewpoint carries us through the other chapters through to God's calling Abram in Genesis 12.

Tinker himself claims that much of what he writes would be agreed by Christians, no matter what view of creation we accept. In other words, much of what he says Genesis One teaches would not be denied by YECs. I'm sure he is correct in this. Even so, I think many would have problems with Tinker's acceptance that Genesis One does not rule of the biological evolution of life, even the descent of human beings from other primates.

This book is of value to all Christians, even those who cannot accept anything other than a YEC interpretation of Genesis. As someone who also takes a literary-theological approach to Genesis One (albeit a slightly different one), I found that a lot of what Tinker says made sense. I think he shows that the main points of these chapters of Genesis is not arguing over science, but seeing God as he really is and human beings as we really are.

Amyraldism

2011-08-03T21:36:00.003+01:00

I found Ian Hamilton's critique of Amyraldism interesting. Read his paper at: http://www.chelmsfordpres.org.uk/resources/articles/Amyraldianism.pdf

Amyraldism is also known as "Four Point Calvinism" because of its rejection of the doctrine of particular redemption. It is an deviation from Reformed orthodoxy and "unstable" (Warfield) form of Calvinism that is not entirely consistent in what it teaches about God's purposes and God's sovereignty. It is named after a French Reformed theologian called Moises Amyraut.

However, although I believe Amyraldism is an error, it is also close to the truth in my view, much closer to the truth than Hyper-Calvinism.

Both Amyraldism and mainstream Calvinism assert that Christ died sufficiently for all, efficiently for the elect. But Calvinism also says that God's intention in Christ's death was to save the elect only (and also perhaps so the free offer of the gospel could be made to all), whereas Amyraldism says that God's intention was both to actually save the elect and also to potentially save the rest on condition they believe. In Calvinism, God never decreed to save the non-elect.

Anyway, Ian Hamilton's paper is worth reading.

Trevin Wax on Piper on Wright

2011-08-01T13:34:00.003+01:00

Enjoyed this series by Trevin Wax reviewing John's Piper's book on N T Wright: http://ow.ly/5RZNE

Why Evangelicals should stay in the Church of Scotland for now

2011-07-10T20:23:00.003+01:00

At a meeting of evangelicals held in St George's Tron Church in June 2011 in the aftermath of the 2011 General Assembly's decisions to move towards lifting the ban on persons in homosexual sexual relationships, two views seemed to be put forward by the six speakers at that meeting. Somewhat surprisingly given that the meeting was meant to be private and by invitation only, the Tron have now put the six talks from that afternoon on video for all the world to see and hear online: http://new.tronmedia.org/resources/video/june-2011-ministers-elders-meeting/.

The choice put forward at that meeting, at which around 600 ministers and elders gathered, appears to be between (1) getting ready to leave the Church of Scotland as soon as reasonably possible and (2) getting ready to leave the Church of Scotland after the 2013 General Assembly. Not mentioned, but moving around in the background also appears to be advocating a policy of non-cooperation with the Church of Scotland centrally and local Presbyteries up to and including non-payment of congregational funds into central church funds and non-participation in the church courts and committees.

Having spoken to a number of ministers, elders and others, it is apparent that there are many people who are deeply troubled by the two options being put forward by St George's Tron Church and some others. I have to say that I share this dissatisfaction and have the sense that evangelicals are being railroaded into a decision to separate. This seems to be coming from a certain group of ministers and elders, who give the impression that they have been wanting for years to leave the mixed denomination they are in and have now found an issue through which they can force their vision into reality.

Let me be clear, I absolutely agree that the decisions of the 2011 General Assembly regarding same sex relationships were the wrong ones. They were deeply flawed. Even looking at them in the most positive light, they are decisions which look to disregard the Bible's teaching on human sexuality in order to fit in with this world's current thinking on human sexuality. They are decisions which could invite and indeed contribute to God's judgment on his people in Scotland in our generation. The "trajectory" these decisions have set the Church on must be opposed and in time reversed if we are to bring the national church back into line with the revealed will of God. All that I admit. I admit too that the time may come when God's people must abandon the institution of the Kirk. But I do not think that we have quite reached that point yet. In that respect, I feel the tenor of the meeting at St George's Tron church was premature and pessimistic.

For too long evangelicals have operated in the Kirk like independent Congregationalist churches. They have been content to abandon the church courts to the Liberals and been content to get on with preaching the gospel in their own churches. Now is precisely the wrong time to give up the fight by doing things like refusing to take part in Presbytery or committee meetings. To do so would send the signal that we have indeed surrendered the denomination to those who want to take it on a "trajectory" (this is the current buzzword in Kirk circles!) away from biblical doctrines on human sexuality and relationships (and many other areas of teaching as well no doubt). It is also in my view a complete negation of Presbyterian ordination vows. I cannot see how ministers, elders or congregations can decry the Liberals for breaking their ordination vows with regard to Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith (which is true) and then break their own vows by withholding funds from fellow churches and by refusing to take part in church courts and committees.

I have heard it said that the die was cast in the 2011 votes and the situation is not recoverable. I must disagree with this. I think it is incorrect for a whole number of reasons. Even if we discount the fact that God is quite capable of taking his church in the direction he wants it to go and has the sovereign power to change the hearts of men and women and draw them back to himself and his ways; even if we disregard this, there are good reasons for not yet giving up hope.

Firstly, we need to actually read what the 2011 Assembly passed. Some have talked as if what was passed this year is a final position certain to end up with the Kirk ordaining openly gay ministers. Actually what was passed is much more fluid than that. It is an interim position, a searching position, not a settled and final position. The key deliverance reads (emphasis added):

Resolve to consider further the lifting of the moratorium on the acceptance for training and ordination of persons in a same-sex relationship, and to that end instruct the Theological Commission to prepare a report for the General Assembly of 2013 containing:
(i) a theological discussion of issues around same-sex relationships, civil partnerships and marriage;
(ii) an examination of whether, if the Church were to allow its ministers freedom of conscience in deciding whether to bless same-sex relationships involving life-long commitments, the recognition of such lifelong relationships should take the form of a blessing of a civil partnership or should involve a liturgy to recognise and celebrate commitments which the parties enter into in a Church service in addition to the civil partnership, and if so to recommend liturgy therefor;
(iii) an examination of whether persons, who have entered into a civil partnership and have made lifelong commitments in a Church ceremony, should be eligible for admission for training, ordination and induction as ministers of Word and Sacrament or deacons in the context that no member of Presbytery will be required to take part in such ordination or induction against his or her conscience; and to report to the General Assembly of 2013.

There is much in here that would leave a more traditional viewpoint to be put forward by the Theological Commission. Their remit does not bind them to follow a particular trajectory on any reasonable interpretation of these words. The theological discussion of same sex relationships could very easily come back with a report suggesting that the church should not bless nor accept into leadership those in a same-sex relationship where sexual acts form part of that relationship. The Commission could for example come back reporting that only celibate homosexuals can be ordained, which is entirely biblical and should be acceptable to all sides of the debate. I cannot think it wise for evangelical congregations to leave the Kirk before the Theological Commission reports back in 2013.

Secondly, we need to look at the composition of the Theological Commission due to report in 2013. When we look at the composition of the Theological Commission, we should be encouraged that a report favourable to the traditional and biblical view of sexual relationships may well be written. At least three of the members are certainly evangelical in outlook: Prof Rev Andrew McGowan, Rev Gordon Kennedy and Dr Jane McArthur of the International Christian College in Glasgow. At the very least, there would surely be a minority report issued putting forward the traditional view again for consideration. I cannot accept that these individuals would sit on a commission that was basically only devising an order of service for gay marriage (as I heard it described by one person).

Thirdly, we need to remember that before the church can lawfully change its position on such a fundamental issue, it would most likely go down under the Barrier Act and have to be passed by a majority of presbyteries. This is very unlikely to happen. When the church last looked at a similar matter a few years ago, the presbyteries heavily defeated a proposal to allow churches to celebrate civil partnerships. This would very likely happen again in 2013 or 2014 provided the evangelicals stay within the church to argue, fight, persuade and vote. If we leave now, we are deserting the battlefield to our opponents and are actually ensuring that the self-fulfilling prophecy comes to pass. Even if passed by the Barrier Act, the 2014 General Assembly would then also have to vote to pass this before it could actually be implemented.

It is wise for evangelical congregations to think ahead and consider what would happen if all goes badly: if the Theological Commission reports that there is no reason the church cannot go down the trajectory of permitting sexually active homosexuals into ministry, if the 2013 General Assembly votes to allow this, if the Presbyteries also vote to allow it when it goes to them under the Barrier Act and if the 2014 General Assembly also votes for it again. If all this happens, I think the case for evangelicals leaving the Kirk would be compelling. So we should certainly consider what we would need to do should this happen. However, I think it much more likely that if we stay in and "wrestle, and fight, and pray" that the "trajectory" can be turned back into an orbit around the Bible's teachings and historic, traditional and ecumenical Christian views and that the current momentum for change will be sent crashing at one or other of the four hurdles still to be crossed.

My prayer is that it will be so. But if it is, then the evangelicals will face as big a challenge and one we must not shirk. We will then have the enormous task of loving and caring for and serving every gay and lesbian Christian, to help them live the life of celibate friendship we say that they must follow. For if we will not do this as fervently as we protest actively gay people being ordained then we risk being condemned of hypocrisy and outright pharisaism with every justification. I hope we are also planning with equal vigour how we do this now, whatever structures or denominations we find ourselves in ecclesiastically come 2014 or 2015.

From Orphans to Heirs

2011-07-08T18:29:00.000+01:00

From Orphans to Heirs
Mark Stibbe
The Bible Reading Fellowship 1998, 2005

Three quarters or more of this book is an excellent and heart-warming treatment of the doctrine of adoption. This is the important, but often neglected biblical teaching, that when we become Christians we enter into a family relationship with God, we are adopted as God's sons and daughters, and we then have Jesus as our elder brother and all other believers as our brothers and sisters.

The fact that Stibbe was himself adopted as a child gives an edge to the book as he warms to his subject and understands it at both a head and heart level in a deeper way than perhaps many others have.

It is interesting that Stibbe sees adoption as absolutely central to the Christian faith and life alongside justification. So much so, that he almost sees adoption as the overarching theme of salvation as we move from slavery to sonship, from sin to salvation. He then goes through various aspects of adoption and views its relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As I said, most of the book is brilliant and I found it both inspirational and heart-warming. The only significant problem is that Stibbe is a Charismatic with a capital C. This extends to his acceptance and even praise of the so-called Toronto Blessing some years ago. Peppered throughout the "good stuff" are charismatic views that this reviewer certainly does not share. The charismatic views get in the way rather than support the main thrust of teaching on adoption.

As long as the reader knows that this is part of Stibbe's theological make-up, and can filter out the parts that it is not necessary to accept in order to accept the parts on adoption, then this book could be a breath of fresh air for many Christians and many churches.

Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places

2011-07-08T18:12:00.000+01:00

Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places
Eugene Peterson
Eerdmans/Hodder & Stoughton 2005

Eugene Peterson's book is difficult to categorise, but I found it very interesting, challenging and thought-provoking.

The book's subtitle is "A Conversation in Spiritual Theology" which captures some of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. It is a conversation. It meanders through its subjects and is light in places where more weight was needed in argument. In other places it sparkles and glints with biblical truth.

The title comes from one of the remarkable poems by the English Jesuit poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins: "Christ plays in ten thousand places / Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his / To the Father through the features of men's faces." I take this to mean that through and in our union with Christ as Christians, he acts through us and we act in him in all we do, so that when the Father looks on us, he sees Christ.

This sums up what I think Peterson was trying to achieve in this book. He wants us to realise that Christ is Lord of every part of life and as Christians living in union with him, all of life is transformed and made special. As we realise this, so our lives are energised, beautified and sanctified.

The main part of the books consists of three sections entitled: "Christ plays in Creation," "Christ plays in History" and "Christ plays in Community." In them, Peterson deals with creation, salvation and the resurrection and the church respectively.

The book follows an unusual method, and contains some aspects that could be disputed or rejected by many evangelical Christians, but there is much more that is profitable. Overall, the book is well worth reading.

The Double Payment Fallacy?

2011-07-07T13:16:00.000+01:00

Here's an article that I found interesting and certainly worth thinking about if only to refute it. On the Calvin and Calvinism website: "Alan C. Clifford on the Double Payment Fallacy (An Evaluation of John’s Owen’s Trilemma Argument)": http://ow.ly/5yHKW

The Cross of Christ

2011-06-12T22:57:00.000+01:00

The Cross of Christ
John Stott
Inter-Varsity Press 1986

I first read this book on many aspects of the Cross of Jesus Christ by John Stott about 20 years ago, not that long after he wrote it in the mid-1980s. It was in the first handful of serious Christian books I read as an earnest young Christian in my late teens and as such it had a big impact on my views then. Re-reading it now with a lot more theological and biblical reading under my belt, I still felt this is one of the best books on the meaning and implications of the Cross available and it well-deserves the epithet "classic".

The book teaches the penal substitutionary view of the atonement though there are chapters that deal with the truths in the Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories as well. One of the strengths of the book is that as well as the theoretical side of things, Stott devotes a section to "life under the cross" and this section is really excellent.

Stott is brilliant in his expositions of Scripture and how careful he is when outlining the fact that Christ's death is both substitutionary and a satisfaction. It struck me how close some of what Stott writes is similar to what Steve Chalke got into so much trouble for saying in his book The Lost Message of Jesus. Stott equally will have no truck with crude versions of penal substitution that envisage a cruel father venting his anger on his innocent son. He points out that the atonement starts not with an angry God but with a God who so loved the world. He points out that on the cross God the Father suffered and the atonement involved God substituting himself on the cross and in a sense punishing himself in Christ.

This book deserves a place on the bookshelf of every Christian and can be read with much profit wherever you are on your Christian pilgrimage.

The Free Church on Marriage and Divorce

2011-05-26T14:06:00.000+01:00

Here's an interesting report from the Free Church of Scotland on marriage and divorce: http://ow.ly/53twO

Christian Giving According to Paul

2011-05-19T23:01:00.002+01:00

Adapted from a Bible Study on 2 Corinthians 8:1-15

Background and Reasons for the Collection in Corinth

At the beginning of chapter 8 it is clear that Paul changes subject from what he’s been talking about before and now begins to talk about one of the main reasons for writing 2 Corinthians. It has to do with a collection of money the Corinthians were supposed to gather for the relief of poor Christians in Judea, especially the city of Jerusalem. We know this because the collection is mentioned in Paul’s earlier correspondence in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3.

This collection that Paul was involved in organising seems to have been designed with three purposes in mind.

Firstly, it was to help relieve the suffering of fellow Christians. And that’s a worthy end in itself. It doesn’t need any other reason than that. As God’s people we need to show love and care for each other, not just in words, but in actions, including how we use our money, and even how we give our money directly or indirectly to one another.

But secondly, it was also in Paul’s mind an example of how all barriers of race and class are broken down when people enter into union with Jesus Christ. Those in need were the Jewish Christians in and around Jerusalem. The home church of the whole Christian movement – the church in Jerusalem where it all started was a poor and a persecuted church at this time. And Paul’s collection was being gathered from the predominantly Gentile churches of Asia Minor and Europe. For Paul the collection was a practical manifestation of the fact that the enmity between Jew and Gentile had been destroyed in Christ as he discusses fully in Ephesians 2.

Thirdly, for Paul it is clear that how the churches use their money is a kind of spiritual barometer for where they are at in their walk with God. Paul uses the Corinthian attitude to the collection as a way of seeing where the Corinthian church is at spiritually.

Eight Principles of Christian Giving

The problem that has prompted Paul to write 2 Corinthians 8-9 is that although the Corinthians were keen at the beginning to get involved in this collection, they have since reneged on their promises and seem to have stopped collecting money. As Paul writes to remind them about it and encourage them to carry on and complete the collection, he touches on a number of principles for Christian giving that remain very relevant for Christians today. In fact, I think I’ve found eight principles of Christian giving in this passage. Our time is short here tonight so we’ll speed through these principles quite quickly, but to get a rounded picture of Paul’s teaching on Christian giving, we need to keep all of these principles together and in some cases in balance with each other.

The first principle we find is the passage is that Christian giving is Generous Giving. In verses 1 to 3, it is obvious that Paul commends the giving of the Macedonian churches to the Corinthians. Being generous is a good thing. That much is very clear. Just in passing, if you’re wondering who these Macedonian churches were that Paul mentions, they would include Thessalonian and Philippian congregations that three of Paul’s other New Testament letters were addressed to. But Paul is clear that the Macedonians were very generous in their giving and Paul holds this generosity up as an example and an encouragement to the much wealthier Corinthians. He says of the Macedonians that their joy and their extreme poverty “welled up in rich generosity”. One commentator calls this strange mix of joy and poverty producing generosity as being like an acid and an alkali being mixed – two opposites – coming together in a chemical reaction to produce a new thing – salt. So our giving should be generous.

The second principle we find is that Christian giving is Sacrificial Giving. Again this is covered in the first four or five verses in the passage. Paul commends not only the generous spirit of the Macedonians, but a generosity that was sacrificial in nature. “Out of the most severe trial” they gave Paul says. Out of not just poverty, but out of “extreme poverty” they gave. They gave as much as they were able and beyond their ability. The Macedonians didn’t put what was easy money into the collection, they put money in that cost them a lot. They couldn’t afford it, but they did it anyway. That’s the kind of sacrificial giving Paul commends here.

How can Christians give in this generous and sacrificial way? The third principle begins to fill in the full-orbed picture Paul is painting here. Christian giving is Faithful Giving – it flows out of living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The kind of giving that the Macedonian churches had achieved was only possible because of their relationship with Christ. Paul’s clear about that in verse 5. “They gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us” Paul writes. They had their priorities right. They were dedicated to the Lord’s service. And the fruit of this was their amazing giving to the Lord’s work.

The fourth principle is that Christian giving is Committed Giving. In verse 6, Paul is really only reminding the Corinthians to be committed to what they had already promised they were going to do. He points out to them that a year previously they were the first to get involved. And so calls on them to continue in that commitment. You’ve started well so “Now finish the work” he exhorts them in verse 11. It’s no accident that many charities encourage us to give a small amount every month rather than one-off donations. That’s because regular, committed giving that the charities can plan ahead with is more useful than not knowing if there’s going to funds there tomorrow or not, depending on ad hoc donations. Commitment in our giving to the Lord’s work is a sign of our commitment to the Lord.

The fifth principle is that Christian giving is Enthusiastic Giving. God wants everything we do for him to be done enthusiastically. As Paul writes in the next chapter – “God loves a cheerful giver”. Look at the attitude of the Macedonians that Paul mentions. In verse 4, their enthusiasm is evident. They “urgently pleaded” to get involved in giving to the collection. They counted giving not as a duty but as a privilege! They regarded it as a grace and not a burden to help their fellow Christians. When we give enthusiastically, not only does this give us a lift knowing we’re helping others, but it must give the recipients a lift too, knowing that what they received is not begrudged or given half-heartedly, but is a genuine love token.

The sixth principle is that Christian giving is to be Free and Loving Giving. Paul makes it very clear that he is not ordering the Corinthians to give, although he had apostolic authority to do that if he had felt that was the right thing to do. But he doesn’t do that. He says it plainly in verse 8 – “I am not commanding you.” Christian giving is not a new law that we have to obey out of fear of punishment. How could it be? There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, as Romans 8:1 says. We are not saved by our good works. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, but as Ephesians 2:10 says we are saved for good works. Our works, including our acts of generous giving, flow out of the solid salvation we have in Christ. So instead Paul encourages them to give freely, because they want to, not because they have to. There is no “must” but there should be a thankful “want to”. He encourages them to act not out of duty but out of love. In his great chapter on love in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul wrote: “Love is patient, love is kind...Love never fails.” Now here in verse 8 Paul regards giving as an obvious manifestation of love: “I want to test the sincerity of your love,” Paul says. Of course that doesn’t mean Paul won’t point out that they should want to do the right thing as Christians, but he leaves it up to them to make the right choice freely and in love.

