Why would someone risk his safety, destroy his schedule, and become dirty and bloody to help a needy person of another race and social class? And why would Jesus tell us “Go and do likewise”? Like the wounded man on the Jericho road, there are needy people in our path- the widow next door, the family strapped with medical bills, the homeless man outside our place of worship. God call us to be ministers of mercy to people in need of shelter, assistance, medical care, or just friendship.

Other deacon resources from Tim Keller

• Hardcopy of Ministries of Mercy ($10.39 from Amazon)
• Redeemer Deaconate Training Manual ($35 plus 7.50 for shipping)
• Lectures on deacon training at Westminster Theological Seminary (free, but registration/login required)

Greg L. Bahnsen, (1948-1995), was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California, specializing in the theory of knowledge. He previously received the B.A. (magna cum laude, philosophy) from Westmont College, and then simultaneously earned the M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Bahnsen lectured to a broad range of evangelical Christian groups at many colleges and conferences. He was an experienced apologist and debater, a clear and cogent teacher of the Christian worldview who was devoted to training believers in understanding and applying the Christian faith to every area of life.  His 2 works on apologetics are  Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith and  Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis.

• PA098-”Ready to Reason”, (VI:12; December, 1990)
• PA099-”The Heart of the Matter: Knowing and Believing”, (VII:1; Jan, 1991)
• PA100-”Answering Objections”, (VII:2; Feb, 1991)
• PA101-”Tools of Apologetics”, (Part I-VII:4; Apr, 1991)(Part II-VII:7; Jul, 1991)
• PA103-”Apologetics in Practice”, [Bertrand Russell as example] (Part I-VII:8; Aug, 1991) (Part II-VII:9; Sep, 1991)
• PA105-”The Problem of Evil”, (Part I-VII:10; Oct, 1991) (Part II-VII:12 Dec, 1991)
• PA107-”The Problem of Knowing the ‘Super-Natural’”,(Part I-VII:11; Nov, 1991) (Part II-VIII:1; Jan, 1992) (Part III-VIII:2; Feb, 1992)
• PA110-”The Problem of Faith”, (Part I-Vol. VIII:5; May, 1992) (Part II-Vol. VIII:6; Jun, 1992)
• PA146-”The Problem of Religious Language”, (Part I-Vol. VIII:9 Sept. 1992) (Part II-Vol. IX:1 Jan. 1993) (Part III-Vol. IX:5 May 1993)
• PA165-”The Problem of Miracles”,(Part I-Vol. IX:7 July 1993) (Part II-Vol. IX:9 Sept. 1993)
• PA112-”A World Without Religion?”, Penpoint I:2 (December 1990)
• PA115-”Dead Wrong”, Penpoint II:2 (April, 1991) [afterlife according to the movies]
• PA123-”Dr. Bahnsen Represents Christianity in Dialogue with Islam and Judaism at Orange Coast College”, Penpoint Vol. II:6 (November., 1991)
• PA137-”The JFK Assassination and Apologetics”, Penpoint Vol. III:3 (May 1992)
• PA142-”Where the Rubber Hits the Road”, Penpoint Vol. III:5 (August 1992)
• PA143-”The Mind/Body Problem in Biblical Perspective”, (1972)
• PA166-”Cross-Examination: What Does it Mean to Believe?”, The Counsel of Chalcedon Vol. X:5 & 6 (July/August 1993)
• PA167-”Reflections on My Russia Trip”, Penpoint Vol. IV:6 (July-August 1993)
• PA186-”Dr. Bahnsen Debates Atheist Lawyer”, Penpoint Vol. V:1 (January 1994)
• PA191-”Van Til and Self-Deception”, Penpoint Vol. V:8 (Sept. 1994) NOTE: [Reprinted Penpoint Vol. V:10 (December, 1994)]
• PA195-”Van Til’s ‘Presuppositionalism’”, Penpoint Vol. VI:1 (January, 1995)
• PA196-”Van Til’s Challenge to Illegitimate Common Ground”, Penpoint Vol. VI:2 (February, 1995)
• PA197-”Van Til’s Why I Believe in God”, Penpoint Vol. VI:3 (March, 1995)
• PA199-”Van Til’s Call For a Distinctive Christian Mindset”, Penpoint VI:4 (April, 1995)
• PA200-”Van Til’s Life and Impact”, Penpoint VI:5 (May 1995)
• PA205-”Radical Empiricism Made Foolish”, Penpoint VI:10 (October, 1995)
• PA206-”Evidential Apologetics: The Right Way”, Penpoint VI:11 (November 1995)
• PA207-”The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics”, Westminster Theological Journal LVII (1995) 1-31
• PA208-”Presuppositional Reasoning With False Faiths”, Penpoint VII:2 (Feb/Mar 1996)
• PA210-”Presuppositional Procedure”, Penpoint VII:8 (September, 1996)
• PA212-”Another Cup of Coffee”, Penpoint VII:10 (November, 1996)

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1268/reinhold-neihbuhr-obama-favorite-theologian

Here is the intro:

Ever since then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his admiration for Reinhold Niebuhr in a 2007 interview with New York Times columnist David Brooks, there has been speculation about the extent to which the 20th-century theologian has influenced Obama’s views on faith, politics and social change. At the Pew Forum’s biannual Faith Angle Conference in May 2009, Wilfred McClay, a historian specializing in American intellectual history, offered an overview of Niebuhr’s unique form of progressive Christianity and its influence on 20th-century American politics and international affairs. E.J. Dionne, columnist for The Washington Post, remarked on the recent revival of interest in Niebuhrian thought and the role Niebuhr played as a public intellectual active during the worldwide political upheavals of the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s.

Speaker: Wilfred M. McClay, SunTrust Bank Chair of Excellence in Humanities, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Respondent: E.J. Dionne Jr., Columnist, The Washington Post; Senior Advisor, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life
Moderator: Michael Cromartie, Vice President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Senior Advisor, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life

In the following excerpt, ellipses have been omitted to facilitate reading. Find the full transcript, including audience discussion, at pewforum.org.