The seventh principle is that Christian giving is Thankful and Christ-like Giving. Some of the other principles are about the attitude we might seek to have in our giving but this one is about the motivation for our giving. According to Paul we are to give to Christ and to others out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us. In verse 9, Paul says “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.” Christ gave up everything for our benefit, by coming to earth and accepting his mission as God’s Messiah to save the world, a mission of obedience all the way to death on the cross for sinners. Paul’s saying to the Corinthians, since Christ has done so much for us, this should spur us on to do what by comparison is so little for our brothers and sisters in need. It’s also worth mentioning in passing here that this verse is a clear statement – among the clearest in Paul’s letters – that Paul regarded Jesus Christ as no less than God become a human being, God incarnate. There’s no other meaning for the phrase that Christ “became poor” that makes sense. When did Christ become poor in this life? He was born in a stable and lived as an ordinary working man his whole life. He was never rich from Bethlehem to Calvary. So Paul’s statement must mean that Christ has pre-existence before his birth. It must mean Christ is God. As the Christmas carol puts it: “He came down to earth from heaven, who is God and Lord of all.”

The eighth and final principle is that Christian giving is to be Practical and Fair Giving. Paul makes it clear in verse 13 to 15 that he doesn’t expect the Corinthians to do the impossible or to act unwisely. And so although our giving is to be generous, sacrificial and enthusiastic, it is not to cross over the line and become foolish giving. It is not to be at the expense of being wise, realistic and proportionate giving. Our giving is to be proportionate, in line with what we have, but also with awareness of what others can also give. In verse 12, they are to give according to what they have and not according to what they don’t have. And in verse 13 Paul makes the point that the idea is not that the Corinthians give so much that they end up themselves in need from other people, or even that those they are helping end up better off than them. Instead, the ideal is equality between churches. They have to be wise about their giving in other words, so that everyone’s needs are met by each other.

Application

This passage surely challenges all of us. Each of us can look at his or her own attitude to giving and the principles shown in this passage and see where we stand in comparison to Paul’s picture of Christian giving. Ask yourself: Am I giving generously, sacrificially, out of my faith in Christ? Am I giving with commitment and enthusiasm, freely because I want to, and out of love for those my giving will help? Am I giving out of a thankful spirit for what Christ has done for me? And am I being practical and wise in my giving? Am I making sure that I’m not being so generous that I’m putting myself in debt or putting my family in need? Only each of us can answer these questions for ourselves. If the answer to each of these questions is “yes” then our giving will be a powerful witness and a useful tool as we work to advance God’s kingdom. And we will be able to say in the words of the hymn:

Take my silver and my gold;
not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use
every power as Thou shalt choose.
Take my love, my Lord, I pour
at Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself, and I will be
ever, only, all for Thee.

May it be so. Amen.

The Principles and Prejudices of Christian Worship

2011-05-18T20:14:00.001+01:00

I recently been reading three very different books about Christian worship that have in their own way been beneficial and challenging to me. To two of them I am happy to give very positive reviews; the third has some good material, but is also problematic. The three books in question are the following:

Worship by the Book
Edited by D. A. Carson
Zondervan 2002

Worship Matters
By Bob Kauflin
Crossway 2008

The Lord's Service
By Jeffrey J. Meyers
Canon Press 2003

Worship by the Book is a collection of four essays on worship, each one is of some value. They are 'Worship Under the Word' by Carson himself, 'Following in Cranmer's Footsteps' by Mark Ashton, 'Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom' by R. Kent Hughes and 'Reformed Worship in the Global City' by Timothy Keller.

Carson's essay is a masterful overview of a theology of worship and is worth the price of the book by itself. Ashton's essay is basically a call to pay heed to the liturgical tradition handed down from Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in particular and will appeal to those of a traditional bent in worship matters. Hughes's essay says much that is helpful for all forms of Christian worship. Keller's essay attempts to deal with the tension between Reformed worship and dealing with today's postmodern people in big cities like New York.

The book is also useful because it contains a number of liturgies or orders of service for actual services in the congregations of each of these pastors (except Carson I think). Overall, it is a very useful book on worship with a balance between the theoretical and the practical.

Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin of Sovereign Grace Ministries is an excellent book. In some respects it is a more specialist book as it is aimed at 'worship leaders' or music leaders, yet it is actually an excellent primer on worship and even theology generally. Kauflin offers a working definition of what a good worship leader is and does:

A faithful worship leader
magnifies the greatness of God in Jesus Christ
through the power of the Holy Spirit
by skilfully combining God's Word with music,
thereby motivating the gathered church
to proclaim the gospel,
to cherish God's presence,
and to live for God's glory.

He then spends a chapter dealing with each line of this definition. The second half of the book is a series of practical chapters of guidance to worship leaders in the churches. This book is thoroughly recommended.

The Lord's Service by Jeffrey J. Meyers is a call to a very traditional, high church form of worship, which the author calls 'covenant renewal worship'. While Meyers makes some good points about the importance of not disregarding tradition - I liked his quoting of Chesterton that tradition is 'the democracy of the dead' - ultimately the book failed to convince. There are countless times where Meyers pleads that high church worship should not be rejected just because it resembles Rome or Canterbury. This may be fair enough, but he largely fails to show why it should be accepted either. Time and again he appeals to Old Testament passages to do with Temple worship to support his case. However, as the likes of Carson would point out, we are not under that covenant. Meyers also thinks that only the ordained pastor should lead worship or preach (and certainly administer the sacraments). He keeps saying that the minister represents Christ or God to the congregation, but he fails to give any solid exegetical evidence for this, and this seems to set up an 'us and them' of clergy and laity or 'priest and people' that the New Testament, it seems to me, knows little of.

In the end, Meyers sounds more like a Roman Catholic or High Anglican than he does a Presbyterian. It would certainly be useful for many churches to take some of the more traditional liturgy elements into modern worship services without throwing out the strengths of modern worship (which Meyers simply cannot see).

It should also be pointed out that Meyers is part of the Federal Vision movement and it seems to me this fits with his worship views, which are to be frank, very unusual for a Presbyterian minister, and much closer to Canterbury than they are to Edinburgh or Geneva.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

2011-05-16T21:29:00.000+01:00

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen
Bethany House Publishers 1991

I found this profoundly pastoral and thought-provoking book a very useful and emotional read. It is a book filled with the spirit of grace - true New Testament grace - and though I have never experienced the kind of spiritual abuse outlined in the book by many people, I found it of benefit in many ways. Reading it, I was saddened and angered that some so-called Christian leaders could act towards those in their care in such ways and justify the abuse through some kind of warped view that because they are in church leadership they are somehow above criticism for their actions.

In the course of the book, the authors deal with a number of problems that are all too real in many churches. Some of these are things like pressure to obey the leadership, not because it is biblical teaching, but because it is what the leaders say is to be done. Or the subtle message that to be a "good Christian" you must do A, B and C (which might be good things but not necessarily biblical commandments) or avoid doing X, Y and Z (which are nowhere forbidden in the Bible), thereby going beyond the Bible's requirements and ending up like clumsy pharisees. Or that to question the leadership is to question God. Such things rob the people of God who live under such leadership of their joy and turn Christian service into guilt-ridden chores. Let us not pretend that any church can face such dangers unless the leadership is on its guard and open to the correction of God's Word and the Holy Spirit themselves.

As I said, I have not experienced the kinds of excesses described in the book from my own pastors and elders, who have often been models of good leadership, but there must be few churches where some of the things described here exist from time to time at some kind of low grade level. Mostly it occurs as unintentional and well-meaning behaviour that is thoughtless, but no less difficult to deal with for those on the receiving end. It is when such behaviour becomes a pattern that it becomes serious enough to be called abuse that must be rooted out of the body of Christ like a cancer.

This book is highly recommended for Christians and ex-Christians who have left the church because of how they have been treated. It would also be read with profit by anyone in a leadership role within the church.

The Beliefs of Christian Reformed Church

2011-05-07T19:47:00.000+01:00

The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) seems to me to be the kind of body in theology and practice that most evangelicals in the Church of Scotland would like our own church to be.

This page is a summary of their beliefs and it sounds about right to me. http://ow.ly/4Ptm0

The Cross of Jesus

2011-04-21T23:09:00.000+01:00

The Cross of Jesus
Leon Morris
Paternoster Press 1988

In the run up to Easter this year, I've read several books that focus on the cross of Christ, which seems a very suitable area of study and reflection in this season of Lent and the preparation for Easter that comes to a climax this weekend with Good Friday tomorrow and then Easter Day on Sunday. Of the various books I've read, this little gem by the great Australian New Testament scholar, Leon Morris, is one of the best.

It was fascinating to read Morris's book just after Holmes's recent book The Wondrous Cross. I could hardly believe how closely the thoughts of Morris shadow those of Holmes. Perhaps it is because Leon Morris has impeccable evangelical credentials that the thoughts are somehow easier to accept from him, but essentially he says the same thing as Holmes does. He argues that all the main theories of the atonement are aspects of the truth and appeal at different times to more or less people. He argues that no one theory (i.e. neither Christus Victor or Penal Substitution) contains all the truth about the atonement or what Christ's death achieved in terms of salvation.

In fact, in a passage that could have come from Holmes's book, Morris writes:

Despite the centrality of the cross from the earliest days of the church, there has never been agreement on the way the cross saves us. The New Testament has a great deal to say on the subject of salvation through the death of Christ, but it never explains precisely how that death works. [emphasis added]

He goes on to say that there are three basic views of the atonement and all three are true. In simple terms, Morris describes them as:

The Bearing of penalty
The Demonstration of God's love
The Victory over evil

Morris then goes on to describe a number of other achievements that he sees in the cross. He points out that in the cross is the answer to such modern problems as the apparent futility of life, ignorance, loneliness, sickness and death. These chapters form the main section of the book.

Along with Morris's two other classic books on the cross and the atonement, namely The Cross in the New Testament and The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, this little book of only 118 pages is well worth acquiring and reading for any Christian. It is not a difficult read, though it is a very thought-provoking one.

Let's Study Galatians

2011-04-18T23:12:00.000+01:00

Let's Study Galatians
Derek Thomas
Banner of Truth Trust 2004

The Let's Study series from Banner of Truth aims to provide a basic exposition/commentary suitable for individuals or groups studying a book of the Bible. It is less detailed than the Bible Speaks Today series from IVP or the Welwyn Commentaries from Evangelical Press, but is broadly aimed at the same readership. It may have more of an application emphasis than the other series, which makes it ideal as a guide for busy house group leaders or Bible study leaders.

The exposition of Galatians is by Derek Thomas and is a useful guide to this important letter of the apostle Paul. Thomas takes the Old Perspective on Paul (as one might expect from a book published by Banner) but does interact with the New Perspective at a basic level. Having read Galatians again with his book as my guide, I failed to see any significant problem with an Old Perspective reading of Paul's letter.

The chapters are short and the Bible passages are printed at the beginning of each chapter in the ESV. This made it ideal to read during the commute to work each day.

The book also benefits from questions at the back designed for group study. The six chapters of Galatians are helpfully divided into 13 studies. Although the book claims that there is enough material for 26 studies, I would question taking the letter at that pace for most groups. Even if someone is studying Galatians as an individual the questions listed at the back would be ideal to ponder to really get to grips with the book. Having now read through the book, I'm going to go back and read Galatians again with the questions in mind.

Definitely recommended, though I would probably go with John Stott's book in the BST series before choosing this book, and I think that comes with a study guide for groups too.

The Church as Resistance Movement

2011-04-15T21:26:00.001+01:00

There are many ways of looking at God, the Church, the World and our place in the whole shebang. One of the most interesting is to examine things in military or warlike terms. Certainly it is entirely justified scripturally. You see there is a battle, a great cosmic war going on right now. The battle is not between nations on this earth, it is between God and Satan, between good and evil, and it is a total war in which no quarter is asked or given. It is a fight to the death. Paul alludes to it in Ephesians chapter 6, verses 10 to 17. It also helps us to understand the spiritual truths that lie behind much of the Old Testament – the invasion of Canaan, the battles with the Philistines and so on.

The Church of Christ is an army. We are in a fight against evil inside us and around us all the time. Our enemies are primarily spiritual enemies – the powers of darkness that serve Satan – though not exclusively so for Satan works through human agents too. Like all armies we fight on because we know our cause is just and our victory certain. But unlike all other armies, we have the testimony of God to back up our belief. Sometimes, in times like ours, when the world seems to be overrun with God’s enemies and the Church seems a small band, the church operates more like resistance movement than an army. Maybe the "church" - the gathered out ones - would be better called "the Jesus Resistance" or "the Christian Resistance".

In western society, we now must almost operate like an underground movement in territory occupied by the Enemy. But we can be effective nevertheless. Our weapons will work here just as well as anywhere else. Each kind deed we do is an act of sabotage undermining Satan’s power. Each time we witness of Christ, or hand out a tract, or preach a sermon, we are dealing in utterly subversive activity that can change this world around.

Our church meetings are where the Resistance Leader’s orders are given out to the army. Our Bible Study is where we break our leader’s codes to get the message straight. We resist the enemy until our Commander returns and then the War will end in Victory. The key battle was fought 2,000 years ago at Calvary and already won by our side.

Viewed in this way, the staid and boring image of the Church is turned around. Maybe if we took these kind of imaginative leaps, then God and the Church would be something young people might find attractive, exciting and relevant again. Because we need their energy and their idealism right now, so the fight can go on in the years ahead.

Resistance Aims and Objectives

If we were to compare the Christian church with a Resistance movement, we might identify the following as our key resistance aims and objectives.

1. To glorify and enjoy the one true God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2. To spread the truth that Jesus is the true King of the world and only Saviour of humankind.

3. To undermine the work of Satan and the Principalities and Powers currently usurping Jesus Christ's authority and rule in the world.

4. To work in love to increase justice, righteousness and peace in the world.

5. To rescue and recruit more members of this Resistance movement who will give allegiance to King Jesus and confess that he has been raised from the dead to rule heaven and earth forever.

The Wondrous Cross

2011-04-14T23:25:00.000+01:00

The Wondrous Cross
Stephen R. Holmes
Paternoster 2007

The Wondrous Cross is a short book which tries to steer a middle course between affirming the traditional evangelical doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) and modern attacks on this doctrine and the promotion of alternative theologies. Holmes seeks to do this by arguing that the penal substitution model is merely one of many "metaphors" or "stories" that the Church has and still tells to convey the mysterious truth that Christ died to save us.

I enjoyed the reading the book. It is well written. It is clear. It is fair to all sides and has a calm and peaceful spirit. "Irenic to a fault" was how another reviewer accurately summed it up. But then - as that reviewer also said - Holmes can afford to be like this when PSA is just one of many helpful ways of talking about the cross. If, on the other hand, PSA is the objective truth and the foundation for all the other ways of viewing the cross, then it is difficult to be quite so calm when the truth is undermined, especially when done by those within the evangelical camp.

Personally, I find Christus Victor immensely helpful in tying in the cross with the incarnation and Christ's earthly ministry. The Lord was battling the evils of sin, death and the devil from the moment he was born of the Virgin Mary through to when he cried out "It is finished" on the cross and died. But without the objective reality of penal substitution in the cross, we cannot really explain how the cross works. The truth is that Christ defeated evil on the cross by expiating the guilt of sin, satisfying the justice of death and propitiating the wrath of God - and by so doing he liberated us from the hold of the devil. Does that mean all the different facets of the atonement need to be stressed? Does that mean that none are to more privileged than any other? Emphatically not! Here I think Holmes goes too far.

One reviewer praised Holmes for basing his theological conclusions on exegesis. Actually I found his interaction with Scripture one of the weakest parts of the book. I know it is a short volume barely more than a hundred pages, but he really does not do justice to the biblical texts. If he had, I think that in examining the biblical evidence he would find a preponderance of material teaching that Christ died in our place (a substitute) and that Christ's death was a judgment and punishment on sin (penal).

To argue otherwise is like saying that a recipe is just one way of describing what a cake is. Other ways might include the cafe menu, a compliment from a happy diner to the baker, a restaurant review or a nutritional report. True these are other ways of talking about the cake, but without the recipe, there would be no cake to list on the menu, or eat and enjoy, or write about, or analyse for its nutritional content. That's how I feel about PSA and the other ways of looking at the cross. There are many ways to talk about what the cross achieves, but really only one way to talk about how it achieves it. Holmes however seems to think the recipe for the cake is acceptable to talk about, but no more fundamental than any of the other things. But unfortunately for Holmes, as the proverb goes, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Christus Victor

2011-04-14T22:18:00.002+01:00

Christus Victor
Gustaf Aulen
Wipf and Stock Publishers 2003
(Originally published 1931)

I suspect Christus Victor is one of those Christian classics that more people have talked about than actually read. It is often referred to as the classic book on the theory of the atonement that bears the name Christus Victor, which is essentially that the on the cross Christ defeated and triumphed over all principalities and powers including sin, death, hell and Satan.

Aulen was a Swedish historical theologian in the Lutheran tradition. His thesis in this book is that the dominant "Latin" theory of the atonement that finds its key exponents in Anselm and Aquinas has got it wrong. The Latin theory is similar in many respects to the evangelical Protestant view of the atonement known as penal substitution - that Christ was punished in our place on the cross which enables God to forgive us and accept us into this people.

Aulen goes back to an earlier tradition found in the Church Fathers, and which he also believed was taught by Luther, though not by subsequent Lutherans, which he calls the dramatic or classical view of the atonement. This is the view now known as Christus Victor - that Christ is conqueror, fighting and defeating his enemies through his death and resurrection.

It must be said that the Church Fathers did not all have the same view, nor were their views exactly the same as Aulen's. In the early writers, the dominant theory was probably that Christ defeated evil by paying a ransom to the devil. Aulen moves away from this idea. Rightly so. He sees in Luther the best advocate of this point of view. However it remains controversial whether Aulen actually reads Luther correctly or fairly (or at least completely).

The book is not easy reading, but I found it rewarding. There are few evangelicals who would dispute that Christus Victor is a biblical idea and certainly part of what the cross achieved. Some of us would question if this is all the Bible teaches about the cross however. Aulen fails to explain exactly how the cross works to defeat evil and liberate mankind. The strength of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is precisely that it focuses on the how question. Perhaps when the two theories are held together - one focusing on the how, the other focusing on the why - we may get a more rounded picture of the New Testament's teaching. For raising the issue at all, and in such a short and relatively accessible book, we are all in Aulen's debt, even though his claims are in the end unproven. I tend to agree with Henri Blocher whose article "Agnus Victor" seems to me to demolish a lot of Aulen's arguement. Blocher argues that though both Christus Victor and PSA ideas are present in Scripture, the primary idea is PSA and only through PSA can Christ's victory be explained.

The Climax of the Covenant

2011-04-07T18:08:00.001+01:00

The Climax of the Covenant
N. T. Wright
T & T Clark 1991

This is a very technical book written about 20 years ago by the New Testament theologian, N. T. Wright. The Climax of the Covenant is a collection of different essays relating more or less to the theme of Christ and the Law, particularly in Pauline theology. As such it lacks some coherence, but each of the essays is of interest in its own way as Wright deals with aspects of a number of New Testament texts.

The book is difficult to follow in places. Although I know some Greek basics, this book requires quite a lot of proficiency in the language. Almost all the quotations from the New Testament text are produced in Greek without English translation or even transliteration.

For most readers, probably more would be gained by reading some of Wright's other works, such as What St Paul Really Said or Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision or any of this commentaries on the New Testament.

Surprised by Hope

2011-04-03T19:57:00.001+01:00

Surprised by Hope
Tom Wright
SPCK 2007

Surprised by Hope is the second in what is currently a loose trilogy of popular level books on Christianity that began with Simply Christian and continued in Virtue Reborn, and I don't think it's too strong to say that this is one of those books that I think is going to profoundly affect my Christian thinking for years to come. I think this book is Wright at his best. Quite simply, it is magnificent, covering so much ground that everything from the second coming to church practices at Easter and through to global politics is touched on at some point within the book.

The first section of the book called "Setting the Scene" deals with what Wright perceives as a weakness in (at least the Western) Church's focus since the Enlightenment on "life after death" as disembodied souls in heaven. Wright is emphatic that this is not the Christian hope according to the New Testament. Actually such a view, which Wright points out is prevalent in a lot of our hymns dating from the 19th century in particular, owes more to Greek philosophy than it does to the teachings of Jesus or his apostles. Wright then gives the orthodox Christian view of Christ's bodily resurrection, which was a revolutionary belief since Jews had previously only thought that there would be a resurrection at the end of times involving everyone, not the resurrection of one man in the middle of human history.

The second section of the book deals with what would normally be considered eschatology or the theology of the end times. There is so much in this rich section of the book that would challenge, encourage, possibly persuade and sometimes disappoint (but at least cause to better think through the issues) any thinking Christian. He is clear that the Christian hope is bodily existence in a future renewed heaven and earth and goes through some of the key passages that teach this in the New Testament.

His view of hell may raise a few eyebrows however since Wright appears to steer a course midway between annihilationism (that the wicked simply cease to exist after the final judgment) and the traditional view that they suffer unending torment in hell. Though the section is not argued in much detail and remains sketchy, Wright seems to argue that the wicked will continue to exist in hell forever, but what remains of them will no longer be "human" in any meaningful sense. I thought this was a strange view that doesn't seem to be shared by anyone else. On the other hand, Wright is firm on his view that purgatory does not exist.

The third section of the book deals with putting resurrection into practice. Wright's argument is convincing that if we are Jesus people, people of the resurrection, and the church is the first fruits of the new heaven and earth to come, then this must affect how we live now. Some of this section is quite political. For Wright there is a strong connection between faith and doing good - including in the political realm. This is an outworking of the doctrine that Jesus is Lord (and hence not Caesar and all his representatives today). I was especially impressed by Wright's argument that every good work we do now somehow is a foretaste of "heaven" (i.e. the new world that will come when earth and heaven come together again forever), and somehow will find a place in the world to come. A key text in this respect is 1 Corinthians 15:58 - "Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain."

The book concludes with a section on how Wright's fresh look at the resurrection should affect the worship and mission of our churches.

Although some of us would criticise Wright's focus on sin in corporate (in both senses!) and political terms (and not on personal sins against God), it is possible to argue that this is merely because this is a focus the church needs to hear and not necessarily because Wright seeks to downplay personal sins. In fact I think Wright can be given the benefit of the doubt in this case. There is so much good stuff in this book, I recommend it warmly to every Christian. I cannot see how any of us would read this book and not come away with a fresh sense of purpose to live out our resurrection hope in this world. Highly recommended.

N. T. Wright on the Atonement

2011-03-30T17:09:00.000+01:00

Interesting article on Theologia: "N. T. Wright on the Atonement" http://ow.ly/4pDFE

Atonement Matters

2011-03-27T21:24:00.001+01:00

Atonement Matters
Tom Barnes
Evangelical Press

This book is subtitled A call to declare the biblical view of the atonement and its focus is on the Calvinist doctrine variously known as "limited atonement", "particular redemption" or "definite atonement" (this last being the author's preferred name). Although it is often described as the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect, in fact this is a rather clumsy way of putting it. A more nuanced view would be to say that Christ died with the intention of actually saving only the elect. Many Calvinists would not say that this is all Christ's death achieves nor would they rule out Christ dying for everyone (including the non-elect) in some sense.

Unfortunately, this book does not seem to me to be written with this balance in mind. Instead of merely criticising the General Atonement theory of Arminianism - that Christ died in exactly the same way for everyone - he goes further and also criticises all "soft Calvinistic" views as well. In the case of Amyraldianism, such criticism might be reasonable. After all, it is very illogical to say that God decreed both to save everyone if they believe conditionally and to save the elect unconditionally. My gripe is that Barnes also criticising the classic formula first put forward in the Middle Ages by Peter Lombard, which is that Christ's death was sufficient to save everyone and efficient to save the elect. I think Barnes criticism here is a step too far. He seems to be unaware that Calvinists of the stamp of Hodge and particularly W. G. T. Shedd have defended this formula.

Barnes downplays the importance of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for being able to make any kind of free offer of the gospel and also for taking a number of biblical texts that seem to support the general atonement theory seriously.

At times his view seems to go beyond penal substitution and almost becomes like a mercantile transfer in nature, as if Christ paid so much in debt to procure the salvation of exactly that number of people. The truth is somewhat different. Christ's suffering would have been to same had God decreed to save one single person or to save everyone who ever lived.

Another serious criticism is that Barnes has a tendency to quote merely from secondary sources on his opponents - and secondary sources that share his own views. Examples of this occur throughout the book, but examples that stood out were in the sections refuting Amyraldianism and also when interacting with Lombard's position. It is in my view problematic at best to only quote from a view's opponents in explaining a position the writer also disagrees with. For one thing there must be some doubt if the secondary sources have got it right, or got it in proper balance; for another, there must be at least some suspicion that a view's opponents do not put the best argument for that view forward.

Having said all that, the book is much more impressive when combating the view that Christ died for everyone without exception and in such a way that actually saves no one, but leaves everyone potentially savable. My problem with the argument is that the only two options are not Christ died for everyone in exactly the same sense or Christ died only for the elect in any sense. There is a third way: Christ died in one sense only for the elect and in another sense also for the non-elect. It seems to this reviewer that this third way is more in keeping with the totality of scriptural data.

This third way has an impressive pedigree, going back I would argue at least as far as Lombard, and is also reflected in the Reformed confessions and in later Reformed writers such as Charles Hodge and W. G. T. Shedd.

A modern book taking the same third way would arguably been of more value than Atonement Matters without losing anything Barnes is trying to protect. In summary, this book is worth reading, but not worth buying to read. Download the relevant chapters of Hodge from the Internet or buy a copy of Shedd's Calvinism Pure and Mixed instead.

The Blue Parakeet

2011-03-07T20:51:00.000Z

The Blue Parakeet
Scot McKnight
Zondervan 2008

This book is subtitled "Rethinking How You Read the Bible" and that subtitle tells us much more about what the book is about than the title itself. The Blue Parakeet must be one of the most bizarre titles for a theology book I've ever come across. The title refers to an incident he remembers when a blue parakeet flew into his garden having escaped from its cage. McKnight uses this as a metaphor for when we find a verse in the Bible that just doesn't fit with what we think the Bible teaches.

McKnight's argument is that the way most Christians read the Bible is that we all pick and choose which parts apply to us today and which parts no longer apply. McKnight recognises this and approves of it. He points out however that this is not how many evangelicals talk about the Bible. He criticises fellow evangelicals who are more concerned with getting their doctrine of the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy right than actually practising what God says in the Bible in their lives.

McKnight says that we have to view the Bible as a story of God's dealings with his people. He helpfully breaks down the whole biblical narrative into five key sections:

Creating Eikons (Theme is "Oneness") - Genesis 1 & 2 - how humanity is created and lives in unity with God and with each other .
Cracked Eikons (Theme is "Otherness") - Genesis 3 to 11 - how sin enters the world and spreads, dividing humanity from God and from each other.
Covenant Community (Theme is "Otherness Expanding") - Genesis 12 to Malachi - how God calls a people to be separate from the rest of humanity and calls Israel to be a new community that takes his message of salvation to the world.
Christ the perfect Eikon redeems humanity to restore oneness with God and with each other (Theme is "Oneness in Christ") - Matthew to Revelation 20.
Consummation - Revelation 21 & 22 - Restoration of perfect oneness between God and humanity forever.

McKnight is less clear, in my view, how we are to tell which parts of the Bible apply to us, though he makes a good point that ultimately the Bible is not something we learn for itself, but rather a way in which we are supposed to get to know God better and develop our relationship with him.

The last part of McKnight's book takes a specific issue that divides the church - the role of women in teaching ministry and church leadership - and seeks to use what he has discussed previously to find out what we should take from the Bible and apply to our churches in the 21st century. McKnight is an egalitarian - he believes all church offices should be open to women.

The book deserves a reading, though it could have been clearer (I would argue) in how taking the Bible as story should guide us in deciding which parts are still applicable to us, which parts are applicable in a literal or figurative way, and which parts are no longer binding on Christians.

I plan to give it a second reading in the hope of gaining a better understanding of how to apply McKnight's groundwork to real situations.

My Father's Death

2011-01-05T19:54:00.004Z

James Love Miller (1929-2011)

My father died peacefully but suddenly in the early hours of 1st January 2011. He was 81 years old. My mother and the rest of the family are all deeply mourning his loss. The date of the funeral has now been set for Monday, 17th January 2011.

James Love Miller was born in Glasgow on 3rd October 1929 and he was the second youngest of the eight children of Thomas Miller (1890-1973) and Mary Miller née Bryant (1891-1955). Coincidentally he shared his birthday with my mother though she was born in a different year. He was baptised at Guthrie Memorial Congregational Church in Calton on 22 October 1929.

He grew up in the Hutchesontown area of the Gorbals in Naburn Street and attended Strathbungo Secondary School, though his school years were much disrupted by the Second World War.

After the war, he was called up for National Service and entered the Royal Air Force. He was an armourer and served at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire (the same airfield where the Dambusters Raid flew from in 1943).

After being honourably discharged from the RAF he worked in several jobs including his old job at a Ham Curers in Glassford Street and then at Kelvin Construction in Maryhill.

The family moved from the Gorbals to Maryhill and a new house at Langa Street.

Later he moved to his main career as a civil servant for the Ministry of Defence at HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, where he worked doing work that cannot be disclosed here for reasons of national security. He worked there through till his retirement in 1992.

Aside from work my dad was a very social man and a committed Protestant. He was a member of the Church of Scotland, of the Orange Lodge and the Black Preceptory. It was at an Orange Lodge social dance that he met my mother Christine McCulloch in 1967. They married on 23 October 1971 and then moved in to her her house in Abercromby Street and then in 1978 to a newer and larger house in Bridgeton. They have four children - me and my three sisters. We are a close family and though he later stopped going to lodge meetings he was always involved at church with the rest of us and he had a quiet but real faith and he attended church more regularly in later years.

He was a lifelong Clyde FC supporter and used to travel regularly to home and away games although his time for this decreased in later years especially when Clyde moved away from their traditional home at Shawfield Stadium. He also was very knowledgeable about horse racing and enjoyed betting - especially when he won!

His main other interests were watching films and television, doing DIY (which he was still doing up till last October when he helped me with my garden shed), and spending time with his wife and family.

I am immensely proud of my father and how he helped bring me and my three sisters up. Above all he was my friend and I will miss his wisdom, his humour and the affection he always had for all of us so very much.

A Molinist's Soteriology

2010-12-27T11:00:00.000Z

An interesting piece called "A Molinist’s Soteriology" on the Sententias website: http://ow.ly/3uGc5

Merry Christmas

2010-12-25T11:42:00.000Z

Merry Christmas everyone. May you have a blessed and joyful day as we celebrate the Saviour's birth once again.

Christmas Eve

2010-12-24T10:51:00.000Z

Having been out for some last minute Christmas shopping last night at Braehead Shopping Centre it struck me how sad it is if the only thing we take away from Christmas is a pile of presents received and an overdraft for the presents given.

Great though the festivities are, they are worthless compared to knowing Jesus Christ.

Christmas Eve is a strange day. The last day of advent. The final day of anticipation. And yet it is strange. Strange to be anticipating the birth of a child that already happened two thousand years ago. Yet in a sense isn't that what we do each year? Really we're only anticipating the day of celebration of it, but as we do that in some way we do go back to Bethlehem and imagine the events we read about every year in the Gospels.

And aren't we filled with that sense of awe and wonder and thankfulness that "He came down to earth from heaven / who is God and Lord of all." What greater love could God show for us? "Sacred infant, all divine / what a tender love was thine / thus to come from highest bliss / down to such a world as this."

Tonight, in the freezing cold and the darkness, all over the country, all over the world, his followers will gather once again to mark the start of his birthday celebrations. If you can manage, why not go along yourself to a church near you and join in later today?

Lectio Divina

2010-12-23T13:26:00.000Z

An interesting piece about the Lectio Divina method of reading Scripture (though this is from a Roman Catholic perspective): http://ow.ly/3tEmx

Mary's Song

2010-12-21T22:53:00.000Z

I've just been reading the Magnificat, Mary's song of praise in Luke 1:46-55. It's a a traditional reading associated with the advent season.

This portion of Scripture takes place after the angel Gabriel has visited Mary and told her what God is going to do through her getting pregnant and giving birth to the long-awaited Messiah, and after Mary has gone to stay with her cousin Elizabeth who is expecting a child also, who we later discover is John the Baptist. The two women are well aware that God is about to do great and mighty things through them - and through the babies they will bring into the world.

Reading Mary's song it sounds very like one of the Old Testament psalms. It is one of the great songs of praise found in the Bible.

Consider the power and beauty of the words with me.

"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (verses 46-47)

Mary praises God, the God she has presumably known and loved her whole life. The God of her fathers, and her father's fathers. The God of the Old Testament. Yahweh. The covenant God of Israel. It is this God that she "magnifies" or "praises" or "glorifies". Not only does he praise him, she rejoices in him. One of the sure signs that our relationship with God is on the right track is when we actually enjoy being in his presence, in reading his Word, in prayer and in worship. As the Shorter Catechism put it, it is when we glorify him and enjoy him that we are fulfilling the main purpose of our lives.

"for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (verses 48-49)

The song then goes on with a number of reasons why Mary is so moved to praise God and rejoice. Mary realises that God is her Saviour and that he is now acting in the decisive period of redemptive history to bring about salvation through the child Mary is carrying in her womb. We might say in passing that the fact that Mary herself knew she was in need of a Saviour shows how way off some Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary's sinlessness. Only those in trouble need rescuing after all.

The remainder of the song from verses 50-55 is one statement after another about what God has done, is doing and will do for his people. He shows "mercy" (verse 50), and strength (verse 51). And how we need both of these divine attributes in our Saviour? Without mercy he would not be inclined to save. Without strength he would not be able. But blessed be God for he is both merciful to save and powerful to save.

In his saving action he turns the world upside down. He scatters the proud, he brings the mighty down to earth, while he raises up the poor and the humble. He feeds his servants, but sends other away empty-handed. This is a true assessment of the very different King and kingdom that this represents compared to the puppet king Herod and the Roman overlords who then ruled the world. In God's decisive action in sending the Messiah to be Israel's true king and the Saviour and Lord of the world, Mary knew nothing would ever be the same again.

As we come to the climax of the advent season, maybe we will catch a fresh glimpse of God's glory, God's saving plan, and God's love for his people, and make Mary's words our own (as Timothy Dudley-Smith paraphrased them): "Tell out my soul, the greatness of the Lord; in God my Saviour shall my heart rejoice!")

A Reformed Critique of the New Perspective

2010-12-13T14:45:00.000Z

A Reformed Critique of the New Perspective, by Richard Gaffin http://ow.ly/3ogdA

Why Wright is Right

2010-12-13T11:53:00.000Z

Interesting post on City of God blog: Why Wright is Right: http://ow.ly/3oazZ

The Story of the Church

2010-12-11T23:02:00.000Z

The Story of the Church
A. M. Renwick
IVP

I recently read this very old edition of this book, which is a whistle-stop tour of Church history from apostolic times through to the 1950s. I understand that a later edition with a co-author is now in print that takes in later years of church history, but this was an old secondhand copy I picked up dating from the 1960s.

I have to admit I haven't read a lot of church history, except for the Reformation period, and I found it very interesting to learn more about the period from the first century through to the middle ages. There was much that I really didn't know about this period. For example, I hadn't realised that for centuries the Celtic Church regarded itself as quite separate from the Roman Catholic Church and not under papal authority.

As a summary of nearly two thousand years of church history in under 200 pages, this book was really excellent.

The author, A. M. Renwick, was a professor of church history at Free Church College in Edinburgh.

Paul for Everyone: Romans

2010-12-06T22:31:00.002Z

Paul for Everyone: Romans (2 Vols)
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006

Tom Wright's For Everyone series fills a necessary gap that is very difficult to fill. The books are neither simply devotional reading nor are they commentaries (technical or otherwise). Instead they attempt to be readable by any Christian and get to the heart of the message of the book or letter it deals with. They are the kind of books that are easy to read as they have Wright's own New Testament translation printed at the beginning of each chapter.

Paul's Letter to the Romans is one of the most important sections of the New Testament, for there Paul gives the richest and fullest treatment of his gospel. Tom Wright is an acknowledged expert on Paul and Romans in particular. As well as this popular-level work he has written a major commentary on Romans in the New Interpreter's Bible series.

That's all positives about the book. The negative for many will be the fact that Wright is a proponent of the still-controversial New Perspective on Paul, and NPP and some of Wright's other more idiosyncratic views dominate his interpretation of Romans. This is not to say his insights have no validity, but rather than the reader needs to be aware of where Wright is coming from.

His treatment of Romans comes in two volumes dealing with chapters 1-8 and then 9-16 respectively. This alone lets the reader know that this is a much fuller treatment of Paul's extended argument in this letter than Wright has devoted to almost any other New Testament letter.

I found Wright's treatment of the letter to be very readable and understandable for the most part. There are times I think he raises more questions than he answers. I suppose for readers who feel like that, there is always the big commentary.

Much of what Wright says here helped allay my fears about some of his doctrines. For example, in this book Wright makes it quite clear that though he believes in present justification by faith alone and in final justification on the basis of the whole life lived in the Spirit, he is very clear that the present verdict always anticipates the same final verdict. In other words, Wright's doctrine does not undermine assurance in tender Christian believers. For Wright it is impossible for someone to be justified now but finally lost. It was interesting that I read these books at the same time as Wright was clarifying his position at the ETS meeting where he clarified that final justification on the basis of works really means "in accordance with works". This brings Wright much closer to the evangelical mainstream as reformed theology has always affirmed the final judgment is in accordance with our works. The Westminster Confession of Faith xxxiii.1 says as much:

"God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil."

I thought Wright's treatment of chapters 1-6 and chapter 8 were excellent. I was glad to see he argues for 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 and his handling of Abraham in Romans 4 is excellent too. However, I remain unsure about his interpretation of Romans 7. My own view has always been that it represents the 'normal' Christian life and our battle with sin. Wright takes a very different view and sees the "I" of chapter 7 not as the apostle Paul describing his experience either pre-conversion or post-conversion (my view) or post-conversion but pre-baptism of the spirit. In fact it is not Paul at all, but a rhetorical device to describe Israel's history under the law. I didn't find this convincing to be honest. But I will read the big commentary and see more of his arguments there.

Similarly in the second volume, I enjoyed most of Wright's treatment, however I think he was very weak in his handling of divine election in Romans 9. Wright fails to see that though it describes God's choosing of the elect within Israel (and the elect have responsibility and not just blessings), this doesn't mean the chapter does not have a more general application to how God chooses any of his people.

At times, these books seemed much more technical than Wright's handling of the gospel narratives in other books in the series. It is not a simplistic treatment of the letter, but then Romans is not really a book that can be handled with simple devotional sentiments. Paul's argument is so tightly constructed that it won't really lend itself to that.

I enjoyed the books very much. Few preachers would fail to benefit from reading this. In this series, the "hooks" that Wright uses to draw the reader into his argument are a masterclass in gaining the reader's or hearer's attention. The ones used in Romans are no exception.

The Gospel

2010-12-04T16:18:00.001Z

Gospel = Good News - it is a proclamation or announcement.

The Roman emperor was 'Lord' the King of the world and Son of the gods.