If you feel you are out of the loop with regards to the recent discussions about the doctrine of justification in Pauline theology, particularly the writings of E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright I would suggest checking out thepaulpage.com and Monergism.com‘s “New Perspective” section. For many N.T. Wright sources there is also the ntwrightpage.com.

Click here to browse the book or here for the PDF.

Here is an essay by Gerhard Forde, former Professor of Theology at Luther Seminary, now with the Lord. He represents the Lutheran view in the book, Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988). This is a riveting piece by Forde that I believe is must reading for everyone. Props to Danny O for bringing this to my attention, because the weight of what Forde is saying and its implications are earth-shattering. May God cause you to read with grace, joy, and freedom in the promise of God through Jesus Christ. Please post your feedback too!

SANCTIFICATION, IF IT IS TO BE SPOKEN OF AS SOMETHING other than justification is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake. It is what happens when we are grasped by the fact that God alone justifies. It is being made holy, and as such, it is not our work. It is the work of the Spirit who is called Holy. The fact that it is not our work puts the old Adam/Eve (our old self) to death and calls forth a new being in Christ. It is being saved from the sickness unto death and being called to new life.

In German there is a nice play on words which is hard to reproduce in English. Salvation is Das Heil—which gives the sense both of being healed and of being saved. Sanctification is Die Heiligung—which would perhaps best be translated as “being salvationed.” Sanctification is “being salvationed,” the new life arising from the catastrophe suffered by the old upon hearing that God alone saves. It is the pure flower that blossoms in the desert, watered by the unconditional grace of God.

Sanctification is thus simply the art of getting used to justification. It is not something added to justification. It is not the final defense against a justification too liberally granted. It is the justified life. It is what happens when the old being comes up against the end of its self-justifying and self-gratifying ways, however pious. It is life lived in anticipation of the resurrection.

As such, sanctification is likely not the kind of life that we (old beings!) would wish, much as we might prattle piously about it and protest about how necessary it is. For the most part we make the mistake of equating sanctification with what we might call the moral life. As old beings we get nervous when we hear about justification by grace alone, faith alone, and worry that it will lead to moral laxity. So we say we have to “add” sanctification too, or we have to get on to what is really important, living the “sanctified life.” And by that we usually mean living morally.

Now, living morally is indeed an important, wise and good thing. There is no need to knock it. But it should not be equated with sanctification, being made holy. The moral life is the business of the old being in this world. The Reformers called it “civil righteousness.” Sanctification is the result of the dying of the old and the rising of the new. The moral life is the result of the old being’s struggle to climb to the heights of the law. Sanctification has to do with the descent of the new being into humanity, becoming a neighbor, freely, spontaneously, giving of the self in self-forgetful and uncalculating ways. “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Mt 6:3-4). Sanctification is God’s secret, hidden (perhaps especially!) even from the “sanctified.” The last thing the sanctified would do would be to talk about it or make claims about achieving it. One would be more likely, with Paul, to talk about one’s weaknesses.

No, sanctification is not the kind of thing we would seek. I expect we don’t really want it, and perhaps rarely know when it is happening to us. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life. It is given to us in the buffeting about, the sorrows, the joys, the sufferings and the tasks of daily life. As Ernest Becker rightly put it in his classic work (that ought to be read by everyone interested in the question of “salvationing” today) The Denial of Death, the hardest thing is not even the death, but the rebirth, because it means that for the first time we shall have to be reborn not as gods but as human beings, shorn of all our defenses, projects and claims.1 Can flowers bloom in this desert? Can we survive and get used to justification? Can we live as though it were true? That is the question.

The Argument

Talk about sanctification is dangerous. It is too seductive for the old being. What seems to have happened in the tradition is that sanctification has been sharply distinguished from justification, and thus separated out as the part of the “salvationing” we are to do. God alone does the justifying simply by declaring the ungodly to be so, for Jesus’ sake. Most everyone is willing to concede that, at least in some fashion. But, of course, then comes the question: what happens next? Must not the justified live properly? Must not justification be safeguarded so it will not be abused? So sanctification enters the picture supposedly to rescue the good ship Salvation from shipwreck on the rocks of Grace Alone. Sanctification, it seems, is our part of the bargain. But, of course, once it is looked on that way, we must be careful not to undo God’s justifying act in Christ. So sanctification must be absolutely separated from justification. God, it seems, does his part, and then we do ours.

The result of this kind of thinking is generally disastrous. We are driven to make an entirely false distinction between justification and sanctification in order to save the investment the old being has in the moral system. Justification is a kind of obligatory religious preliminary which is rendered largely ineffective while we talk about getting on with the truly “serious” business of becoming “sanctified” according to some moral scheme or other. We become the actors in sanctification. This is entirely false. According to Scripture, God is always the acting subject, even in sanctification. The distinction serves only to leave the old being in control of things under the guise of pious talk.

On the level of human understanding, the problem is we attempt to combine the unconditional grace of God with our notions of continuously existing and acting under the law. In other words, the old being does not come up against its death, but goes on pursuing its projects, perhaps a little more morally or piously, but still on its of the old subject and the resurrection of a new one, not the continuous existence of the old. Unconditional grace calls forth a new being in Christ. But the old being sees such unconditional grace as dangerous and so protects its continuity by “adding sanctification.” It seeks to stave off the death involved by becoming “moral.”

Sanctification thus becomes merely another part of its self-defense against grace. Justification is rendered more or less harmless. Talk about sanctification can be dangerous in that it misleads and seduces the old being into thinking it is still in control. We may grudgingly admit we cannot justify ourselves, but then we attempt to make up for that by getting serious about sanctification.

Even under the best of conditions, talk about sanctification in any way apart from justification is dangerous. It has a tendency to become a strictly verbal exercise in which one says obligatory things to show one is “serious about it”—but little comes of the discussion. Perhaps one feels sanctified just by talking impressively about it. The result of such talk is what I like to call “the magnificent hot-air balloon syndrome.” One talks impressively about sanctification, and we all get beguiled by the rhetoric and agree. “Yes, of course, we all ought to do that,” and the balloon begins to rise into the religious stratosphere solely on the strength of its own hot air. It is something like bragging about prowess in love and sex. It is mostly hot air and rarely accomplishes anything more for the hearers than arousing anxiety or creating the illusion that they somehow can participate vicariously. We got started in that direction even in the above exercise in this thesis when we talked about how sanctification is “spontaneous,” “free,” “self-forgetful,” “self-giving,” “uncalculating” and all those nice things. Dangerous talk. Dangerous because, like love, none of those things can actually be produced by us in any way. Theology indeed obligates us to talk about them, to attempt accurate description, but unless we know the dangers and limitations of such descriptions, it leads only to presumption or despair. So let the reader beware!