The Good News is that Jesus is Lord, King of the world and the Son of God.

According to N. T. Wright, "The Good News is the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world."

This is to my mind true, but a truncated gospel. Paul's gospel is more than this. This misses out his Saviourhood - a crucial part of NT teaching - the fact that as the crucified and risen Messiah he is also the Saviour of the world.

Ursinus and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness

2010-12-01T14:59:00.000Z

Interesting article on Theologia: Zacharias Ursinus and the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness http://ow.ly/3i9Ty

Three Reasons to Keep First-Past-the-Post for General Elections

2010-11-29T22:07:00.000Z

I don't usually do politics on this blog, but I've decided to start doing so when I feel like doing so. The reason being that faith and politics shouldn't be separated in the Christian's life. The one should flow out of the other.

In May 2011 the people of the United Kingdom will vote in a referendum on whether to keep the present First-Past-The-Post voting system or to change to a system called "The Alternative Vote" which is a form of proportional representation.

Many people will no doubt be in favour of the change on the basis that the current system is unfair and many people's votes "don't count" under the present system as there are so many "safe" seats.

There are a number of points that could be made in response to this. The first thing is that it's simply not true that many people's votes don't count. Essentially that is the argument of the losers in any election. Fact is that more people wanted another candidate. All votes count. But not everyone wins. Secondly, there's a skewed way of looking at things going around as if so-called "safe seats" are predetermined to go to one party or another. That is not true either. A seat is only safe because a large number of real people exercise their democratic right to vote for the party that usually wins that particular seat. But there is nothing predetermined about who will win in a "safe seat". There is no reason a new political party could not make an impact under the first-past-the-post system. In 1900 there were hundreds of "safe" Conservative and Liberal seats and there were only two Labour MPs elected. By 1929 Labour were largest party in the Commons with 287 seats.

There's a lot of pro-PR propaganda around. To counter that, here's three good reasons why we should not vote for PR in this country, shown by three countries that have PR (all beginning with "I" as it happens):

1. Italy - It is almost inevitable under a PR system that we will have permanent coalition government. Italy has had over 60 governments in the 65 years since the end of the Second World War. PR has a tendency to produce unstable governments because they are always coalitions. By contrast, first-past-the-post tends to produce clear election results and a government with a clear mandate to implement its programme. A hung parliament under FPTP like happened in 2010 happens once in a generation; under PR it would be the result of EVERY election.

2. Israel - PR gives seats in parliament to small, extremist parties. Under PR we have already seen extreme left wing parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party elected to the Scottish Parliament. At the other extreme, PR for the House of Commons would almost certainly see a few BNP MPs elected. That's not all. Under PR, small parties thus elected achieve an unproportional amount of power. There are some countries where the third party (in the UK that would be the Liberal Democrats) with maybe 15-20% of the vote are permanently in government, alternately supporting whichever of the big two parties come first in an election.

3. Ireland - PR systems can be incredibly complicated. In Ireland they use the Single Transferable Vote. Most people cannot understand the intricate mathematical formulas that are required to work out exactly how votes are distributed and who is elected. The election result takes days to work out under STV. FPTP is easy to understand and usually delivers a clear result on election night itself.

I'll be voting "No" in the referedum next year.

The New Perspective on Paul

2010-11-26T23:40:00.000Z

I'm becoming more attracted to the NPP (New Perspective on Paul).

Seems to me as if we view "union with Christ" as the centrepiece of Paul's soteriology this is a simpler and more biblical scheme than the classic Lutheran or Reformed one (though it is very close to Calvin's view).

N. T. Wright has taught me a lot in this area.

"In Christ" (en christo) is a key idea in Pauline theology. It is through our union with Christ, through our being in the Messiah that his death and resurrection become ours, so that "what is true of the Messiah is true of his people" as Wright might say.

If "righteous" becomes not regarding someone as having a moral status they don't really deserve, but rather simply as regarding someone who is "in the right" - someone who has received the divine verdict of innocent and hence "made righteous" then imputation starts to be unnecessary.

As Michael Bird and Kevin Vanhoozer have argued (and it looks as if Wright agrees) it is not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but rather than we are righteous because we are incorporated into the faithful Messiah, Jesus.

This subject is so interesting and deserves much more thought. I never thought I'd say this, but could it be that Wright is actually right??

A Clarification from N. T. Wright

2010-11-26T23:33:00.000Z

The ETS meeting was important. N. T. Wright clarified his position that future justication is "in accordance with the whole life lived" rather than "on the basis of the whole life lived."

The difference between the two is huge. Wright's view is now much closer to the historic Protestant position - we are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone. Saving faith is evidenced by good works.

The Ugley Vicar agrees: A Clarification from Tom Wright http://ow.ly/3h7zF

Simply Christian

2010-11-22T21:37:00.001Z

Simply Christian
Tom Wright
SPCK 2006

Simply Christian is Tom Wright's straightforward and simple introduction to the Christian faith. As such it is designed to be read by people who have little or no prior knowledge of Christianity and though, as with most Wright books I would have issues with how he treats some subjects, overall I think this book is an excellent introduction and I would not have a problem recommending it to any of my non-Christian friends. The comparison with C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity are obvious and I think self-consciously so in Wright's choice of title and approach to his subject. But whereas Lewis, writing in the 1940s, spends part of his classic book in apologetics territory - arguing for God's existence and so forth - Wright does not really engage in apologetics at all.

Instead, Wright does what I think is quite a clever thing though it leaves him open to some fair criticism. He starts with a treatment about mankind's sinfulness, yet he does it without calling it sin. Now straight away some will object to this as Wright soft peddling on sin. I think that's a bit unfair. Looking on Wright's book more charitably, I think he has decided to not mention 'sin' as such because he did not want to alienate or confuse his 21st century audience before getting an opportunity to explain what sin is actually like. Although he may not use the word, he certainly writes powerfully about the subject. In the first part of the book called "Echoes of a Voice" Wright points out four areas of life where things have gone wrong. They are: (1) our longing for justice and our anger at injustice in the world (that is just isn't right the way things are), (2) our longing for a spiritual element in our lives, (3) our longing for good and loving relationships with other people and (4) our longing and appreciation of beauty in a world marred by so much ugliness.

The problem I would have is not with what he says, but with what he doesn't say. It would have been good I think to have added a final section in the first part dealing with the God-ward aspect of sin - that we have rebelled against and insulted a holy God. This in turn would have naturally led to greater balance later in the book.

Part Two is entitled "Staring at the Sun" and is a well-written and clear presentation of a number of key ideas in biblical theology including God, Israel, Jesus, the Cross and Resurrection and the Holy Spirit. Here Wright outlines what he considers to be "the gospel" according to the New Testament. As Wright has often said "the gospel" in biblical terms is not an ABC guide to "How I get saved and go to heaven" although it has often been reduced to this in evangelical circles. Rather, although Wright recognises individual salvation is one of the key things to flow from the gospel, it is not itself the gospel. The gospel, according to Wright, is that Christ is the true Jewish Messiah and through his resurrection has revealed himself as the King and Lord of all the world. It is here that I think Wright misses out on some of the New Testament's emphasis. Although Wright focuses on Christ as King and the resurrection, this is only half of the Bible's emphasis. The Bible also focuses on Christ as Saviour and the cross. Wright sometimes seems to miss out on this emphasis - and it is here that his downplaying of sin may also be a legitimate criticism. Downplayed sin results in a downplayed Saviour perhaps?

Part Three is called "Reflecting the Image" and in a series of interesting chapters, Wright discusses worship, prayer, Bible reading, the gospel, the Church and the Future. Each of these reflect Wright's distinctive views to some extent, but also contain much that would be uncontroversial. One point of disagreement I have is when he says that it doesn't matter whether we call it the Lord's Supper, Communion, the Eucharist or the Mass. Wright lumps all together. But the fact is that there are significant differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on this point and we certainly do not all believe the same thing!

Like most of Tom Wright's books, Simply Christian is a mixed bag. Although it is wonderfully written and easy to read, and although he deals with many things in a winsome and accurate way, there are those characteristic issues at the same time. For this reason, no doubt some would question using this book to reach out to non-Christians. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I probably would want to supplement this with something that is not quite so idiosyncratic. It might just be worth pointing out to non-Christians that this is simply Wrightian Christianity (from the New Perspective on Paul viewpoint) and not necessarily what Christians have always believed or all believe now. If there had been more mention of the God-ward aspect of sin and personal guilt as a result and if there had been more said about the cross and Christ as Saviour, I think the book would have been far stronger and Wright would have lost nothing in doing so.

Once again, this is a case of agreeing with Wright in what he affirms, but questioning a lot of what he omits from the book.

Peril in Paradise

2010-11-22T20:49:00.001Z

Peril in Paradise: Theology, Science and the Age of the Earth
Mark S. Whorton
Authentic Media 2005

This is the second book I've read recently advocating an old earth creationist (OEC) position. The author is an engineer who has worked for NASA and is also well-known as a Christian apologist.

Whorton takes a stronger line against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) than Snoke in his book I would say. As well as advocating the day-age view and arguing against YEC on a number of grounds, he spends much of the book contrasting what he calls the "Perfect Paradise Paradigm" (basically YEC) with another theological position he calls the "Perfect Purpose Paradigm". He comes close to saying at some points that the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is actually teaching a sub-biblical view of God, creation and especially evil. For me this part of the book was not a great success.

Other parts of the book are more successful. All in all I think he both hits and misses his targets in the course of the argument. Without doubt, he shows up many of the weaknesses of YEC teaching, and establishes a number of important OEC points. Just occasionally I think he oversteps the mark and gets a bit confused in his thinking. This is especially evident in his treatment of how suffering was (in Whorton's view) always part of the created order and part of the creation God saw was "very good". Although I share his view that there was animal death before the Fall, I do not share his view that suffering was also part of the pre-Fall world in the way it is now. It is one thing to say that animals died - that is an objective fact that the fossil record and a number of other considerations point towards. It is another thing, in my view, to say that animals must have always suffered. That much I would dispute.

In my view Snoke's book is a better constructed argument and succeeds in its aims without resorting to the occasionally odd bit of theology that Whorton allows to creep into his argument.

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth

2010-11-21T23:17:00.002Z

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth
David Snoke
Baker Books 2006

This book does exactly what is says in the title - it presents a biblical case for an old earth interpretation of Genesis One.

Although the author presents a case in favour of the day-age interpretation, the book is also very useful to any Christian who has concerns about Young Earth Creationism and for whom it would be useful to know that there are alternatives accepted by conservative, Bible-believing Christians. The author is a professor of physics and an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America.

As a proponent of the framework view I would take issue with some of Snoke's exegesis of the key texts where he argues that the days of Genesis One are intended to be understood as long geological ages presented in chronological order. However his critique of the so-called 'creation science' underpinning Young Earth Creationism is devastating, his presentation of the evidence in favour of an old earth is strong and his analysis of the key 'animal death before the fall' issue is also persuasive.

He also spends a chapter discussing Noah's flood and considers whether or not the flood required to be truly global or merely global in terms of the world view of the time.

In an important final chapter, Snoke points out a number of key 'non-negotiables' in terms of biblical Old Earth creationism including the historicity of Adam and Noah, the fact that all life was created miraculously by sovereign acts of God, and the fact that one day Christ will return and there will be a new heaven and earth.

This book would be useful valuable to any Christian reader perhaps most to Christian students and scientists and new converts who may be wondering if they really have to swallow Young Earth Creationism in order to believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The value of the book is increased by the inclusion of study questions at the end of each chapter.

Spectrum Politics

2010-11-19T07:26:00.001Z

After giving it some thought I've decided to include blogs about any subject in the same blog as my Christian stuff rather than compartmentalise things. The justification being that the Bible doesn't divide life into the sacred and the secular and so neither should we.

I've always been interested in politics and especially how the Lordship of Jesus Christ affects every part of life including how we organise society and run the country.

Why "Spectrum Politics"? Well, the simple answer is that the Christian principles of love, justice, freedom, compassion, righteousness, prudence and harmony transcend party politics. The political outworking of biblical Christianity is not co-ordinate with the policies or political ideology underpinning any one political party in the United Kingdom today. Rather the Christian answer to society's questions covers a spectrum of political views and does not fit neatly into traditional political categories.

It seems to me that the Christian faith supports many elements of traditional Conservative policy such as the importance of the family and marriage, the right to private property, a proper restraint and limit on the rights of the state to interfere and control people's lives, and a recognition that everyone who is able to has a responsibility to work and not rely on the state. The state as servant of God with the "power of the sword" to wage war and punish wrongdoing is also a Christian doctrine that resonates with more traditionally conservative views.

On the other hand, the Christian faith supports many elements of traditional Labour policies such as the importance of social justice, of caring for the poor, the sick, the needy and the weak, of giving dignity and fair pay and conditions to workers, and looking after the elderly properly.

Similarly, the Christian faith supports many elements of traditional Liberal policies such as equality for all races and for both sexes, and the importance of freedom of thought, expression and assembly.

Christian principles also support the Green Party on the importance of being good stewards of God's creation and looking after the environment for the future.

The truth is that being loyal to Christ transcends loyalty to any one political party.

The Framework Interpretation of Genesis One

2010-11-17T07:24:00.004Z

Note: A PDF version of this essay is available for downloading at http://www.scribd.com/doc/42894688/The-Framework-Interpretation-of-Genesis-One

The doctrine of creation is rather a direction; not a proposition to be affirmed so much as a habit of the mind (and the heart) to be practiced. The doctrine of creation directs disciples to believe, see, feel and judge everything that is as the handiwork of a personal, loving and wise God. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer)

1. A Conservative Evangelical Interpretation

The framework interpretation is not liberalism and is based on strong exegetical arguments. It focuses on the theological meaning of the text rather than tangential scientific concerns. It regards Genesis One as history, not as myth, legend or mere parable. It is a conservative evangelical view of Genesis One. The main proponents of this view have been Reformed evangelicals who affirm that, in the simplest and most straightforward terms, the creative acts of God in Genesis One really happened. This point is critical to understand, but is too often either misunderstood or deliberately distorted by opponents.

The framework interpretation has a conceptual link with Augustine’s interpretation of Scripture. Although Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation he would agree that the days are a figurative arrangement written for our teaching rather than a chronological history. The framework view also has conceptual links with the Day-Age view, but whereas the latter thinks that the ‘days’ are literally epochs and the week a figurative one, the former regards the ‘days’ are literally days and ‘week’ is figurative. The attitude to mainstream science in both interpretations are also similar – not uncritically accepting, but not uncritically rejecting it either.

2. An Old Earth Interpretation

Strictly speaking the framework interpretation is compatible with both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, but is usually maintained by Old Earth Creationists who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe and the earth.

The framework interpretation teaches that the Bible does not address the scientific questions of when the creation took place, or how it was actually accomplished. As such it is fully compatible with an Old Earth understanding of the age of the universe and the earth. The framework interpretation removes any potential conflict with information gained from God’s general revelation by observation and analysis of data. Framework advocates tend to accept that the serious criticisms levelled against Young Earth Creationism are legitimate, and that mainstream science is correct in assessing the ages of the universe in general and the earth in particular. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, requires all orthodox science to be substantially and massively wrong, across all kinds of fields, including geology, oceanography, biology, physics, astronomy, etc. And such matters as the speed of light, sedimentary rocks, radiometric dating, dinosaurs, geology, etc are simply dismissed as incorrect or corrupt and evil. Young Earth Creationism plays fast and loose with the science all the time and is very selective in its use and abuse of scientific method.

3. A Literary Interpretation

In essence the framework interpretation regards the creation week of Genesis One as a literary framework or pictorial device that frames God’s creative work as a week of ordinary solar days. The literary device is used by Moses as a teaching tool for all God’s people in all times and places, including Israel in the period following their exodus from Egypt, long before scientific questions were even being asked far less answers.

The framework interpretation does not regard Genesis One as poetry. It recognises that the passage bears none of the hallmarks of Hebrew poetry. Yet though not poetical, neither is Genesis 1:1–2:3 straightforward history. The prose is highly stylised and almost mathematically precise in its use of the numbers three, seven and ten, so symbolic in the Bible. It is impossible to notice the tremendous literary skill involved. There is a marked contrast in style between Genesis One and Genesis 2:4 onwards. Genesis One might be called ‘exalted prose’ or ‘semi-poetical’ (Edward J. Young) or ‘hymn-like’ prose designed to draw its readers into the worship of Elohim, the Hebrew God who is the focus of the chapter (and the whole Bible). It is certainly a literary masterpiece, which appears to be weaved with the precision and art of an ornate tapestry. The framework interpretation simply states that the historical events of Genesis One did not happen in the literal timescale or order that the events are portrayed in Genesis One. The difference in style between Genesis One and the rest of the book (from Genesis 2:4 onwards) is remarkable in this regard. The framework view understands that through the artistry of Moses, creative acts that are too vast and complex for anyone to understand even in our scientifically literate age, could be grasped and understood by ordinary people all through history. And the artistic construct Moses used was a week of seven days into which all of God’s creative acts are arranged and pictured.

The framework interpretation says in effect that Genesis One is like an art gallery showing a series of pictures, each portraying a creative act of God, and together forming an analogy between God’s work of creation and our weekly pattern of work and rest. It should be noted that the pictures are of real, historical events, but they remain distinct from the events themselves. Just as a passport photograph of a person is a true depiction of the person, but the picture is not the person, and is neither the same size nor shape as the person, so the days of Genesis One, the framework view says, are depictions of creation on the scale of a week of days, rather than descriptions of actual days.

Each picture-day shows the creative activities of God. It portrays God going to work during daylight hours and resting during the hours of darkness – just like a typical agricultural worker in ancient Israel. This is a major clue that the working week is a figurative one and an analogy is being drawn between God’s creative work and the weekly labour of human workers. After all God does not grow weary literally, not does he have a problem seeing in the darkness of night.

This view sees the days are ordinary solar days – all six of them – but the week is figurative. It is sometimes claimed ‘evening and morning’ means 24-hour days. But this is simply incorrect. The phrase means the period of darkness between sunset and sunrise and is the period in which workers would stop work and rest. The words are equivalent to ‘dusk till dawn’ in English. Psalm 55:17 uses a different formula when it means a full 24 hour day – ‘evening, and morning, and noon.’ The fact that Days One to Three are themselves solar means the sequence of days is not chronological since the sun is mentioned again on Day Four. Nowhere does Scripture say the light on Day One was not sunlight and in fact the use of sunrise and sunset on Day One points to the sun already existing. This points to the figurative nature of the text.

The framework also has a number of didactic and polemical functions. The week draws an analogy between God’s creative acts and human work in there being a pattern of six days of work followed by a day of rest. The six creation days are like six picture frames arranged in an art gallery to show God’s working week followed by a day of rest.

The framework interpretation thus argues that Genesis One presents historical truth or true history in a non-chronological, thematic form. This interpretation sees in the days of Genesis One a pattern of warp and weft that reveals both a 123–456 logical sequence and a 14–25–36 topical parallelism. The sequential element is intended to be a pattern for the covenant people to follow as they work six days and keep a weekly sabbath.

4. A Straightforward Interpretation

Some have dismissed the framework interpretation as being very difficult to understand, but we do not accept this appraisal. In fact, it is no more or less complex a view than any other interpretation. At a simple level, the creation week can be understood by a child – God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh day, and so we are to work six days and rest one day a week. That is the teaching of the framework view at the simplest level, just as it is the teaching of more literal views.

The framework interpretation only becomes more complex when we approach it with more complex questions. But exactly the same can be said of the other views. The literal 24-hour view in particular requires the speculations of creation science and flood geology to sustain its claims once a certain level of scrutiny is reached. It is therefore unfair to label the literary approach to Genesis One as hopelessly complex as if this was in contrast to other views.