And so at the very least, we can say that sanctification cannot in any way be separated from justification. It is not merely a logical mistake, but a spiritually devastating one. In fact, the Scriptures rarely, if ever, treat sanctification as a movement distinct from justification. In writing to the Christians at Corinth, for instance, Paul refers to them as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and later, he refers to the God who chooses what is low and despised in the world, even the things that are not, as the source of our life in Christ Jesus, “whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption,” so that whoever boasts should boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:2, 28-31 RSV).

To the Thessalonians Paul writes that they have been chosen by God from the beginning “to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2 Thess 2:13). Hebrews says that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10 RSV). Sanctification appears in Scripture to be roughly equivalent to other words for the salvation wrought by God in Christ, a phrase which designates another facet or dimension of sanctification, but never calls it something distinct or logically different from justification. J. K. S. Reid is right when he concludes, “It is tempting for the sake of logical neatness to make a clean division between the two [justification and sanctification] but the temptation must be resisted, if in fact the division is absent from Holy Scripture.”2

It is difficult to escape the suspicion that the distinction between justification and sanctification is strictly a dogmatic one made because people got nervous about what would happen when unconditional grace was preached, especially in Reformation times. Doesn’t justification do away with good works? Who will be good if they hear about justification by faith alone? So the anxious questions went. Sanctification was “added” as something distinct in order to save the enterprise from supposed disaster. But dogmatic distinctions don’t save us from disaster. More likely than not, they only make matters worse.

Justification by Faith Alone

It becomes clear, then, that we cannot talk about sanctification without first saying something about justification. The difficulty we have arises because justification by faith alone, without the deeds of the law, is a mighty breakup of the ordinary schemes of morality and religion; a mighty attack, we should say, on the theology of the old being. The fact that we are justified before God—the eternal Judge, Creator and Preserver of all life—unconditionally for Jesus’ sake and by faith alone, simply shatters the old being’s entire system of values and calculations.

As old beings we don’t know what to do with an unconditional gift or promise. Virtually our entire existence in this world is shaped, determined and controlled by conditional promises and calculations. We are brought up on conditional promises. We live by them. Our future is determined by them. Conditional promises always have an “if-then” form.3 If you eat your spinach, then you get your pudding. If you are a good girl, then you can go to the movies. If you do your schoolwork, then you will pass the course. If you do your job, then you will get your pay. If you prove yourself, then you will get a promotion. And so on and so on, endlessly until at last we die of it, wondering if we had only done this or that differently, perhaps then. . . . Though such conditional promises are often burdensome and even oppressive, they are nevertheless enticing and even comforting in their own way because they give life its structure and seem to grant us a measure of control. If we fulfill the conditions, then we have a claim on what is promised. We have what we call “rights,” and we can control our future, at least to a certain extent.

So, as old beings, we hang rather tenaciously onto these conditional promises. As a matter of fact, that is what largely characterizes our being in this world as old. We hang desperately onto the conditional promises, hoping to control our own destiny. We live “under the law” and cannot get out—because we really don’t want to. We prefer to go our own way even up to the last barrier: death. And there we must either hope that the conditionality ends and all account books simply close, or perhaps we make the fatal mistake of thinking that we can extend our control under the conditional promise even into the beyond. We think we have a claim on heaven itself if the proper conditions are met. Religion is most often just the attempt to extend this conditionality into eternity and to gain a certain measure of control even over the eternal itself.

But the saving act of God in Jesus Christ—comprehended in justification by faith alone—is an unconditional promise. Unconditional promises have a “because-therefore” form. Because Jesus has overcome the world and all enemies by his death and resurrection, therefore (and only for that reason) you shall be saved. Because Jesus died and rose, therefore God here and now declares you just for Jesus’ sake (not even for your sake, but for Jesus’ sake). Because Jesus has borne the sin of the whole world in his body unto death and yet conquered, therefore God declares the forgiveness of our sins.

Now, of course, as old beings we have a desperately difficult time with such an unconditional promise. It knocks everything out of kilter. We simply don’t know how to cope with it, so we are thrown into confusion. Is it really true? Can one announce it just like that? No strings attached? Don’t we have to be more careful about to whom we say such things? It appears wild and dangerous and reckless to us, just as it did to Jesus’ contemporaries. The best we can do is to try to draw it back into our conditional understanding—so all the questions and protests come pouring out. But surely we have to do something, don’t we? Don’t we at least have to make our decision to accept? Isn’t faith, after all, a condition? Or repentance? Isn’t the idea of an unconditional promise terribly dangerous? Who will be good? Won’t it lead perhaps to universalism, libertinism, license and sundry disasters? Don’t we need to insist on sanctification to prevent the whole from collapsing into cheap grace? Doesn’t the Bible follow the declaration of grace with certain exhortations and imperatives? So the protestations go, for the most part designed to reimpose at least a minimal conditionality on the promise.

It is crucial to see that here we have arrived at the decisive point which will entirely determine how we look at what we call sanctification. It is true, you see, that as old beings we simply cannot understand or cope with the unconditional promise of justification pronounced in the name of Jesus. ‘What we don’t see is that what the unconditional promise is calling forth is a new being. The justification of God promised in Jesus is not an “offer” made to us as old beings; it is our end, our death. We are, quite literally, through as old beings. To use the vernacular, we have “had it.” All the questions and protests that we raise are really just the death rattle of the old Adam and Eve who sense that their kingdom is under radical and final attack. No doubt that is why the defense is so desperate, and why it even quite innocently takes such pious and well-meaning forms.