5. A Satisfying Interpretation

The framework interpretation states that the days of Genesis One are presented in a non-chronological order yet arranged in a sequential pattern designed to teach the readers about how God’s creative acts formed and filled the earth to make it a suitable home for mankind and how and God has given mankind a weekly sabbath rest of one day in seven. Rather like a tapestry with threads running in two directions, the warp and weft of Genesis One includes the topical and parallel arrangement of days that has been noted by many commentators throughout history, but it also contains a sequential march of days that clearly points to the creation of mankind as the pinnacle of creation and onwards to the story’s climax in God’s rest on the seventh day.

There is a strong parallelism between the days as has been noted by many Old Testament scholars. Meredith Kline’s scheme is typical:

Creation Kingdoms

Day 1. Light
Day 2. Sky and Seas
Day 3. Land and Plants

Creation Kings

Day 4. Light Bearers
Day 5. Birds and Fish
Day 6. Animals and Mankind

Day 7. Sabbath Day of Rest

The parallelism features the concept of dischronologisation where the events of Day One when light is created and is viewed as God giving form to the universe are then repeated on Day Four where the same light source – the sun – is mentioned as a light bearer filling the heavens. This is known as temporal recapitulation and is a common narrative device in Hebrew narratives.

The parallelism seeks to focus the attention on the seventh day and is a teaching tool to show the importance of observing the weekly sabbath rest to God. But the parallels also This points to a strong link between the creation of plants and mankind. The reason for this becomes apparent in Genesis 2 and 3 where man’s relationship to the plants is closely linked with the covenant relationship between man and God before the Fall in terms of life in the Garden and the trees of life and of knowledge.

However, there is also a strong sequential march over Days 1-3 and then Days 4-6 followed by Day Seven. Robert Godfrey’s idea is that the key to interpreting Genesis One comes in verse two. Immediately after the creation of the earth and heaven the focus of the narrative turns to the earth and there are four problems of chaos that need to be solved before the newly created planet can be a suitable home for God’s image bearers, human beings. The four problems are: darkness, wateriness, formlessness and emptiness. God is then pictured as a workman, working from sunrise till sunset and then resting at night, each day fashioning the earth to be a suitable home for his image bearers. On Days One to Three God sorts out the issue of darkness, wateriness and formlessness by creating light, sky and sea, and land and vegetation, then on Days Four to Six God sorts out the problem of emptiness by creating the light bearers, birds and fish, land animals and finally mankind. The point to remember is that this ‘form and fill narrative’ is logical and historical it must be noted, but it is not chronological.

6. A Narrative Interpretation

The framework interpretation agrees that Genesis One is written as a narrative or story. This is shown by the presence of the ‘waw consecutive’ verb form characteristic of Hebrew narratives. Those committed to a Young Earth 24-hour day interpretation often use this fact to argue against the framework view. In fact, this is not the significant problem for the framework interpretation that some literalists seem to think. There are many biblical narratives that present historical information in a non-chronological or topical arrangement. This is known as dischronologisation. Ezra 4:1-24 is a clear biblical example. The same happens in the Gospels, for example in the temptation of Christ. There is also a device known as temporal recapitulation. This is where an event is repeated out of chronological sequence for some other purpose. The framework interpretation sees Genesis One as a narrative of a week of creation acts. Within the narrative structure, the events are presented sequentially, but it is clear that the narrative is not purporting to report events in the actual chronological order in which they occurred. Indeed, it is our view that Moses was completely unconcerned with the chronological order of events, preferring to impose his own form and fill narrative structure on the creative acts. A similar argument would apply to the numbered sequence of days.

It is for this reason that the framework interpretation is not phased by literalist claims that the days are portrayed as ordinary solar days of 24 hours. Indeed, the framework view completely agrees this is the case. However, they are not literal 24-hour days but literary days.

7. An Exegetical Interpretation

Opponents may dismiss the view as a compromise with ‘atheistic science’ and other such cavils, but above all the framework interpretation is grounded in the exegesis of the biblical texts. The exegetical case for the framework interpretation is based on a number of different biblical arguments.

a) The Unending Seventh Day

The Bible indicates that the seventh day of creation week is an unending day and that at the present time in human history we are still living in the seventh day. If this is so, then the seventh day in Genesis One is figurative and there is no reason the same cannot be true of the other days. Hebrews 4 treats the seventh day as ongoing and shows that creation week was not a normal human week of seven 24-hour days. This makes sense since the seventh day in Genesis One has no ‘evening and morning’. Hebrews 4:3-5 explains why this is so. God’s people are called to enter into God’s own Sabbath rest. This argument is well-handled by Lee Irons in his section of The Genesis Debate book.

b) ‘Because it had not rained’ (Genesis 2:5)

Genesis 2:5 shows that ordinary providence was at work in the creation period. It states that plant growth was dependent on rain falling. This indicates that much longer periods than 24 hours must have passed during the time that plants grew on the earth on Day Three. So the days of Genesis One cannot be literal 24-hour days. This is one of the key arguments of Meredith Kline and Mark Futato in their seminal essays on the framework interpretation.

Similarly the events of Day 3 indicate it was much longer than 24 hours in duration. The simple reading here is against the literal 24-hour view. Genesis 1:11 says the land ‘sprouted’ or ‘produced’ vegetation. It does not say that God simply created the vegetation out of nothing, but that it sprouted and grew. This process takes months, not minutes. The eminent Old Testament scholar, Edward J. Young, states: ‘And the work of the third day seems to suggest that there was some process, and that what took place occurred in a period longer than twenty-four hours.’ (In the Beginning: Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 and the Authority of Scripture)

c) The Temporal Recapitulation of Days One and Four

As we have previously mentioned, the fact that Day One talks about the creation of light and has an evening and morning (using words that literally mean ‘sunset’ and ‘sunrise’) means that the sun was created on Day One and is the source of light from Day 1 onwards. When the sun is mentioned again on Day Four as the ‘greater light’ this is a typical example of Hebraic recapitulation in a narrative. The focus second time round is on the sun as light bearer, filling heaven, and its functional purpose in setting day and night and in marking the seasons by its height above the horizon.

d) The Long Day Six

A plain reading of Day Six reveals that too many events happened on this day for it to be realistically a period of less than 12 hours (remember literally evening and morning is the period from dusk till dawn). From Genesis 2, we learn much of what had to have happened on that Day Six. God planted the Garden of Eden and had it grow to maturity (so there would be fruit on the trees) and no mention is made of this happening instantaneously. The text does not say God created the plants and trees mature. Also all the animals were created by God and then brought to Adam to be named by him. Adam also named the birds. During this same day, the text indicates Adam had time to get lonely – the word for ‘Now’ in Genesis 2:23 could be translated ‘At long last!’ It is a word that shows Adam’s relief. Why would he be lonely if he had only been created a few hours? Patience is a virtue, not a vice. So how would unfallen Adam not have patience, and how could he be dis-satisfied with all that God had given him in such a short time? Especially bearing in mind he was in perfect fellowship with God and had so much to see and do. Then in the same few hours, Eve was created as well. The great Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck makes the point that it is unlikely this would all happen in a few hours. It is simply not feasible that Day Six was a literal 24-hour day.

8. An Analogical Interpretation

Meredith Kline talks about a concept called ‘two register cosmology’ which basically says that there is heavenly time and earthly time, and Genesis One talks about earthly things created in heavenly time. His language can at times be quite difficult to understand. The concept would be better simply viewed as analogy or anthropomorphism – that the creation days are not identical to our 24-hour days but are instead analogous to our days. The Genesis days are God-days, not human-days. The reason Genesis One is written as a week of days is so that the creative work of God can be readily understood by the ordinary men and women of God. Time indicators are merely anthropomorphisms for simple people to understand God’s unimaginably long and complex creative time periods.

C. John Collins writes: ‘God’s rest is not the same as [as ours] but is analogous to ours, he will go back and read the passage looking for other instances of analogy. Then he will see what the significance of the refrain is: it, too, is part of an anthropomorphic presentation of God; he is likened to the ordinary worker, going through his rhythm of word and rest, looking forward to his Sabbath. The days are God’s work days, which need not be identical to ours: they are instead analogous.’ (Collins in Did God Create in Six Days? pp. 138-39)

The Bible is full of analogies and it would not be out of place for Genesis One to be written in the same way. An analogical view is how we find the New Testament sometimes interpreting the Old Testament. In Matthew 4 the 40 days in the wilderness is an analogy of the 40 years in the wilderness of the Israelites. Mankind is an analogy of God – created in the image of God, but not identical to God. As Van Til has argued, even our knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge.

Creation can only be understood properly when we see the relationship that exists between heaven and earth. Scripture teaches that the earthly is a picture of the heavenly or as something that is a copy of heavenly. Examples include the tabernacle and temple, the sacrificial system, David’s throne, and the Sabbath rest. All involve divine realities and human analogies. In no case is the earthly shadow identical to the heavenly reality or ‘archetype’. It is important to note that it is not that the creation days are a symbol of our days, but that our days are symbolic of those momentous creation days of God. Both Herman Bavinck and W. G. T. Shedd (‘God-divided days’) suggest the creation days were alike our days in one way, but not like our days in other ways.

A common argument against the framework view is that Exodus 20:11 plainly means that creation week was just an ordinary week of time like our weeks. The fact that the creation week can be viewed as an exemplary analogy takes the sting out of this argument. The point surely in the commandment is that we are to work and rest because God worked and rested, even if our days and God’s days are on a different scale this would not affect the example or command.

9. A Didactic and Polemical Interpretation

Genesis One is primarily constructed as a theological text to teach the covenant people about God and his acts of creation and secondarily as polemical text showing the superiority of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, over the pagan agricultural fertility gods of the nations that surrounded Israel and against the pagan creation myths of other nations. It is no accident surely that the very things that the pagans worshipped as gods or where they thought the gods lived are specifically mentioned as things created by Yahweh: the sun, moon and stars, the sea, the sea monsters and the crops for example.

In stark contrast, it is made clear that God made everything and he is not part of the created order, but rather stands above and beyond it. The Genesis account will not even let anyone delude themselves that the universe has always existed. The idea of eternal matter is alien to the biblical narrative. In the beginning God – and God alone existed – and he created everything else out of nothing by his powerful word.

In writing his polemic, Moses seems to have used the traditional creation stories in his world and adapted them. The narrative shows the true God superior to any pagan false gods like the sun and moon, the stars, or the great sea creatures. It is not a text written to answer modern scientific questions about origins.

10. A Commendable Interpretation

The framework interpretation stands up to exegetical scrutiny and focuses on the theological meaning of Genesis rather than getting caught up in a modern phoney war with science. As such it allows the sacred text to speak to readers on its own terms and to present the covenant God to his covenant people as the creator and ruler of the world. As such he is to be worshipped, loved, obeyed, enjoyed and glorified.

11. Further Reading

Books

· Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis

· C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?

· W. Robert Godfrey, God’s Pattern for Creation

· Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline: ‘The Framework Interpretation’ in David G. Hagopian (ed.), The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the ‘Days’ of Creation

· Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips & Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth

· Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth

· John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One

· Mark S. Whorton, Peril in Paradise

· David Wilkinson: The Message of Creation (Bible Speaks Today)

Articles (most are available online)

· C. John Collins, ‘Reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an Act of Communication: Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· Mark Futato: ‘Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3’ (1998) Westminster Theological Journal 60(1): 1-21

· Meredith G. Kline, ‘Because It Had Not Rained’ (1958) Westminster Theological Journal 20(2): 146-157

· Meredith G. Kline, ‘Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony’ (1996) Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (48): 2-15

· Lee Irons: ‘The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary’ (2000) Ordained Servant 9(1): 7-11

· Donald M. Poundstone (Chairman), The Report of the (OPC) Committee to Study the Framework Hypothesis

· Mark E. Ross, ‘The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· Peter J. Wallace, ‘The Archetypal Week: A Defense of the Analogical Day View’

· Rowland S. Ward, ‘Length of Days in Genesis’

Bible Test Drive Scores

2010-11-06T16:11:00.003Z

Yesterday the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 scored 17.5, 15 and 15 points respectively using my usual test verses for a translation. I thought it would be interesting to compare how a number of other translations scored.

NKJV - 26
ESV - 24.5
NASB - 24
Holman CSB - 21.5
NLT - 17.5
NRSV - 16.5
NET - 15

However since different translations seem to me to be best in certain passages, the best method must be to use and compare at least two and preferably more translations when studying a passage.

Comparing the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011

2010-11-05T22:25:00.003Z

I've said before that there are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation. You can read my thinking on the following verses here.

Here are the results for the NIV 1984, TNIV and NIV 2011 on the test verses.

1 Samuel 8:16

All three follow the Greek Septuagint here over the Hebrew text while noting the Hebrew reading in footnotes. (0.5/0.5/0.5 out of 1)

Matthew 10:8

All three follow the NA/UBS critical text in the New Testament. (1.5/1.5/1.5 out of 2)

Genesis 1:2

All three have the "Spirit of God" which I believe is correct. (2.5/2.5/2.5 out of 3)

Genesis 19:24

All three translate accurately. (3.5/3.5/3.5 out of 4)

Ruth 2:20

Here all three translate the key Hebrew term differently. The old NIV has "Kinsman-Redeemer". TNIV has "family guardian" and the new NIV has "guardian-redeemer". For me the old NIV is much to be preferred here. (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 5)

Psalm 25:14

All three go for "The LORD confides in those" where I prefer "The friendship of the LORD is with..." (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 6)

Psalm 92:7

All three miss the point of the verse which is not "though the wicked spring up...they will be destroyed" but "when the wicked spring up...it is only that they may be destroyed forevermore." (NASB) (4.5/3.5/3.5 out of 7)

Proverbs 16:4

Here the old NIV is the only one that correctly says that the LORD works out everything for "his ends". The other two weaken this to everything working out for "its end". Very different view of God's sovereignty here. (5.5/3.5/3.5 out of 8)

Isaiah 7:14

All three are correct in translating it as "virgin" here. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 9)

Ezekiel 33:11

I would have preferred "does not delight in" here, but all three have "take no pleasure in." (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 10)

Jonah 3:3

All three interpret the phrase "of three days' journey" as "a visit required three days" (NIV84) and "it took three days to go through it" (TNIV and NIV 2011). It would be better left ambiguous in the translation rather than choose one possible meaning for the reader. (6.5/4.5/4.5 out of 11)

Haggai 2:7

I understand this as a Messianic prophecy. Only the old NIV allows the reader to interpret it correctly. The other two versions change it from "the desired of all nations" (which allows either interpretation) to "what is desired by all nations". (7.5/3.5/3.5 out of 12)

Micah 5:2

All three don't translate this verse as well as they could. They talk about the Messiah's "origins" being from "ancient times". Whereas the eternal Son of God's "goings forth" have been "from everlasting" (KJV). (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 13)

Matthew 2:10

All three translate well as "overjoyed" but the don't translate that literally here: "rejoiced with exceeding great joy" (KJV) (7.5/4.5/4.5 out of 14)

Matthew 16:18

All three translate well, but have misleading footnotes simply saying "Peter means rock". This indicates that Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church. However a different word is used. The footnote could have been much more accurate. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder. (8/5/5 out of 15)

Matthew 19:9

The old NIV had "marital unfaithfulness". Here both the TNIV and new NIV are more accurate with "sexual immorality". (8/6/6 out of 16)

Mark 2:19

All three translated idiomatically which helps the reader understand the meaning of the Jewish idiom. (9/7/7 out of 17)

Luke 4:22

All three have "spoke well of him" but the Greek is more accurately rendered "bore witness to him". Not everyone spoke well of him, but they did speak about him with approval. This may be all that Luke meant. (9/7/7 out of 18)

Luke 10:34

All three are literal here but misleading. They sound as if the bandages are put on first, then oil and wine poured on. Actually the order would be the opposite - oil and wine poured on then bandaged. (9/7/7 out of 19)

John 3:16

All three have "one and only" for monogenes. This is not the best translation, but it is okay. Unfortunately they all also keep the traditional "whoever believes" which is misleading. It should be "everyone who believes." (9.5/7.5/7.5 out of 20)

Acts 5:30

Only the old NIV is literal with "tree" here. The others change this to "cross." All get the wording clear enough so we know Jesus was killed by being hanging him on a tree/cross. (10.5/8/8 out of 21)

Acts 20:28

All three translate this verse correctly. (11.5/9/9 out of 22)

Romans 3:25

All three have "sacrifice of atonement" here rather than propitiation. Only the old NIV has an excellent footnote explaining what propitiation means. The others refer to the mercy seat instead. (12/9/9 out of 23)

Romans 8:28

All three opt for the weaker rendering that God "works for the good" rather than "works all things for good". (12/9/9 out of 24)

Romans 9:5

All three translate this very strongly in favour of Christ's deity. (13/10/10 out of 25)

1 Corinthians 7:1

The Greek literally says it is good for a man "not to touch a woman." Old NIV has "not to marry", the others have "not to have sexual relations". The new translations are better, but it might have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader decide. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 26)

1 Corinthians 7:36

All three have "the virgin he is engaged to" but literally the verse says "his virgin". So they are interpretations rather than literal translations (even though I think they are all correct). It would have been better to leave it ambiguous and let the reader or preacher decide what it means. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 27)

2 Corinthians 5:14

None of the three pick up on the fact that the second "all" is "this all" or "all these" so that those for whom Christ died are the same set of people as have died to sin (i.e. Christian believers). (13/10.5/10.5 out of 28)

2 Corinthians 5:16

All three talk about "worldly point of view" rather than the literal "according to the flesh" that Paul actually wrote. This is very interpretative in a translation. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 29)

Ephesians 3:9-10

All three fail this test by punctuating the sentence so that Paul's meaning cannot be that God created all things so that though the church the wisdom of God might be made known, even though this is a legitimate interpretation of the verse. (13/10.5/10.5 out of 30)

Philippians 2:6-7

Here the TNIV and NIV 2011 are much preferable to the original NIV. Their translation that Christ did not consider his equality with God something that he should take advantage of is absolutely excellent. All three have "made himself nothing" rather than "emptied himself" which is so easily misunderstood. I prefer "made himself of no account" but the NIV family version is also good. (13/11.5/11.5 out of 31)

Colossians 2:8

Only the old NIV translates as "the basic principles of the world" where the others have "elemental spiritual forces of this world". The trouble is that I understand Paul's phrase is wider than "spiritual forces". It includes all the principles of this world, not just spiritual ones. (14/11.5/11.5 out of 32)

2 Timothy 3:16

All three have "All Scripture is God-breathed". This is very literal and correct although I prefer "All Scripture is breathed out by God" which is better English as in the ESV. (14.5/12/12 out of 33)

Hebrews 2:9

All three have "tasted death for everyone". Literally it should be "for all" instead. (14.5/12/12 out of 34)

1 Peter 3:3-4

All three translate this verse well and convey the meaning clearly for the reader in English. (15.5/13/13 out of 35)

2 Peter 1:1

All three are accurate here. (16.5/14/14 out of 36)

2 Peter 1:20

All three are acceptable translations here even though they are slightly interpretative. The TNIV and NIV 2011 add "of things" after "interpretation" but this is not significant. (17.5/15/15 out of 37)

1 John 3:9

All three say that no one born again will "continue to sin". This is simply not true - or none of us are born again! Much better is something like the NASB which says we don't "practice sin". It happens but it is not our purpose in life any more. (17.5/15/15 out of 38)

Jude 4

All three miss the point about reprobation in this verse. (17.5/15/15 out of 39)

It would appear from this survey that the new NIV 2011 is very like the TNIV and as far as this albeit unscientific sample of verses is concerned, both are a tiny step backwards from the 1984 NIV, though all three remain very similar translations. Of course a different selection of verses might show something different. There are undoubtedly improvements in some places in the new version over the old one. In Romans for example, the restoration of the more literal "righteousness of God" - a key phrase in Paul's argument - which leaves room for more than one interpretation is preferable to the old NIV's "righteousness from God" which may be correct as an interpretation but not as a translation.