But isn’t the unconditional promise dangerous? Of course it is! After all, look what happened to Jesus! It is the death of us one way or another. Either we stick in our conditionality and go to that death which is eternal, or we are put to death to be raised to new and eternal life in the one who lives eternally. The point is that when we come up against the danger and radicality of the unconditional promise, the solution is not to fall back on conditionality but simply to be drawn into the death and resurrection of Jesus. The old being cannot survive the promise, the promise which makes new beings out of nothing. God is the one who calls into being that which is from that which is not. The new being finds its center now not in itself, but in Jesus.

One has only to follow out the argument in Romans to see Paul clearly developing this point. The law, the conditional promise, did not stop sin; it only made it worse. As a matter of fact, the law was given to show sin as sinful beyond measure, a bottomless pit, an endless hall of mirrors. But where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more! But isn’t such argument terribly dangerous? Aren’t all the careful barriers built against sin suddenly destroyed? Doesn’t one come perilously close to saying that sin is somehow presupposed by or even necessary for grace? Couldn’t one then justly say, “Well then, shall we not sin the more that grace may abound?” It is a serious question and one that has to be raised. As a matter of fact, if the question isn’t raised, one probably hasn’t yet grasped the radical hilaritas, the joy of grace. No doubt, it is the old being’s last question prior to its death. But what is the answer? It does not lie in returning to the law, to conditionality, but rather in the death of the old.

Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6: 1-11)

Actually, all evangelical treatment of sanctification should be little more than comment on this passage. The end to sin is death, not following the law, not moral progress, not even “sanctification” as the old Adam or Eve thinks of it. To sin the more that grace may increase is, of course, absurd and impossible precisely because of the death. To do so would mean to will to return to sin in order to get more grace. That would be like a lover desiring to return to the state of unloving in order to experience falling in love again. Quite impossible! How can one who has died to sin still live in it? The movement is simply irreversible if one catches a glimpse of what the grace is all about.

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that Paul does not tell his readers that they have to get busy now and die. He announces the startling and unconditional fact that we have died. It is not a task to be accomplished. All who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death, so that out of that death may come newness of life, just like and as sure as the resurrection of Christ. Sin is a slavery from which we escape only through that death. Only one who has died is free from sin. There’ is no other way. The old self has been crucified so that the sinful body might also be destroyed and we might at last be set free. There is no continuity of the old self to be carried over here. Christ now becomes our life.

Just the sheer and unconditional announcement “You have died!”— the uncompromising insistence that there is nothing to do now, that God has made his last move—just that, and that alone, is what puts the old being to death, precisely because there is nothing for the old being to do. The God who says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” has decided to do just that through the death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no way for the old being to do anything about such grace. The unconditional justification, the grace itself, slays the old self and destroys its “body of sin” so as to fashion a new one. It is all over! Christ being raised from the dead will never die again. One can’t go back and repeat it. He died to sin once for all, and now he lives to God. Conclusion? You can now only consider yourself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus!

So, when we come to the decisive and crucial point about justification and the unconditional promise of grace, it is imperative to see that God is at work making new beings through this (to us) shocking act. The answer to all our questions, to the “death rattle” questions of the old Adam or Eve, lies not in falling back on conditionality, but in learning to cope with death and resurrection. All the questions must therefore be answered with a confident yes.

Do you mean to say we don’t have to do anything? Yes! Just listen! Do you mean to say that even faith is not a condition, nor is making our decision, nor repentance? Yes! Faith is a gift. It comes by hearing. It is the Spirit’s work. It is a being grasped by the unconditional promise, a being caught by the sheer newness and joy of it, a being carried by the Word of Grace. But is not such unconditional promise dangerous? Yes, I suppose it is in this evil age. After all, Jesus got killed for it! But God has apparently decided to take the risk, and sealed it by raising Jesus from the dead. “Wake up, 0 sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (Eph 5:14).

But do you mean to say we can’t say no? That kind of question is, of course, the trickiest of the old Adam or Eve. But in spite of everything, it must be answered with a confident yes—from the point of view of the new being. The old Adam or Eve will, of course, only say no, can really only say no. The old Adam or Eve wants to remain in control of the matter and so says no even while wanting to say yes.

So saying no is not an option? Perhaps the best answer would be, “What do you want to do that for?” It would be like arriving at the altar for the wedding and answering the big question. “Do you take…” with, “Do you mean to say I can’t say no?” If we see at all what is going on, we would see that even here the answer finally has got to be yes: “Yes, I don’t see how you can say no!” The new being by definition is one who says yes. One is not forced here, one is made new, saved—heart, soul, mind. One is sanctified in the truth of the unconditional promise of God.

The answer to the persistent questions of the old Adam or Eve is therefore always yes, yes, yes, until at last we die of it and begin to whisper, “Amen! So be it Lord!” Sanctification is a matter of being grasped by the unconditional grace of God and having now to live in that light. It is a matter of getting used to justification.

Simultaneously Just and Sinner

But now we must look a bit closer at how the unconditional promise—justification by faith alone—works in our lives if we are to arrive at an appropriate understanding of what we might call sanctification. The first thing to grasp is, of course, that the unconditional promise works quite differently from a conditional one. The unconditional promise, the divine decree of justification, grants everything all at once to the faith it creates. We are simply declared just for Jesus’ sake. But that means simultaneously that we are revealed to ourselves as sinners. The sin revealed is not just a misdeed, but it is precisely our lack of faith and trust over against the incredible goodness of God. The sin to be ultimately expelled is our lack of trust, our unbelief. All our impetuous questions are shown for what they are: unbelief, our reservations over against the God of grace, our fear of being made new.

And still we ask, Don’t we have to do something? You see, that is all we really planned to do—just a little something! We hadn’t counted on being made new! Just that, you see, is the sin exposed! Nevertheless, God simply declares us to be just for Jesus’ sake because that is the only thing that will help. That act of God itself finally exposes us as sinners, desperately in need of saving. So then, for the time being, we are, as Martin Luther said, simul justus et peccator, simultaneously just and sinner. It is the unconditional grace of God that makes us so. In that, we see the truth. And it is in the truth that we are sanctified. The first step on the way of sanctification is to realize that.

This is radically different from our usual, conditional thinking. Conditional thinking is wedded to the schemes of law and progress characteristic of this age. Sin is understood primarily as misdeed or transgression of such a scheme. “Sanctification” is the business of making progress in cutting down on sin according to the scheme. Holiness or righteousness could not be said to exist simultaneously with sin in the same scheme. Righteousness and sin would simply exclude each other. The more righteousness one gains, the less sin there would be. This would be measured by what one does or doesn’t do. It would be a matter of works. Grace would then have to be understood as the power to do such works, to achieve such righteousness. The logic would then be that with the help of grace one progressively gains more and more righteousness and thus sins less and less. One strives toward perfection until, theoretically, one would need less and less grace or perhaps finally no more grace at all.

But such conditional schemes pose all sorts of problems for one who wants to think and believe “in the fashion of Scripture,” as Luther called it.4 In the first place, it doesn’t fit with the divine act of justification by grace alone, by faith alone. There is no real place for justification in the scheme. If it comes at the beginning of the scheme, it makes the subsequent progress unnecessary. Why work at becoming just if you are already declared to be so? On the other hand, if justification comes at the end of the scheme, it becomes unnecessary. You don’t have to be declared just if you have already become so.

The systematic problem is that both justification by faith alone without the deeds of the law and such a scheme of sanctification cannot possibly coexist together. The tradition no doubt recognized this when it insisted on making a sharp and complete distinction between the two, at least in theory. In actual practice, however, one or the other of them generally comes to be regarded as more or less fictional or dispensable. And more likely than not, it will be justification that is so regarded. It comes to be looked upon as a decree contrary to actual fact, a kind of “as if” theology. We are regarded “as if” we were just. Or perhaps it is a kind of “temporary loan” granted until we actually earn our way. Sanctification according to this scheme takes over the center of the stage as the real and practical business of the Christian.

But this leads only to a further, more personal problem in the life of faith if one becomes honest before God. What if the scheme just doesn’t seem to work? This is the much celebrated problem of the “anxious conscience” that bothered Martin Luther. What if one is honest enough to see that one is not actually making the kind of progress the scheme proposes? I am told that grace gives the power to improve, to gain righteousness and overcome sin. I am told, furthermore, that grace is absolutely free. But what if I go to church to “get grace” and then get up the next morning and see the same old sinner, perhaps even a little bit worse, staring back at me through the mirror? What then? I am told that grace is free, and that there is nothing wrong with the “delivery system.” Not even a bad priest, minister or a faulty church can frustrate or limit the grace of God. But I don’t seem to get better. If I am in any way serious, I can only become more and more anxious. I am told that grace gives one the power to love God. But as a matter of fact I only become more and more resentful of a God who sets up such systems and makes such demands. I don’t seem to grow in love of God. I begin to hate him! The magnificent hot-air balloon bursts.

Now I face the really desperate question: Whose fault is it if the scheme doesn’t work? There are two possibilities. Either I have not properly responded to or cooperated with the free divine grace, or most frightening of all, the God of election who presides over such grace has decided, in my case, not to give it. The scheme leaves me either depending on my own abilities to respond, to remove all obstacles to grace, to “let myself go” and so forth, or it leaves me with the terrors of predestination. Usually, of course, we recoil in horror from the very thought of predestination. We piously wouldn’t want to lay the blame on God—and besides, we would then lose all control of the matter!

So all things considered, we would rather take the blame for the breakdown of the scheme on ourselves. If it didn’t work, it must be because we didn’t do something right. We didn’t repent sincerely enough; we didn’t really and truly seek him; we didn’t wholly give our hearts to Jesus; and so on. But in that case, the more we talk about “free grace” the worse it gets. When the system doesn’t work, “grace is free” turns out to mean that there is no way we can put the blame on grace. But then no matter how much we talk about the grace of God, absolutely everything then depends on us, on our sincerity, our truthfulness, the depth of our feeling, the wholeheartedness of our confession and so on. The system simply turns against us. While we live as old beings in this age, we simply cannot escape the law.

So it is impossible to put God’s unconditional act of justifying sinners for Jesus’ sake alone together with our ideas of progress based on conditions. It doesn’t work either logically or in the life of faith. That is why Martin Luther came to see that we must take a radically different approach. In place of all ordinary understandings of progress and sanctification, the true Christian life begins when we see the simultaneity of sin and righteousness. God begins with us simply by declaring us to be righteous because of Jesus. We begin to see the truth of the situation when we realize that because God had to do that, we must have been at the same time sinners. God would be wasting his breath declaring people to be righteous if they were not actually and wholly sinners! Indeed, as Paul put it, “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Gal 2:21).

And there can be no cheating here. Since the declaration of God is total, and depends totally on what Jesus has accomplished for us, the sin simultaneously exposed is total. All the dreams, schemes and pretensions of the old Adam or Eve are unmasked in their totality. Sin, as a total state, can only be fought by faith in the total and unconditionally given righteousness. Anything other than that would lead only to hypocrisy or despair. If there is to be anything like true sanctification, it must begin with these considerations.

If our righteousness depends totally on Jesus, and is appropriated only in the relationship of trust (faith), then we can begin to see that God has two problems with us. The relationship can be broken in two ways. The first would be by our failure, our immorality, our vices. Since we lack faith and hope in God’s cause, the relationship is threatened or broken; we go our own way. That problem is usually quite obvious. But the second problem is not so obvious. It is precisely our supposed success, even our “morality,” our virtues—the relationship with God is broken to the degree that we think we don’t need the unconditional justification, or perhaps even to the degree that we think we are going to use God to achieve our own ideas of sanctity. The relationship is broken precisely because we think it is our holiness.

The first problem, our failure and immorality, is usually most easily recognized and generally condemned because it has consequences, both personally and socially. But the second problem, while generally approved in human eyes because it is advantageous and socially useful, is more dangerous before God (coram deo, as Luther put it) precisely because it is praised and sought after. It is the kind of hypocrisy Jesus criticized so vehemently in the gospels: “like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean” (Mt 23:27). No matter how good and useful such virtue is in the world (and we must not fail to see that it is really so and does have its place), it cannot be counted as sanctification. Those who blow their own horns when they give alms so as to be seen and admired by the public do indeed have their reward: the praise of others. But that is all they get. True sanctification is God’s secret (Mt 6:2-4).