There are other places where the TNIV and NIV 2011 reflect advances or changes in scholarly opinion about certain words and phrases. I also have no problem with gender neutral changes where these are justified by the Hebrew or Greek. In the end there is little to choose between the three versions. As with any translation people will have quibbles here and there. That is the case with the NIV 2011. It was the case with the TNIV and it was the case when the NIV itself first came out.

Because they strike a good balance between readability and accuracy for the most part, the NIV remains a good choice as a person's primary bible, along with more literal translations like the ESV and NRSV and more dynamic versions like the NLT and Good News Bible.

A Bit of Cosmetic Surgery

2010-11-04T11:48:00.003Z

I thought the look of the blog was getting a bit stale and so I've given everything a lick of paint and moved the furniture around a little. I hope the blog is more attractive and easier to use now.

The main difference apart from the new colour scheme is the splitting of the page into three columns with information down both sides and the main text in the middle.

Let me know what you think.

The New Creationism

2010-10-28T07:22:00.006+01:00

The New Creationism
Paul Garner
Evangelical Press 2009

This book is an overview of the latest theories and teaching on Young Earth Creationism (YEC). It deals very little with the theology of it and almost entirely on the so-called creation science. In so far as it communicates YEC's quasi-scientific theories - and is abreast of current creationist thinking - it is a useful book and an interesting explanation. Whether it actually succeeds in convincing anyone outside those already convinced of the YEC position is much less clear. In fact, to be honest, if this is the best that YEC thinking has to offer against orthodox scientific findings, then the reviewer at least finds himself drawn to Old Earth Creationism far more. At every point, Garner seems to start with his conclusion - that the universe was made within 144 hours no more than 10,000 years ago - and then every piece of evidence that points to a much older earth and universe is somehow re-interpreted to fit in with the predetermined conclusion.

The first chapter is an outline of the orthodox doctrine of creation. Some of this chapter would not be controversial to any conservative Bible-believing Christian. Garner also explains what science tells us about the age and size of the universe accurately and fairly while pointing to evidence that is harder to explain in terms of the Big Bang theory. While Russell Humphreys' work on how time is relative and how in accordance with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, there are conditions in which six days' might pass on earth clocks while billions of years happen in outer space. But then if time is as relative as that, one may wonder what the difference really is between this view and the analogical interpretation of Genesis One: God's days of creation are analogous but not identical to our days. Indeed, Einstein has shown that the very concept of 144 hours is relative depending on where and "when" you are in the universe to record or measure it. Why six days "here" and billions of years "there" is considered acceptable to YECs but billions of years "here" and six days "there" is not acceptable I cannot begin to fathom.

The second chapter is a discussion of the sun, moon and stars. Again it is a curious mixture of orthodox science and creation science "spin" on the facts. The third chapter does the same with the planets and the earth. Much of the material here is uncontentious to all Christians.

Chapter 4 is a brief treatment of the YEC interpretation of Genesis One and a rather brief dismissal of Old Earth interpretations and objections to YEC. He concludes that the universe was created 6000 years ago, in approximately 4000 BC. In my opinion, Garner singularly fails to argue in any way convincingly that all scientific evidence from fields as diverse as physics, geology and archaeology are spectacularly wrong in their dating of events. The fact that a number of civilisations including Ancient Egypt and China are manifestly older than this date is dismissed in a brief paragraph. More time is spent trying to counter natural science's findings that the universe is about 14 billion years old. The difference between 6000 years and 14 billion years is so massive that it is frankly difficult to see how mere mistakes - in dozens of different fields - can account for the difference. To put it in understandable human perspective, if each year was a second, then 6000 years would be about 1 hour and 40 minutes while 14 billion years would be 444 years! That's not just a little bit of miscalculation!

Garner's next few chapters try to show that there is some doubt about scientific dating. Indeed that is so, and he can show how estimates vary in terms of billions of years either way. What he fails to explain is how if the universe is actually 5 or 10 billion years old instead of 14 billion years, this in any way helps prove that it is merely 6000 years old. It simply doesn't. By Garner's biblical interpretation, there is no room even for an earth of 50,000 years of age, which is but a fraction of the actual age science has recorded.

The book continues in this same way as Garner discusses the life sciences.

In the end, I was more unconvinced by Young Earth Creationism than I was before and found I have take what I think are convinced steps towards an Old Earth Creation position. Technically, that would still leave room for the "appearance of age" argument. Although that view has some merit (I can see how God would create Adam full grown and that he would appear older than he really was), but I cannot see how God would deliberately create stars that appear to be older than we should be able to see from earth or bury fossils of animals that never lived in the earth.

Garner's book will probably be loved by those who already accept his interpretation of Genesis, but it will do nothing to convince anyone who rejects that interpretation either for exegetical, theological or scientific reasons.

Darwin on Trial

2010-10-19T20:19:00.008+01:00

Darwin on Trial
Phillip E. Johnson
Inter-Varsity Press 1993

This book is an interesting critique of Darwinism written by a professor of law in the early 1990s.

Johnson does not attempt to put forward any particular view of the origin of life - certainly not overtly - and he appears to have little love for Youth Earth Creationism in particular. If anything he appears to argue for a form of theistic evolution and an old earth.

But rather than outlining what he thinks is a better explanation than scientific naturalistic Darwinism, he concentrates on why Darwinism (or rather neo-Darwinism) fails as an acceptable scientific and logical explanation for the origin of life on earth. Johnson takes the philosopher Karl Popper's thoughts - himself no Christian theologian - who pointed out that a theory that purports to "explain everything" actually by definition explains nothing - and applies it to Darwinism.

The trouble is that for so long Darwinism has been accepted as the orthodox scientific view that evidence contradicting or not fitting the theory is ignored or explained away (because the theory must be kept sacrosanct), while evidence in support of evolution - however tenuous, is treated as if it confirms everything the theory claims. Time after time Johnson documents examples of this kind of thing in scientific writings in books and journals like Science in the USA and Nature in Britain.

Johnson notes that, as Popper suggested, one key aspect of any claim that something is scientific truth is it is falsifiable. Indeed this is constantly used by scientists to dismiss creation science as mere "pseudo-science" since the claims of Young Earth Creationism are not falsifiable. Yet, as Johnson shows time and time again, Darwinism itself fails this test, since its proponents start out with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and the theory itself as the only acceptable explanation for how nature works and how life came to exist, including human life. By definition, and by philosophical bias, anything supernatural or theistic is excluded. When proceeding from this basis, nothing is really allowed to challenge the basic foundational presumptions on which the Darwinian edifice is constructed. In this way, Darwinism has more in common with pseudo-sciences like Marxism and Freudianism than it has with sciences like physics or chemistry.

In a succession of chapters that form the heart of the book and Johnson's argument he deals with how each of the following areas contain problems for Darwinism that cannot properly be ignored:

- The key concept of natural selection
- The fact of mutation
- Fossils
- Vertebrate sequence
- Molecular evidence
- Prebiological evolution

He then comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is a philosophy and even a faith itself that comes to conclusions based on its naturalistic assumption rather than on observable facts which would be accepted by the majority of theists too. To give just one example, Johnson accepts that microevolution is an observable fact - that there is descent with change in nature - the famous light and dark moths observations in Victorian England being a documented instance - but he does not accept that such observations prove macroevolution - that all life comes from a common ancestor, that the whale and the bat for example come from a common rodent-like mammalian ancestor. Instead, such a claim is a philosophical belief arrived at because there is no other possible explanation in a naturalistic universe. While such a belief is reasonable given the philosophical underpinnings on which it is made, yet it is no more reasonable than a theistic or even creationist conclusion from the same facts given theism's or creationism's underpinnings.

As someone who has grappled with many of these issues for a long time as a Christian, I found Johnson's book very challenging and interesting reading. Anyone who thinks he can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist" or "young earth creationist" had better read the book - he is neither of these. Those most frequently quoted in the book are Darwinians like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. There is practically no theology or biblical material in the book at all.

In the concluding sentence of the book Johnson says of the battle of philosophies between Darwinism and Creationism (in its widest sense embracing intelligent design or theistic evolution) "in the end reality will win". To me the challenge of the book is to those who unthinkingly accept Darwinism as "the truth" to subject the theory to criticism and see where that takes you. After all, if it is true, what is there to fear from criticism and examination? Or could it be that in reality the atheistic/agnostic cart is before the evolutionary horse and the tail wags the dog?

Complete in Christ

2010-10-14T23:08:00.003+01:00

Complete in Christ: Rediscovering Jesus and Ourselves
Nigel M. de S. Cameron
Marshall & Pickering, 1989

This is a short book of only 113 pages. I've had it on my bookshelves for years but had never got round to reading it until now. I only wish I'd read it years ago because it is worth its weight in gold. I haven't read anything else that manages to excite about a doctrine that is under emphasised in evangelical circles - namely the humanity of Christ - and through that doctrine it corrects, comforts and challenges on what it means to be human and what it means to live life as a Christian.

If that sounds like a lot to pack into a short paperback, that's probably because it is. The treatments of the various subjects dealt with are short and pithy. It is more a theological sketch book than a finished theological tome. Relatively few biblical texts are dealt with in any detail and there is almost no interaction with other theologians.

However, what it lacks in size, it makes up for in power.

The introduction sets the tone. It is entitled: "Are Christians human?" This is by no means a foolish question. Cameron rightly points out that in evangelical churches, we have a tendency to so emphasise the deity of Christ - as we wage apologetic battles against liberal heresies - that we tend to downplay (albeit accidentally) the fact that he really was human with all that entails. In the process, as a by-product, we tend to have such a high view of what a Christian should be that we inadvertently expect Christians to be more superhuman than human. This leads to guilt, fatigue, failure and sometimes despair. Instead, Cameron pleads for "a fresh realism in our Christian living."

Cameron then goes on to address the implications of the fact that God became flesh in the incarnation in chapters 1 and 2. Here he criticises evangelical theology in general for the way that Jesus' humanity and his earthly life and ministry are under examined. Too often, he feels we reduce the incarnation to no more than providing a sinless candidate for the atonement, whereas the incarnation has much more significance than this (though it does also have that significance, Cameron is quick to point out). He accuses the evangelical church of an inadvertent Docetism.

Having cleared the ground that Jesus is fully human and pointing out it matters that he was, Cameron then moves on to discuss how this insight should affect the Christian life.

He deals in chapter 3 with the whole area of the mind and intellect in humanity. This passage was very powerful as Cameron points out that life is not just for doing so-called "religious things". Important though activities like worship and evangelism are, they are not the be all and end all of being a human being. Cameron looks at creation, and man's original role as steward of the world, and claims that redemption does not do away with God's original purpose, but rather gets that original purpose back on track as it were. This reminded me of some of N. T. Wright's insights. The Bible's story is not about getting sinners to heaven and out of this mess of a creation we're in. It is about redeeming the creation and renewing it, for sinners to populate and live full human lives in a new heaven and earth.

Cameron points out that the traditional division between the secular and the sacred in life that we tacitly buy into in the church is unbiblical. At one point he says that to be novelist is every bit as noble a calling for the Christian as it is to be doctor or a teacher or a missionary.

Chapter 4 is an interesting discussion of the will and how we are guided by God. And it is a necessary corrective to the idea that Christians should be largely passive when we make important decisions.

He then discusses the emotions in what is another fine chapter.

Towards the end of the book there is a discussion of just how human (with all that entails) the "heroes of the faith" in the Bible are. Cameron suggests that if we got rid of false ideas of what it is to be "a saint" our Christian lives would be far more useful and peaceful. I think he is on the money where he criticises evangelical churches for denying perfectionism in theory but practically making it a stick to beat one another up with in practice.

His conclusion is simple yet very powerful. He points out that it is precisely when we seek to rise above our humanity as Christians or as human beings - as Adam did when he ate from the tree of good and evil - that we fall below what we should be. Since we are created in the image of God, to be human is to be as high in dignity and worth as we can ever hope to be and it is a great privilege and joy just to be a human being. Being a Christian is not about making ourselves less human, if anything it is about being more human than we could otherwise be. He writes: "[The] high goal of the Christian life does not consist in the suppression of the mind, the will, the heart, the body."

This is a book worth getting hold of and carefully reading. Any Christian would profit from it I would suggest. I would certainly like to read it again, slowly and prayerfully, because there's scarcely a page that doesn't say something challenging, encouraging and interesting.

A busy summer

2010-10-06T07:24:00.000+01:00

It's been a long time since I've posted anything to the blog, but I'm hoping to get back into the habit very soon. The summer was very a busy period for us as it involved the buying of a new house, trying to sell our old one, doing a bit of upgrading to the new one, and finally packing up and then moving in less than a fortnight ago.

Everything is starting to take shape now, and we're very happy in the new house.

I should have broadband up and running in a couple of days and then blogging will become a practical possibility again.

Introducing Covenant Theology

2010-06-17T07:10:00.004+01:00

Introducing Covenant Theology
Michael Horton
Baker Books

Michael Horton is one of the leading Reformed theologians working today and I have enjoyed reading several of his previous books. This book on covenant theology is no exception - it is tremendous.

The title is slightly misleading if you don't read it carefully. This is certainly not a mere introduction to covenant theology, but rather it does introduce us to fairly high-level current thinking on covenant theology. The book was formerly published with a different title, God of Promise, which I think was better.

For someone coming totally new to this area of theology, I think this book would be very challenging reading, and I would suggest perhaps something else as a first book on covenant theology. You could do a lot worse than reading James Packer's essay on covenant theology that was written as an introduction to Witsius's magnum opus, The Economy of Covenants Between God and Man. You can find Packer's essay here.

I really benefited from reading this book. Its discussion of the similarities and differences between the biblical covenants and the so-called suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East is excellent. Horton makes it clear that the Bible contains two forms of these treaties or covenants, and neither is what we would understand by a contract or agreement.

For Horton, there are covenants of law - and this includes the covenant of works with Adam before the Fall, and the Mosaic covenant at Sinai - and there covenants of promise - and this includes the covenants with Abraham, Noah, David and the New Covenant. Both are similar to these suzerain-vassal treaties, meaning that all are sovereignly imposed by God, but in the former case, there are obligations put on the people to obey and penalties for disobedience. This is the kind of treaty a conquering king would impose on a defeated nation after war.

But Horton correctly notes that many biblical covenants do not fit this pattern. The archetypal biblical covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, does not fit this pattern, for there no obligations are placed on Abraham - it is all promise, it is all grace. It is a treaty where the only obligations are taken by the king himself (in this case God) and the only potential penalties are self-maledictory ones. This points to the fact that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional in nature as far as we are concerned, though it was conditional as far as Christ was concerned.

There are interesting discussions within the book of such things as common grace, the sacraments, the church, and where our obedience fits into the covenant of grace scheme.

As I said before, this book is excellent and highly recommended, but perhaps don't think of it as a simple or basic introduction. It is actually a significant contribution to current Reformed thinking on covenant theology.

Recommended Bible Translations

2010-05-27T14:22:00.016+01:00

Having earlier laid out a way of test driving a Bible translation here in a number of key areas, I thought it might be a useful follow up to mention what I consider to be the best translations available in English at the moment. I say translations (plural) because a number of translations are very good indeed while none are perfect.

It is a good idea if you can to have one main Bible that you use for daily reading and general use, while having two or three other translations that you can compare against one another if you are doing more in-depth Bible study.

On the Scottish Bible Society website shop, there are no less than 19 different translations mentioned and they range from the Authorised Version (King James Version) at one end of the scale through to Eugene Peterson's contemporary paraphrase The Message at the other end of the scale. I'm not going to comment on all of them because I haven't used all of them and to be frank there are some that are not worth commenting on.

It seems to me that any English Bible translation must essentially be judged on four criteria:

a. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts used
b. The theological bias (and whether it is good or bad) of the translators
c. The accuracy of the translation
d. The effectiveness in communicating with the reader

The third and fourth criteria may be in tension with one another with more so-called "literal" translations (formal equivalence translations) tending to score higher for accuracy to the original text, while more dynamic translations (functional equivalence translations) tending to score higher for effective communication with the English reader. The optimum point lies somewhere between the two extremes which can either create very literal gobbledygook or "Biblish" at one end of the spectrum or clearly communicated half-truths or distortions of the meaning at the other end.

So here are my top ten choices in alphabetical order (not in order of preference).

1. AV/KJV - Authorised / King James Version

This is the classic English Bible first translated in 1611 (current editions are the 1769 Oxford revision). For over 200 years this was the Bible in English. Unsurpassed for beauty of translation in many passages, and with many phrases that have become part of everyday English, this is still worth having for reference purposes, especially if you read a lot of literature that was based on the KJV (e.g. Puritan or 19th century texts). However, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, a late Byzantine type of text probably further removed from the original autographs than most modern Bibles. In addition, the Jacobean English that gives much of the KJV's beauty can be difficult to understand and/or misleading for modern readers.

Nowadays, the KJV is probably best avoided as your main Bible unless you have grown up with it and used it all your life. It would make a good fifth or sixth choice if doing serious study as it is very literal and accurate (though accurate to a late NT Greek text).

2. ESV - English Standard Version

The ESV on the other hand is an up and coming translation very popular in Reformed and evangelical churches where preaching and Bible study tend to be at the heart of church life.

It is a conservative/Reformed revision of the RSV. It is literal in approach (though not to such an extent as some other versions) and very accurate and it has removed the liberal bias in the RSV from the text. (So for example "virgin" is restored to Isaiah 7:14.)

However, it does favour archaic turns of phrase in places, perhaps in an effort to sound more "like the Bible" (ie the KJV). Critics have accused the ESV (with some justification) of communicating in Biblish rather than in natural modern English.

Even so, the ESV is among the best conservative formal equivalence translations and is becoming widely used. Whether it ends up the "standard" English version is less certain. It would be a good choice as a main Bible for personal or church use, provided the congregation is fairly well-educated and comfortable with technical Bible words such as "propitiation" or "justification" (otherwise the preacher may spend a lot of time "translating" the ESV into easier English.

3. GNB - Good News Bible

The Good News Bible was the Bible used at the church I went to for many years. It is a simple functional equivalence translation, designed to be understood by people of all different education levels. The second edition from the 1990s onwards is generally more accurate and less quirky than the original version.

The Good News Bible does show a liberal bias in places which may make some evangelicals wary of it. If this is an issue, I would recommend switching to the NLT mentioned below. However, the NLT is not yet available in an anglicised version for UK readers.

4. NASB - New American Standard Bible

I like the NASB. It is a very accurate translation indeed, to the point of being stilted and wooden according to some critics. This means that the NASB can be difficult to understand in places for this very reason. It tends to translate Hebrew or Koine Greek idioms word-for-word for example, which do not always mean anything to English readers. This is why a dynamic equivalent translation is useful alongside something as literal as the NASB.

There are also a few other minor quibbles with it. It is written only in American English, which is annoying as a British reader. Also, it uses capitals for pronouns relating to the Godhead, which is a personal stylistic issue that I don't like either. And it tends to take a more traditional line in translation that might not be in line with up-to-date biblical scholarship. For example NASB has "only begotten" in John 3:16, whereas modern scholars tell us the word means "unique"/"one of a kind".

The NASB's very strength is also the reason I would not recommend it as a primary Bible for church or personal use. However, if you can afford two Bibles, I would suggest the NASB would be a good second choice for study and comparison purposes as it takes you as close to the Greek and Hebrew as any English version in wide use today.

5. NIV - New International Version

The NIV is the best selling English version and the version used in worship and Bible study at my own church.

I find the NIV is an excellent balance between accuracy, readability and clarity. It is still the best choice, I believe, as a person's main everyday Bible. The drawbacks are few but there are times where the NIV is overly interpretive and not literal enough. For this reason, though I recommend using the NIV as your main Bible as it is a brilliant "all-rounder" you should supplement it with something more literal such as the NASB or ESV.