So the first step on the way to sanctification is to see that, before the judgment of God as it comes through the crucified and risen Jesus, we are rendered totally just at the same time as we are exposed totally as sinners. Sanctification is thus included in justification as a total state. True sanctification is at the outset simply to believe that God has taken charge of the matter. ‘Where can there be more holiness than where God is revered and worshiped as the only Holy One? But God is revered as the only Holy One where the sinner, the real and total sinner, stands still and listens to God. There the sinner must realize that his or her ways are at an end. The final assault is under way. There the sinner begins to realize that neither virtue nor vice, morality nor immorality, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything before God, but what matters is the new creation (Gal 6:15). Sanctification is not a repair job. God is after something new. He wants his creation back as new as when it came from his hand.

Progress in Sanctification: The Invasion of the New

But is there not such a thing as growth in sanctification, progress in the Christian life? No doubt there is a sense in which we can and even should speak in such fashion. But when we do, we must take care, if everything we have been saying up to this point is true. If justification by faith alone rejects all ordinary schemes of progress and renders us simultaneously just and sinners, we have to look at growth and progress in quite a different light.

That brings us back to our thesis: sanctification is the art of getting used to justification. There is a kind of growth and progress, it is to be hoped, but it is growth in grace—a growth in coming to be captivated more and more, if we can so speak, by the totality, the unconditionality of the grace of God. It is a matter of getting used to the fact that if we are to be saved it will have to be by grace alone. We should make no mistake about it: sin is to be conquered and expelled. But if we see that sin is the total state of standing against the unconditional grace and goodness of God, if sin is our very incredulity, unbelief, mistrust, our insistence on falling back on our self and maintaining control, then it is only through the total grace of God that sin comes under attack, and only through faith in that total grace that sin is defeated. To repeat: sin is not defeated by a repair job, but by dying and being raised new.

So it is always as a totality that unconditional grace attacks sin. That is why total sanctification and justification are in essence the same thing. The total sinner comes under the attack of the total gift. That is how the battle begins. How then can we talk about the progress of the battle—the transition, let us call it—from sin to righteousness, old to new?

There are, I believe, two aspects of this transition we need to talk about. The first is that since we always are confronted and given grace as a totality, we find ourselves always starting fresh. As Luther put it, “To progress is always to begin again.”5 In this life, we never quite get over grace, we never entirely grasp it, we never really learn it. It always takes us by surprise. Again and again we have to be conquered and captivated by its totality. The transition will never be completed this side of the grave. The Christian can never presume to be on the glory road, nor to reach a stage, which now forms the basis for the next stage, which can be left behind. The Christian who is grasped by the totality of grace always discovers the miracle anew. One is always at a new beginning. Grace is new everyday. Like the manna in the wilderness, it can never be bottled or stored. Yesterday’s grace turns to poison. By the same token, however, the Christian never has an endless process of sanctification to traverse. Since the totality is given, one knows that one has arrived. Christ carries the Christian totally.

Looked at from Luther’s point of view of “always beginning again,” the transition is therefore not a continuous or steady progress of the sort we could recognize. It is rather more like an oscillation between beginning and end in which both are always equally near. The end, the total gift, is constantly and steadily given. But to grasp that we have constantly to begin again—we never can get over it! It is like lovers who just can’t get over the miracle of the gift of love and so are constantly saying it over and over again as though it were completely new and previously unheard of! And so it constantly begins again.

The second aspect of the transition of the Christian from old to death to life, is that all our ordinary views of progress and growth are turned upside down. It is not that we are somehow moving toward the goal, but rather that the goal is moving closer and closer to us. This corresponds to the eschatological nature of the New Testament message. It is the coming of the kingdom upon us, not our coming closer to or building up the kingdom. That is why it is a growth in grace, not a growth in our own virtue or morality. The progress, if one can call it that, is that we are being shaped more and more by the totality of the grace coming to us. The progress is due to the steady invasion of the new. That means that we are being taken more and more off our own hands, more and more away from self, and getting used to the idea of being saved by the grace of God alone. Our sanctification consists merely in being shaped by, or getting used to, justification.

Getting used to justification means that the old Adam or Eve is being put to death, and thus, as Paul put it, “being freed from sin.” How might we conceive of this? Here we must be careful lest in our attempts to describe the matter we once again get seduced into inflating the magnificent hot-air balloon. Being freed from sin by the unconditional promise means that the totality of it begins to overwhelm and destroy our fundamental scepticism and incredulity, our unbelief. Lord, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief?” becomes our prayer (Mk 9:24). We can see light at the end of the tunnel. We begin to trust God rather than ourselves. When Martin Luther talked about these things, he began to talk more about our actual affections than lists of pious things to do.

Under the pressure of the total gift, we might actually begin to love God as God, our God, and to hate sin. Think of it: We might actually begin to dislike sin and to hope for its eventual removal. Ordinarily we feel guilty about our sins and fear their consequences, but we are far from hating them. I expect we do them, in spite of all fears and anxieties, because we like them. Sanctification under the invasion of the new, however, holds out the possibility of actually coming to hate sin, and to love God and his creation, or at least to make that little beginning. It is not that sin is taken away from us, but rather that we are to be taken away from sin—heart, soul and mind, as Luther put it.6 In that manner, the law of God is to be fulfilled in us precisely by the uncompromising totality and unconditionality of the grace given.

Sanctification always comes from the whole, the totality. Whether it takes place in little steps, in isolated actions against particular sins, in those tender beginnings, it is always because of the invasion of the new. Always the totality is intensively there—the total crisis, the entire transition, the dying and becoming new.

What is the result of this? It should lead, I expect, to something of a reversal in our view of the Christian life. Instead of viewing ourselves on some kind of journey upward toward heaven, virtue and morality, our sanctification would be viewed more in terms of our journey back down to earth, the business of becoming human, the kind of creature God made. Our problem is that we have succumbed to the serpent’s temptation, “You shall not die, you shall be as gods.” Creation is not good enough for us; we are always on our way somewhere else. So we even look on sanctification in that light—our “progress” toward being “gods” of some sort. If what we have been saying is true, however, our salvation, our sanctification, consists in turning about and going the other way, getting back down to earth. The trouble we have is that it is a long way back for us. To get there we must learn to trust God, to be grasped by the totality of his grace, to become a creature, to become human.

What might that look like? When I think about such sanctification, I think about several things: spontaneity, taking care, vocation and attaining a certain elusive kind of truthfulness and lucidity about oneself. Perhaps I can end by saying a few words about these things.

Spontaneity

What is a truly good work, one that might qualify as the fruit of sanctification? One, I think, that is free, uncalculating, genuine, spontaneous. It would be like a mother who runs to pick up her child when it is hurt. There is no calculation, no wondering about progress, morality or virtue. There is just the doing of it, and then it is completely forgotten. The right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Good works in God’s eyes are quite likely to be all those things we have forgotten! True sanctification is God’s secret.

Taking Care

If we are turned around to get back down to earth by grace, then it would seem that true sanctification would show itself in taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation, not exploiting and destroying either for our own ends, religious or otherwise. It would mean concern for the neighbor and society, caring for the other for the time being. Here one should talk about the place of morality and virtue and such things. Although we do not accept them as the means by which we are sanctified, they are the means by which and through which we care for the world and for the other. This is what the Reformers meant when they insisted that good works were to be done, but one was not to depend on them for salvation.

Vocation

How does the one who has died and is being made new, the one who has been taken off his or her own hands, enter into the battle in this world? The answer comes in the concept of carrying out one’s vocation as a Christian in the tasks and occupations of daily life. We always get nervous about what we are to do, it seems. The magnificent hot-air balloon syndrome seduces us into thinking our sanctification consists in following lists of pious dos and don’ts. That always seems more holy. But it is in the nitty-gritty of daily life and its tasks that our sanctification is hammered out.

Precisely because of the totality of the gift, the new being knows that there is nothing to do to gain heaven. Thus the Christian is called to the tasks of daily life in this world, for the time being. Students, for instance, are sometimes very pious and idealistic about “doing something,” and so get caught up in this or that movement “for good.” It never seems to dawn on them that perhaps for the time being, at least, their calling is simply to be a good student! It is not particularly in acts of piety that we are sanctified, but in our call to live and act as Christians.

Truthfulness and Lucidity

In many ways, this essay has been an appeal for more truthfulness in our talk about the Christian life and sanctification. I think that should be the mark of sanctification as well. As Paul put it, we are not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought (Rom 12:3).

The talk of progress and growth we usually indulge in leads us all too often to do just that. But if we are saved and sanctified only by the unconditional grace of God, we ought to be able to become more truthful and lucid about the way things really are with us. Am I making progress? If I am really honest, it seems to me that the question is odd, even a little ridiculous. As I get older and death draws nearer, it doesn’t seem to get any easier. I get a little more impatient, a little more anxious about having perhaps missed what this life has to offer, a little slower, harder to move, a little more sedentary and set in my ways. It seems more and more unjust to me that now that I have spent a good part of my life “getting to the top,” and I seem just about to have made it, I am already slowing down, already on the way out. A skiing injury from when I was sixteen years old acts up if I overexert myself. I am too heavy, the doctors tell me, but it is so hard to lose weight! Am I making progress? Well, maybe it seems as though I sin less, but that may only be because I’m getting tired! It’s just too hard to keep indulging the lusts of youth. Is that sanctification? I wouldn’t think so! One should not, I expect, mistake encroaching senility for sanctification!

But can it be, perhaps, that it is precisely the unconditional gift of grace that helps me to see and admit all that? I hope so. The grace of God should lead us to see the truth about ourselves, and to gain a certain lucidity, a certain sense of humor, a certain down-to-earliness. When we come to realize that if we are going to be saved, it shall have to be absolutely by grace alone, then we shall be sanctified. God will have his way with us at last.

Notes

1 Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death (New York: Free Press, 1973), p. 58.

2 Alan Richardson, ed., A Theological Wordbook of the Bible (New York: Macmillan, 1960), p. 218.

3 Eric Gritsch and Robert Jenson, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1976), pp. 8, 42.

4 Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, trans. and ed. Wilhelm Pauck, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 15 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1961), p. 128.

5 Ibid., p. 370.

6 Ibid., p. 194.

Old Testament Survey, by Douglas Stuart

Old Testament Theology, by Paul House

New Testament Survey, by William Mounce

Inductive Bible Study, by George Guthrie

Bibliology and Hermeneutics, by Michael Patton

History of the English Bible, by Daniel Wallace

Greek Tools for Bible Study, by William Mounce

Introduction to Theology, by Michael Patton

Systematic Theology, by Bruce Ware

Trinitarianism, by Michael Patton

Worship, by Gary Parrett

The World Mission of the Church, by Timothy Tennant

Christian Ethics, by Ron Nash

Apologetics, by Ron Nash

Educational Ministry of the Church, by Gary Parrett

Advanced Worldview Analysis, by Ron Nash

Islam, by Timothy Tennant

Hinduism, by Timothy Tennant

Biblical Theology Bulletin (Seton Hall University)

Biblica (Rome Pontifical Institute)

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Evangelical Theological Society)

Journal of Biblical Literature (Society of Biblical Literature)

Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Sheffield Academic Press)

Trinity Journal (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)

Neotestamentica (New Testament Society of South Africa)

Filología Neotestamentaria (University of Cordoba)

Theology Today (Princeton Theological Seminary)

Kerux (Northwest Theological Seminary)

Denver Journal (Denver Seminary)

Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Semeia (Society of Biblical Literature)

Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary)

Criswell Theological Review (Criswell College)

Institute for Reformed Theology Bulletin (Union Theological Seminary)

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal (Protestant Reformed Theological School)

Western Reformed Seminary Journal (Western Reformed Seminary)

Currents in Theology & Mission (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago)