The NIV has recently been updated from the previous 1984 version. The 2011 NIV is very similar to the TNIV which is not longer being circulated (see TNIV below for more information on this point).

6. NKJV - New King James Version

A thorough revision and update of the KJV done by American scholars in 1982. The revision is so extensive that the NKJV is almost better classed as a new translation.

If it were not for the textual basis of the New Testament (the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus the same as the KJV), the NKJV would be among the the top choices among formal equivalent translations. Indeed it probably is up there anyway. The Old Testament translation is among the best of any Bible.

NKJV also has the best set of textual notes of any Bible. All editions allow readers to see where the different textual traditions differ in the Greek text. If you could get a version of the NKJV with the NU variants in the text, it would be ideal.

Basically the NKJV gives you the KJV without the thees, thys and dosts.

7. NLT - New Living Translation

Some have mistakenly called the NLT a mere revision of the Living Bible which is an out and out paraphrase. But that's unfair. The NLT is a new and very good translation. The only thing it shares really with the earlier work is the "Living" part of its name.

The NLT is a thorough-going dynamic equivalence translation, similar in style to the Good News Bible. Yet, the NLT is a far better translation in my view because it is written from a conservative theological viewpoint and was produced by a team of translators who are a virtual who's who of Old and New Testament scholars.

In my view, the NLT is not literal enough to be used as a main preaching, teaching or study bible, except perhaps in congregations with many people who either don't have a church background or where perhaps many of the congregation have a poor level of reading ability.

It would be a good third or fourth translation to have for comparison. It is easy to read, which is very useful if you are reading large sections of narrative in particular. Unfortunately there is no British English edition yet in existence.

8. NRSV - New Revised Standard Version

The NRSV is an excellent modern translation using the formal equivalence method of translation and using the most up to date Hebrew and Greek texts. What mars it somewhat is its liberal theological bias that is shown in many places and also its consistent use of "gender neutral" language. Although I don't mind this in places where it reads things like "brothers and sisters" where the underlying text would be used for both males and females, I don't care for it when words in the singular are pluralised so as to avoid the generic "he". It also seems to be absurd to change things like "Son of Man" to "Mortal"(!).

Because of its problems, I would not choose the NRSV as my main Bible, but it is a very good second or third version to read in conjunction with more conservative versions. On many many occasions it translates verses very well.

9. REB - Revised English Bible

The REB reminds me very much of the NRSV and in many respects it is a similar translation aimed at a similar readership. Both Bibles are produced by and largely used by mainline liberal denominations, but whereas the NRSV is a revised and update of the RSV and was essentially an American translation, the REB is a major revision of the New English Bible (1970) and is a British translation.

The REB is very well written and often stylish and it does not go overboard with the gender neutral stuff. However, it still shows a liberal bias in places.

I find it useful as an alternative type of translation and coming from a different translational heritage to many of the other versions. At times it gives fresh insight into a passage. At other times, it is less successful. It is, however, a much better translation than the old NEB.

10. TNIV - Today's New International Version

The truth is that the TNIV is very similar indeed to its parent translation the NIV. The main difference is that the TNIV adopts gender neutral language throughout - both pluralising to avoid the generic "he" pronoun and using phrases like "brothers and sisters" to translate adelphoi.

As far as the changes from the NIV are concerned, they are a mixed bag. Many of the changes are for the better and in some respects the TNIV is slightly more literal than the NIV. However, some are not as good in my view as the original NIV.

The TNIV has proved very controversial because of its gender neutral language and though a good translation it is probably not worth using, not least because it is no longer being produced as the new NIV has now come out to replace it.

Recommendations

It is impossible to give recommendations that will be right for everyone. There is wisdom in a "horses for courses" approach.

As I said at the beginning, it is good to have a number of translations if possible so that they can be compared. Often this will give greater insight into the meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek.

I suggest a combination of at least any four of the following groups:

1. NASB / ESV / NKJV - I think it essential to have a good literal translation produced by a team of conservative/evangelical scholars. This is one of mainstays of serious Bible study for English readers.

2. NIV / TNIV - The NIV group of translations strike perhaps the best balance between formal and function equivalence, being both clear in communication and largely accurate in translation. I would say one of these is essential and would probably be the best Bible to choose if you only have one, or one main one.

3. NRSV / REB - Either the NRSV or REB would make a good third Bible to use for serious study. Although they are liberal in parts, they offer insight into how others might interpret the biblical texts and in many instances they can provide a useful counterweight to the more conservative translations. The REB in particular may well contrast with other translations as it comes from a different translation parentage. If one wanted to avoid any liberal translation at all, I would suggest skipping these two and having two from the first group instead.

4. GNB / NLT - Either of these dynamic equivalent translations would make a good fourth Bible. They can be useful if reading large sections of the Bible at a sitting such as Old Testament narrative and they will be easy to understand though at times offering more an interpretation than a mere translation of a passage. Between them, the NLT is much more conservative in theology. Its only drawback is that it does not have an anglicized version as yet. The same could be said of the NASB and NKJV for that matter.

New Labour: 1994–2010

2010-05-13T15:34:00.003+01:00

It was with mixed feelings that I saw the departure of the Labour government from power after 13 years. As a working-class boy who grew up during the 1980s with a keen political interest and a pair of eyes, Margaret Thatcher and the Tory government were the enemy. It was as simple as that. It was as black and white as that.

The Labour Party were the heroes in exile who would one day rescue ordinary people from the Tories.

As you get older, you realise that things were never that simple then and are not simple now.

I still believe the Thatcher/Major government did much that was bad for the country. Not least the Poll Tax foisted on Scotland a year before everyone else by a colonial governor (aka the Scottish Secretary) when the Conservatives had very little electoral support north of the Border. Yet, there were also some things that were good and right. It would be foolish to maintain otherwise. I thought the right for working people to buy their council house after paying years of rent was a good idea. And we shouldn't forget that important legislation like the Disability Discrimination Act was passed by John Major's government.

In comparison, after thirteen years of Labour government, they were not quite the heroes I thought they were when I was a teenager. This government has also been a mixture of good and bad. I happen to think there has been much more good than bad (unlike the previous Tory administration). There is much that Labour has given us of which they can be proud: the national minimum wage, the Scottish Parliament, improvements in public services like the NHS and schools, and maybe most of all a sense that we are closer to being one nation again. Unfortunately there were also bad choices and practices: government by spin far too often, the war in Iraq, probably less than full value for money in return for the increases in public spending (the NHS got better but probably not that much better for all the money spent), poor control of immigration, and a horrible tendency to promote the nanny state (government control) and political correctness gone mad. Perhaps most worrying in recent years has been a shift away from freedom of speech and freedom of ideas and towards a totalitarian treatment of those who seek to maintain and promote a Christian understanding of the world (sexual morality in particular) under the guise of "equality legislation".

In the end, I am sad to see this government go, but not that sad. I fear where their ideology would have taken us given five more years. Mostly I am sad because they failed to achieve their potential rather than because I feel they didn't deserve to lose the election. Truth is, they probably did deserve to lose. In the end they forgot what they were in government for. They were in office, but not in power. They ceased to have vision and energy and looked tired and jaded.

I hope that we will have more sensible policies in the future and a defence of more traditional British values like free speech and common sense, but I won't be holding my breath.

The Profit-Driven Life

2010-04-30T07:51:00.002+01:00

A Critique of The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren

The Purpose-Driven Life is a popular best-selling book by Rick Warren, the founding pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. It was written in 2002 and is published by Zondervan. As of today, it was still at number five on Amazon’s list of bestselling books on ‘Christian Living.’ So there must still be a significant number of new copies being sold. In addition, the book has sold over 20 million copies and so has potentially influenced many Christians during the past 8 years . This is enough to warrant my brief Johnny-come-lately review.

The book is aggressively marketed and makes huge claims for itself. The back cover proclaims high-praise indeed:

‘Make sure you’re not missing the point of your life—read this book!’ (Billy Graham and Franklin Graham).
‘A Groundbreaking Manifesto on the Meaning of Life.’
‘A blueprint for Christian living in the 21st century.’

Everything about the packaging of the book speaks first and foremost of a business venture, a money-spinning brand. On almost every page the phrase “Purpose-Driven” is infuriatingly marked with the ‘®’ mark, which is simply ridiculous. What is it about Americans that they think they can have proprietary control over the English language. As a good British patriot I want to tell them to back off. Our languages belongs to the people, not corporate America. The profit-driven life underpinning this book is further demonstrated by the plethora of spin-offs that the reader is encouraged to buy in addition to the book: calendars, journals, CDs, etc. You name it and they’ll slap ‘Purpose-Driven®’ on it and sell you it.

So much for the marketing and blurb. Moving on to the book itself, the name of the problem is ‘legion’ for there are many.

The first problem with the substance of the book occurs right at the very beginning, even before we reach the Contents page. The book simply takes a careless approach to Scripture, and constantly fails to distinguish between Scriptures addressed to God’s people and Scriptures that may be applied to everyone. The reader is addressed as ‘you’ throughout, and it is clear from the start that the ‘you’ is any reader, not just any Christian reader. Absolutely nothing is even hinted that the promises of God’s blessing and salvation do not apply to unbelievers.

The introduction is entitled ‘A Journey With a Purpose’ and the stated purpose of the book is fair enough, laudable even. The book sets out to ‘enable you to discover the answer to life’s most important questions.’ Fair enough. But then it goes overboard and claims that it will ‘reduce your stress, simplify your decisions, increase your satisfaction, and most important [sic], prepare you for eternity.’ (p.9).

We will refrain from commenting on this beyond saying that it seems to take the roles of the Bible and the Holy Spirit and make them its own. And in that sense it usurps the place of Word and Spirit in its claims.

Clearly then the book has great ambition and makes grand claims for itself. This is no mere guide to the Christian life. No mere signpost to the Scriptures themselves. It reads as if the book gives some kind of inside track to spiritual happiness.

The strange thing is that it tries to speak to the non-Christian about how he or she can discover what life is all about, without beginning with an explanation of what’s wrong with their lives as they are 'without hope and without God in the world'. This book contrives to largely by-pass the apostolic gospel and jumps straight to what is in effect the Christian life – but it applies it to believers and those who have not yet come to saving faith alike.

It is certainly not written for the biblically-minded Christian, because few Christians would, I would hope, accept the vaguely mystical aspects of the structure. There is the whole business about the 40 days for one thing of which much is made in the book’s self-recommendation. Warren claims that some kind of magical importance attaches to the number 40: ‘God considers 40 days a spiritually significant period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days.’ (p.9) This is simply untrue. It is a pseudo-mystical statement written for a biblically illiterate generation. Some of the ‘examples’ used to justify this sweeping statement are risible. Noah and his 40 days of rain for instance. Apparently the many years it took Noah to build the ark cannot be considered as part of his preparation for God’s purposes! And what about all the people who didn’t go through a 40-day spiritual ‘programme’? Insignificant biblical characters like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, Job, Mary, Peter and Paul to name a few – there was no 40-day magical period of preparation. This is utter nonsense – marketing tripe of the worst order.

Warren makes much of the fact that the Scriptures are cited extensively. That is superficially true, but even here there are major problems. The first problem is the way in which the Bible is cited. On almost no occasion is the reference given, so that the reader can look up the verse in his own Bible. Almost all evangelical Christian books encourage the reader – indeed force the reader sometimes – to go to the Bible for themselves. At the very least they enable the reader to note which verses are being quoted. Warren’s book discourages this by giving the references an endnote number. The actual verse references are buried in an appendix at the back of the book. The second problem is that there is a strong tendency to quote from loose paraphrases that fail to convery with any accuracy the content of the Word of God. Warren also has a tendency to quote from a wide range of translations and it might look like he picks the translation to fit his points rather than adjusting his points to ‘fit’ what the Bible actually says. This is pick-and-mix theology for the postmodern world. A perfect example is Warren’s choice for the most often quoted version of Scripture. The very loose paraphrase, The Message, is used most often. It makes the Bible sound contemporary to the reader unfamiliar with the Bible, which may be useful sometimes, but it is often woefully inaccurate and should never be used to back up theological arguments in the way Warren uses it.

Another aspect of the book I don’t like is the ‘My Covenant’ page right at the start of the book. Here the reader is supposed to fill in his name that ‘With God’s help, I commit the next 40 days of my life to discovering God’s purpose for my life.’ That’s some commitment. It’s so shallow, one hardly knows where to begin. Who is this ‘covenant’ being made with and why? To Rick Warren? Only his name and the reader’s appear on it. Certainly not to God and rightly so. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace—all of humanity is under one or the other in this life and neither last for only 40 days.

Originally, I had planned to work my way through the book and review each chapter, but actually I couldn’t be bothered after about ten days in, so I’m going to spare you any more of this review.

I found an excellent review on the web that pretty much says what I would have written anyway, so if you want to find out more, I commend the review by Tim Challies at http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/book-review-rick-warrens-the-purpose-driven-life.

I'll close with this. The Christian faith is not primarily concerned with giving you a purpose-driven life, though it will do that. No, the Christian faith is primarily concerned with the purpose-driven God revealed in the Scriptures. As the Shorter Catechism put it so well, 'Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.' Warren's book falls short - way short - of this full-orbed biblical vision of the purpose of human life.

Test Driving Bible Translations

2010-04-28T21:26:00.001+01:00

There are a number of verses I like to look at as a personal ‘road test’ used to assess an English language Bible translation for textual basis, accuracy, theological bias (conservative or liberal), translation approach (complete equivalence, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or paraphrase), and in a few cases, the beauty of the translation.

Ultimately, I think an English reader will normally benefit from using more than one translation – at least one literal one and one more dynamic one, which can help bring out the meaning. The advantage of a literal translation is that it stays close to the inspired texts in the original language; the weakness can be that it may not always communicate particularly clearly or well in English. Conversely, a more dynamic translation’s weakness is that it may stray more from the original text and be more interpretative, giving the translators’ opinions; the advantage that it will communicate clearly to the English reader.

For me, the best approach is to only move towards the more dynamic approach when the translation would otherwise be unclear or misleading, but this should be kept in check to avoid the translators straying into interpretative territory.

Brief explanations of what is preferable in translation follow each of the following 39 verses. By checking your translation against these verses, you will get a good idea of the textual basis underlying your Bible translation, how accurate and clear it is, and what theological biases it has (if any) either good or bad.

1 Samuel 8:16

‘He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.’ (NASB)

A good verse to show how strictly the Old Testament translation is sticking to the Masoretic Hebrew text (‘young men’), or how readily the translators will take a more eclectic approach making use of the Septuagint or other versions, as then they will have ‘cattle’ or similar as this supposedly makes more sense in context (i.e. the Hebrew text is believed to be corrupted here). It is possible that occasionally the Septuagint in Greek – being older than existing Hebrew texts – may represent an earlier more accurate form of the Hebrew texts.

Matthew 10:8

‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (EMTV)

‘Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NKJV).

‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.’ (NIV)

This is an interesting verse to check out the textual basis of the translation of the New Testament because the three commonly used published texts differ from each other in this verse and in a way that does show up in translation. The Majority Text (the Byzantine Text-Type found in the majority of Greek manuscripts) omits the words ‘raise the dead’ – as in the EMTV above. The Textus Receptus or Received Text (the form of the Byzantine text used in the historic Reformation translations of the Bible) has ‘cleanse the lepers’ before ‘raise the dead.’ The Nestle-Aland/UBS eclectic text has: ‘raise the dead’ before ‘cleanse those who have leprosy.’ This is the text most modern translations are based on.

Genesis 1:2

‘The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.’ (NASB)

This verse is a test of theological bias. The verse should mention the ‘Spirit of God’ and not some impersonal ‘power of God’ or ‘wind of God’ that obscures the reference to the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 19:24

‘Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky.’ (WEB)

An accurate translation here will mention Yahweh, Jehovah or ‘the LORD’ as if two persons – one raining the sulphur on Sodom, from another in heaven.

Ruth 2:20

‘And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed is he of Jehovah, who has not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said to her, The man is near of kin to us, he is of our redeemers.’ (MKJV)

When translated properly as here, this verse brings out very clearly the OT concept of the “Kinsman-Redeemer” so crucial in understanding Christ’s office as the Redeemer of his people.

Psalm 25:14

‘The LORD is the friend of those who obey him and he affirms his covenant with them.’ (GNB)

Though the Hebrew can be translated otherwise, without loss of accuracy (e.g. secrecy or intimacy of the LORD), this brings out the beauty of the covenant as bond of friendship between God and his people.

Psalm 92:7

‘When the wicked spring as the grass, And when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; It is that they shall be destroyed for ever.’ (ASV)

Strong translations like this will not shy away from stating that God’s purpose in allowing the wicked to flourish is precisely so they shall be destroyed for ever.

Proverbs 16:4

‘The Lord hath made all things for his own sake: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.’ (Geneva)

This magnificent statement of divine sovereignty is sometimes watered down. First and foremost everything is made for ‘himself’ or for ‘his own sake’ not ‘for its own purpose’. And this includes making the wicked for the day of evil. This verse clearly teaches reprobation.

Isaiah 7:14

‘So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.’ (MKJV)

No translation is really acceptable to a conservative Christian which does not have ‘virgin’ here. Some liberal translations have 'young woman' instead. Although this is a permissible translation from Hebrew, it is clear from Matthew's interpretation of this verse in his Gospel, that he regarded the correct translation as 'virgin' (which is what the Greek word is in the New Testament - and in the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament).

Ezekiel 33:11

‘Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord Jehovah, I do not have delight in the death of the wicked, except in the wicked turning from his way, and so to live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! For why will you die, O house of Israel?’ (LITV)

Most translation have ‘have no pleasure in’ or ‘desire’ or even worse ‘want’ but ‘delight’ is the best translation by far, as this confirms that all God’s desires are fulfilled (cf Job 23:13) while allowing that God delights in many things that he does not in all occasions come to pass (cf Jer 9:24).

Jonah 3:3

‘So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of Jehovah. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city, of three days’ journey.’ (ASV)

The meaning of the phrase ‘of three days’ journey’ is ambiguous. It is better left that way in the translation rather than interpreting it only one way, possibly wrongly. Some say the city was three days’ journey across or three days' journey away or a visit required three days to see the city. All of these are possibilities.

Haggai 2:7

‘And I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’ (NKJV)

Many translations miss the Messianic prophecy contained here. The “Desire of All Nations” is a person – it is a title of the Messiah, and it foretells of the Gentile nations coming to Christ as their Saviour. Many translations misinterpret this verse so as to completely remove this prophecy, e.g. the NASB is representative: ‘’I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.’

Micah 5:2

‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, being small among the clans of Judah, out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.’ (WEB)

The verse really must be ‘goings forth’ not ‘origins’, and from ‘everlasting’ or at very least from ‘the days of eternity’ as this verse concerns the eternal Son of God.

Matthew 2:10

‘When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.’ (KJV)

This is a good verse to see how literal/formal equivalent a translation is. A good one will have rejoiced/great joy repeated. Dynamic equivalents will change to ‘overjoyed’ or something similar and not mention both rejoice and joy.

Matthew 16:18

‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ (EMTV)

Firstly, the verse must not be translated to suggest that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. This is almost certainly not what the verse means. Although Peter does mean ‘a rock’, the word means a smallish rock or pebble, whereas the ‘rock’ mentioned is a mass of rock or a huge boulder.

Matthew 19:9

‘And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’ (ESV)

The word traditionally rendered ‘fornication’ is ‘porneia’ and probably includes other kinds of serious sex sin and not just full sexual intercourse. So ‘sexual immorality’ or similar is a better translation.

Mark 2:19

‘And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast”.’ (ESV)

The phrase translated ‘wedding guests’ is a Hebrew idiom literally meaning ‘children’ or ‘sons of the bridechamber’. If translated as literally as this, the meaning is either lost or made quite misleading.

Luke 4:22

‘And all they bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth, and said: Is not this Joseph's son?’ (Tyndale)

It is much better to translate as ‘bare witness to him’ than ‘all spoke well of him’ which is probably not true in the situation and not the primary meaning of the Greek word. You can bare witness even when telling others and voicing disapproval, which is what Christ actually encountered.

Luke 10:34

‘He went over to him, poured oil and wine on his wounds and bandaged them; then he put the man on his own animal and took him to an inn, where he took care of him.’ (GNB)

Actually a literal translation here will give the misleading impression that the order of events was that the wounds were bandaged and then the oil was poured on. A Greek reader would know from the Greek participles used that the oil and wine were put on first, then the wounds bandaged. Usually a more functionally equivalent translation will correctly clarify this by changing the order of events round into natural English.

John 3:16

‘For God loved the world in this way: that he gave his one-of-a-kind Son, in order that everyone believing in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ (Author’s Translation)

‘One-of-a-kind’ or ‘one and only’ is a more accurate translation of the Greek word monogenes that the traditional ‘Only begotten’ which misunderstands the meaning of the Greek word. It is not ‘only generated’ but ‘one-of-a-kind’. Likewise ‘everyone believing’ or ‘every who believes’ is better than ‘whosoever believes’ though from the KJV we are probably stuck with this in most English translations. It is clearer with ‘everyone believing’ that this is the same group as those who constitute the ‘world’ in the first half of the verse.

Acts 5:30

‘The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.’ (ESV)

First, it should read ‘tree’ here not ‘cross’ which is interpretative and definitely not the word Luke used. More importantly, it should not read ‘whom you killed and hanged on a tree’ as in KJV, which makes it sound as if a corpse already killed was then hanged on a tree.

Acts 20:28

‘Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.’ (HCSB)

When correctly translated as here, this verse is a great prooftext that Christ is God. Unfortunately some translations fluff it.

Romans 3:25

‘whom 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.’ (ESV)

I will not accept a translation that does not have ‘propitiation’ here or at least an explanation of what the term means. This is a key NT concept – Christ’s death turns aside God’s wrath from us. Only propitiation (or an explanatory phrase) will do for this key verse to Paul’s entire presentation of the true gospel.

Romans 8:28

‘And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.’ (NASB)

This is a difficult verse to translate as there are textual variants. It can be rendered ‘All things work together for good’ (most translations) or ‘God works all things together for good’ (NASB, NLT & CEV take it this way). Either of these is acceptable. Other weaker translations such as ‘in all things God works for the good’ (NIV) (i.e. with the implication that he may do so but perhaps might not succeed) are not as strong testimonies to the sovereignty of God in all things.

Romans 9:5

‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen.’ (NIV)

Liberal translations often mess about with the punctuation or word order here to rule out Christ being called God in this verse. The NIV is one of the best in English – clearly stating Christ’s full deity.

1 Corinthians 7:1

‘Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ (NASB)

Many translations try to interpret Paul one way or another – usually either saying ‘not to have sexual relations with’ (ESV) or ‘not to marry’ (GNB). I think the ESV is correct, but I would argue it is better to translate what Paul actually wrote and leave it for commentators and preachers to explain it – and leave it as ‘not to touch’ in the translation.

1 Corinthians 7:36
‘But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.’ (NKJV)

Again this verse is translated literally here – and the job of interpreting it left to commentators or preachers. Who is ‘his virgin’? is the issue. Most translations which seek to interpret it, regard it as ‘betrothed’ (the virgin he is going to marry) and this is probably right, although ASV and NASB have ‘virgin daughter’ putting the man in a ‘father of the bride’ position.

2 Corinthians 5:14

‘For Christ’s love controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore this all have died.’ (Author’s Translation)

Almost no translations seem to notice that the second ‘all’ is quite deliberately and precisely identified the same group of people as the first ‘all’. The point being that only believers have ‘died’ to sin and so the ‘all’ for whom Christ died is not everyone, but his own people. The ALT also picks up on this and even the CEV picks up on it with its ‘all of us have died’ paraphrase, but almost all others miss it.

2 Corinthians 5:16

‘Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.’ (NKJV)

Many translations will try to interpret this verse for us – as ‘human standards’ (GNB), outward appearance (CEV), ‘from a worldly point of view’ (NIV). These may or may not be incorrect but they are highly interpretative and simply not what Paul wrote. It is probably safer to leave it as ‘the flesh’ and leave it to commentators and preachers to explain how it can be interpreted.

Ephesians 3:9-10

‘and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.’ (ESV)

I understand one possible interpretation of these verses is that God created all things so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might be made known. Some translations punctuate the sentences to rule this interpretation out. I cannot see why Paul would introduce creation into this sentence otherwise. At the very least, a fair translation would not rule out the supralapsarian viewpoint by punctuation!

Philippians 2:6-7

‘Who, being in very nature God, did not it consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no account, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.’ (Author’s Translation)

This is well-known as one of the most difficult verses to translate in the entire New Testament. One error to be avoided is the notion that Christ gave up his deity or attributes of deity when he became incarnate. The admittedly literal translation ‘emptied himself’ (instead of ‘made himself nothing’ or ‘made no account of himself’) is open to this error and probably best avoided. The older versions usually have ‘made himself of no reputation’ which is also good. ‘Made himself of no account’ though not used in any translation I could find, would capture the meaning of the verse well in my opinion.

Colossians 2:8

‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ (NKJV)

What Paul has in view here is really the world’s viewpoint, the basic, elementary principles that the world assumes are true. Some translations miss the point and think this refers to worldly superstitions or spiritual matters, but it need not be limited to this.

2 Timothy 3:16

‘All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.’ (ESV)

Most translations feel bound to go with the traditional ‘inspired’ here but this really quite misleading. The crucial point of the word Paul uses here is not that the Scriptures are ‘inspired’ writings in the sense that we might say Shakespeare was inspired when he wrote Hamlet or King Lear. The true meaning is that the Scripture are breathed out by God. They are in the truest sense, God’s own words. They are literally ‘God-breathed’ (NIV). The KJV ‘given by inspiration of God’ is a little better as this at least hints that the ‘inspiration of God’ is something God actively does in order to give us the Scriptures. ‘God-breathed’ (NIV) is much better and entirely literal, but this translation in the ESV is best of all – it accurately conveys the Greek in a natural English sentence. The worst is where the sentence is re-worded to say ‘Every inspired Scripture is…’ implying that not all scripture is inspired.

Hebrews 2:9

‘but we do see Jesus crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death was made a little less than the angels, so that by the grace of God He might taste of death for all.’ (LITV)

‘All’ is more accurate than ‘all men’ which is actually interpretative. Which ‘all’ is in view here? ‘All believers’ would be true, but he did not taste death for all without exception - not for the reprobate wicked in hell in Reformed theology at any rate.

1 Peter 3:3-4

‘You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. Instead, your beauty should consist of your true inner self, the ageless beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of the greatest value in God's sight.’ (GNB)

There is a tricky Greek phrase to translate in verse 4. Literally it is ‘the hidden man of the heart’ which is either meaningless or liable to be terribly misunderstood when rendered as literally as this in English. It is a Greek idiom meaning something like ‘true inner self’ as here in GNB or ‘the inmost self’ (REB). This may be an occasion where the principle ‘as free as necessary’ should be applied to the translation as the point is that it should be inner beauty that adorns a Christian woman. Certainly, it is not that she should have a mysterious ‘hidden man of the heart’!

2 Peter 1:1

‘To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.’ (NIV)

A good translation will make it clear that ‘our God’ is our ‘Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Some translations mistranslate as ‘our God and our Saviour’ implying two persons are involved, which is certainly not what the Greek means.

2 Peter 1:20

‘knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.’ (NKJV)

The innocuous-looking last phrase in this verse has caused perhaps as much controversy as any verse in the New Testament! There are at least three different ways the verse can be taken. It is unclear whether the verse means that the Scripture is not allowed to be privately interpretated by a Christian (BBE) (this would be Rome’s traditional view – that the Church will define what Scripture means for the faithful), or is incapable of being interpreted by an individual privately (CEV), or that no prophecy comes about through the prophet’s own imagination (NET) but by revelation (as the next verse makes clear). I think the NET’s interpretation is actually correct, but it remains very much an interpretation of the meaning of the text rather than a translation. A more literal, neutral translation such as the NKJV’s here is probably best, as it leaves it up to expositors to explain what the phrase means. Some translations choose one of the possible meanings for the reader. Unfortunately, if they have chosen the wrong one, then the readers are misled.

1 John 3:9

‘No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’ (NASB)

Many translations simply state that no one born of God sins, which is misleading, since we do continue to sin after we are born again as Christian believers. But we no longer practise sin. It happens but we do not work at it and revel in it. The NASB and some other translations bring out John’s point much better.

Jude 4

‘For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’ (ESV)

Strong translations like this do not shrink from the doctrine of reprobation. Some people are long ago designated for condemnation. The KJV is even stronger than this: ‘before of old ordained to this’ but some are very weak: ‘whose condemnation was written about long ago’ completely obscures what is being said here.

Abbreviations

ALT - Analytical Literal Translation
ASV - American Standard Version
BBE - The Bible in Basic English
CEV - Contemporary English Version
EMTV - English Majority Text Version
Geneva - Geneva Bible
GNB - Good News Bible
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible
KJV - King James Version
LITV - Literal Version
MKJV - Modern King James Version
NASB - New American Standard Bible
NIV - New International Version
NKJV - New King James Version
NLT - New Living Translation
Tyndale - William Tyndale Version
WEB - World English Bible

General Election 2010

2010-04-26T09:23:00.006+01:00

I used to find it easy to choose who to vote for - and in every general election since I first voted in 1992, I have voted Labour (I have voted for other parties in local, Scottish Parliament and European elections, but always Labour in General Elections).

This time round, I'm finding it really hard to choose which party to vote for. I try to weigh the different party policies, the local candidates and which party leader do I want to be Prime Minister. Even when I go through this, as a Christian, a patriot, an employee, a husband, a son, a tax payer, a car driver, and so the list could go on, it is very difficult to decide what to do.

When I look at which party's policies are closest to my own, I get very mixed results. This is probably because I don't have views that fit neatly into just one party. As a Christian I am equally interested in defending traditional moral and family values (usually seen as 'right wing') and in defending/promoting social justice and green issues (usually seen as more 'left wing'). While on the economy and tax, my views are in the centre ground - I neither support an unfettered free market nor an old-fashioned planned economy; I support a mixed economy, a moral market. I did the survey on a helpful website: http://www.votematch.org.uk and the results were very mixed. The party that matched my views most was the Liberal Democrats, but that was only a 62% match, which means I disagree with them basically on 2/5 issues. Second was UKIP on 53% (although I am not in favour of leaving the European Union). Third was the SNP on 47% (although I am strongly opposed to Scottish independence). Fourth was the Greens on 42%. Labour and Conservative were joint last on 29% agreement.

However, it's not as simple as that, is it? Because not all values or issues are created equal. The question I'm facing is to what extent can you put aside disagreements in one area because of agreements in another area? For example, even if I agree on loads of policies can I in good conscience vote SNP when I don't want Scottish independence, or Lib Dem when I'm opposed to further European integration and the Euro? It's very difficult when trying to sift all the policies. Maybe I should consider more the local candidates?

Regarding the local candidates, well where I live is a fairly safe Labour seat with the Liberal Democrats in second place last time at a General Election and SNP second last time in the more recent Scottish elections. We have had some dealings with the incumbent Labour MP and have not been impressed. The only party that seems to be putting much effort in locally to gain votes is the Liberal Democrats. From second place last time, they claim to be in the best position to defeat the sitting MP. Surely it's about time Labour stopped taking Glasgow for granted and put up some half-decent candidates, rather than "jobs for the boys" for party apparatchiks and ex-trade unionists?

So, on policies and locally the Liberal Democrats seem to be a possible choice. But in a general election, it's not just about the manifesto and the local candidate. It's also about choosing the next Prime Minister and government. This is where I find myself drawn back towards my traditional Labour loyalties. Here I think Gordon Brown remains head and shoulders about either Clegg or Cameron. This has gained some momentum in the past few days as it's beginning to look like a vote for the Liberal Democrats will secure 10 Downing Street for David Cameron, either with a majority (remember 1983 when the left vote split between Labour and the SDLP/Liberal Alliance giving Thatcher a landslide?) or in a Lib-Con coalition. This would have been unimaginable under Ashdown or Kennedy, but Clegg has taken the party further to the right on economic issues since becoming leader, and he has gone on record saying he will not support Labour even if they have the most seats if they come third in the popular vote.

That's the rambling thoughts of just one voter. If that's anything like the dilemma faced by most voters at this election, who knows what the final result will be?

Grasping God's Word

2010-04-09T07:40:00.004+01:00

I have produced a one-page summary of the Bible study method taught in the very helpful book, Grasping God's Word, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hayes.

You can download a PDF of the summary here or follow the link on the right under "Articles and Papers".

The Saving Righteousness of God

2010-03-31T15:32:00.001+01:00

The Saving Righteousness of God
Michael F. Bird
Paternoster/Wipf & Stock 2007

This is an important if rather technical work from a talented Australian theologian on the much debated areas of Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Bird's book is irenic in tone, in fact it's practically a call for a cease fire in the hostilities between the Old Perspective and the New Perspective on justification.

Bird charts a "third way" that is basically still the Old Perspective but augmented (and I use that word deliberately as opposed to "diminished") by some valid New Perspective insights. Such an approach is risky - it always risks being attacked on two fronts, as being not true to either perspective. But Bird is a careful exegete and willing to be critical of both sides.

Some of the chapters have appeared in some form within theological journals and periodicals, but have probably been revised for publication here, and there is also a fair amount of new material.

Of particular interest was Bird's concept of "incorporated righteousness" rather than imputed (traditional Protestant theology) or infused (traditional Roman Catholic theology) righteousness in the doctrine of justification. If I read Bird correctly, he has no problem with, and agrees with, imputation as a systematic theology category, but he thinks this is not how Paul himself understood our becoming righteous. In a way, Paul's scheme is simpler. We are righteous because Christ is righteous and we are "in Christ" - incorporated into Christ, in union with Christ. I found Bird's analysis interesting.

The end result may be the same, but there is a difference between Christ giving us his righteousness and us benefiting from his righteousness by being united to him. Either way we are righteous through an alien righteousness being reckoned to us, but there are differences too. One is like a cosmic set of accounts being drawn up and righteousness being transferred from one account to the other. The other is much more relational and organic. It's like the difference between handing someone one of your umbrellas and a raincoat to protect them from the rain, and inviting them to come into your house. Either way you are kept dry, but the methods are very different.

The other chapters were interesting too, particularly his analysis of the close link between Christ's resurrection and our justification (cf Romans 4:25). Rather than looking at Christ's life in terms of merit that can then be passed around the faithful, Bird sides with the New Perspective and sees it in terms of fulfilling his mission as Messiah and being the one faithful Israelite. Then the resurrection is seen as Christ's own vindication and justification first and then ours through union with him. If Christ's resurrection becomes our justification, it is difficult to see how our future justification can be based on works as N. T. Wright posits. Indeed Bird comes fair and squarely down on the side of the Old Perspective when he states that our future justification is based solely on Christ's death and resurrection. Our works, for Bird, are evidential and not instrumental in our justification.

I found this book stimulating and challenging reading. It deserves to be widely read in Reformed and evangelical circles.

The Future of Justification

2010-03-20T16:08:00.004Z

The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 2008

This is an important book from John Piper in which he outlines and then criticises in detail the teachings regarding justification by New Perspective theologian and Anglican bishop, N. T. Wright.

Piper here is at his very best and writes as a theologian and as a concerned pastor. Point-by-point he criticises Wright not just because Wright's views are different from the Reformed/Protestant tradition (the proponents of Wright's views who dismiss Piper with this kind of remark have totally missed the mark). Piper engages Wright on the texts and the discussion is at the exegetical level for the most part.

The Future of Justification brings into sharper focus just how much the New Perspective on Paul - even in its most evangelical guise under Wright's advocacy - is a serious departure yes from Reformed tradition, but more seriously from the New Testament. Time and time again, Piper demonstrates just how Wright's claims take some of the evidence and treat it as if it was all and then dismisses the texts that don't fit. The truth is that Wright is the one committed to a theological project through which he reads the texts. Claims to be only concerned with the texts fail to convince.

Piper writes with an irenic spirit yet not one that will compromise the gospel. He bends over backwards in fact to put Wright in the best possible light he can. Yet even with this, he still makes many telling criticisms of Wrightian exegesis and theology. I think the power of Piper's "response" is obvious - not least in the fact that Wright felt he had write a reply (though a very indirect and frustrating one) and seems to have modified his view from earlier statements. I think the Wright of Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (2009) is much closer to Piper than the Wright of What Saint Paul Really Said (1997). Perhaps in time, he will go further get closer to Piper's view yet. One hopes so, for Piper is on the side of Protestant orthodoxy on this issue and Wright, at times, isn't.

This is bound to become a key text in the ongoing theological discussion and dispute between the Old and New Perspectives on Paul.

Counted Righteous in Christ

2010-03-13T17:48:00.005Z

Counted Righteous in Christ
John Piper
Inter-Varsity Press

I have been reading quite a lot about the doctrine of justification recently, mostly as a result of trying to come to grips with the New Perspective on Paul and in particular N. T. Wright's re-writing of Paul's doctrine of justification. By this I mean his re-writing of what has been understood to be Paul's doctrine at least since the time of Augustine onwards (though Wright would say he is going back to what Paul really said as one of his earlier books put it).

The latest book in my reading is Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper. In this book, Piper deals with only one part of the debate surrounding justification, and in which Piper actually crosses swords not with Wright, but with Robert Gundry. The matter is dispute is quite narrow and exact and it's this: traditionally, evangelicals have said that in justification two things happen (1) our sins are counted, reckoned or imputed to Christ in his death as if they were his and atoned for through his sacrifice and (2) Christ's righteousness or right standing before God as a result of his sinless life of obedience to God is counted, reckoned or imputed to us. Gundry has argued that only point (1) is true and (2) should be abandoned as "unbiblical". Piper's book objects to Gundry's view and argues that (2) is also true and essential for a right understanding of the gospel.

Gundry's view in essence is that it is not Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us by faith, but rather that God imputes our faith in Christ to us as righteousness. Read that sentence again: it is not that Christ is our righteousness, but that our faith is accepted as our own righteousness.

The book is a short one of less than 150 pages and is divided into four chapters. The first two chapters are written from quite a personal, pastoral perspective about why this subject matters and is worth arguing about. The heart of the book is chapter three, which takes up more than half the book is given to exegesis of the key texts in the debate, namely Romans 4, Romans 10:10, Philippians 3:8-9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and Romans 5:12-19. The book ends with a concluding chapter where the arguments are drawn together.

Piper concludes his book with these words (p.125):

I pray that the "newer" ways of understanding justification, which deny the reality of the imputation of divine righteousness to sinners by faith alone, will not flourish, and that the fullest pastoral help for souls will not be diminished.

Piper's main concerns are exegetical and theological, but in this concluding paragraph, we find two other aspects that Piper understands to be wanting in Gundry's view. Piper argues that the older view gives Christ all the glory where Gundry's view says that our righteousness is not down to Christ's work alone, but takes our own faith into account. And secondly, Piper recognises the pastoral problems of saying to sinners that for your righteousness you cannot rely on Christ, you have to rely God's promise to accept your own faith as your righteousness.

This is not an easy book, nor a popular book. I suspect that many Christians reading this would scratch their heads and ask "What's this all about? Why is Piper so concerned?" Even so, this is an important book by Piper. The view he defends is the view historically held by the Protestant churches.

The doctrine of imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers is one of the areas where Piper disagrees also with the New Perspective and Tom Wright. But that's another story, and another review.

To me it is the glory of the gospel that I do not need to rely on myself for my righteousness before God, no not even relying as it were on the empty hand of faith. I want to rely on the rock of Christ and his life and work, not on the shifting sands of anything in myself.