The Master’s Seminary Journal (The Master’s Seminary)

Journal of Religion & Society (Creighton University)

Reformed Review (Western Theological Seminary)

Journal of Biblical Studies (exclusively online)

Journal for Christian Theological Research (Luther Seminary)

Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (McMaster Divinity School)

McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry (McMaster Divinity School)

Stromata (Calvin Theological Seminary)

Journal of Ministry & Theology (Baptist Bible Seminary)

Concordia Theological Quarterly (Concordia Theological Seminary)

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (Society of Biblical Literature)

Themelios (Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship)

Vox Evangelica (London School of Theology)

Bulletin for Biblical Research (Institute for Biblical Research)

Evangelical Quarterly (Paternoster Press)

I was finishing up When Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology by Herman N. Ridderbos, and I thought that the following topic could make for an interesting discussion. Ridderbos says, “The question arises, then, of the relationship of Jesus to Paul. When for example, the Sermon on the Mount greatly stresses compliance with the commandments, as we believe we are able to maintain, is it then at all possible to speak of a unity between the Gospels and the epistles of Paul, because the former stress is laid upon the positive meaning of the law, and in the latter upon the negative meaning? (pp. 61-62) I would love to read what others may think about the actual or so-called negative Pauline remarks of the law.

What a wonderful question and topic for discussion. Regarding Paul’s view of “the Law”, I believe his view depends upon what Law is being referred to in a particular context, because without defining our terms ambiguity will abound. I think that Paul makes a distinction between the Sinai Code/Law of Moses (Old Covenant/Letter) and law of God/Christ (New Covenant/Spirit).

In two specific sections in his writings he discusses at length historical-redemptive covenant theology in 2 Cor.3:1-18 and Gal. 3-4. In these passages, he gives his rationale for why the Mosaic Law offers only death and how the New Covenant transcends by it offering life. In 2 Cor.3:1-18, he zeroes in on the Letter/Spirit contrast resident in the two covenants. He even goes as far as to label the Law of Moses as “the ministry of death” (vs.7) and “condemnation” (vs.9) as it was, written on tables of stone. He contends that this “letter” brings death, surely drawing from his argument in Rom.7:7-11:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me.

He likens the Law to the glory that was on Moses face which needed to be concealed to Israel by a veil over his face (vs.7). Even then, there was a veil over their hearts every time they read the Law (vs.15) because their hearts were hardened by it (vs.14). However, the glory of the New Covenant revealed in Christ is infinitely superior because it does not fade and has no end (vs.11). It is written not on a tablets of stone, but on the tablet of the heart (vs.3), drawing on Ezek.36:26 and Jer.31:33. Since this covenant is imparted directly by the Spirit on the heart with no outside mediator, those in it are now with “unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord and being transformed into the same image” (vs.18). So we can summarize by saying that the Letter/Spirit contrast is about the difference in the nature of the Mosaic and New Covenants.

In Galatians 3-4, Paul focuses on the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant. He is trying to remind the Galatians very forcefully that no one will be justified by the works of the Law (3:11). In other words, no one can please God escatologically by trying to execute their duties as prescribed by the Law of Moses. The reasons for this are because no one is truly able to execute this covenant so we are cursed in trying to do so (3:10), and the purpose of the Law was to make transgression fully visible and never to offer eternal life (3:18-19). This covenant came to bring us into slavery and imprisonment so that we could be rescued by Christ (vs.23-24). So Paul is setting up two different covenantal strands that find their culmination in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31. Hagar corresponds to the slavery that exists under the Mosaic Law and is demonstrated in the contemporary Judaism that is visible in Jerusalem (vs.25). Sarah corresponds to the freedom that exists under the New Covenant and is demonstrated in the promises God offers His people in the New (spiritual) Jerusalem (vs.26-28). So the Mosaic Covenant existed to serve as a physical template that would anticipate the spiritual realities to come in the new age that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, in order to partake of this inaugurated Covenant, we need to believe in what Christ accomplished on our behalf and so cast out the “slave woman” (the Mosaic Covenant) (vs.29-31).

In light of these passages, I think it is evident that the Mosaic/Old Covenant was an external code which does and can only demand. God designed it this way in order to magnify sin in Israel, as Israel is simply Adam on a corporate/national scale (Hosea 6:7). Neither Adam nor Israel could ever have kept, executed, or complied to the Law given to them. Even if they could have, there was no promise for eternal life. It wasn’t the function of the Law given to them. But, both Adam and Israel’s failure have become the canvas for God to promise grace in the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus ratified the New Covenant which does and can only promise eternal life. In the New Covenant there is no code to keep or demand upon us, but the promise of life in Christ itself produces faith in us which will result in us keeping the law of God/Christ, which is essentially loving God and loving our neighbors.

What did the resurrection and the glory of Jesus Christ that Paul saw in his vision reveal to him about where he stood in the history of God’s plan for His people and His creation?

The resurrection and glory of Jesus Christ revealed to Paul that he stood at the final leg in the history of redemption. Paul disclosed to Agrippa some the content of what Jesus told him in the initial vision in Acts 26:14-18. Jesus told him that he has appeared to him to appoint him as a minister and witness of all he will reveal to him (vs.16) to go to the gentiles and open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light, from the dominion of Satan to God, and that they might receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance as they are sanctified by faith in Jesus (vs.17-18). He also tells Agrippa that what was revealed to him which he had been proclaiming was everything that the Prophets and Moses said would take place (vs.22). In further discussion with Agrippa, Paul asks him bluntly, “King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do” (vs.27). In an earlier account in Acts, we see Paul at Mars Hill sharing the very message that was revealed to him by Jesus (17:19-34). The climax of his message to the Athenians was the fact that God has fixed a day of judgment through Jesus, proving this by raising him from the dead.

In every encounter that Paul has with people in Acts, as well as every letter that he writes, this message of the death and resurrection of Jesus, which vindicates the judgment of God and forgives the sins of all who believe, is proclaimed and grounded in the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets (whether typologically or prophetically). Scripture drove his language and argumentation that Jesus is the end-times Messiah who ushered in the Kingdom of God through his death and resurrection. What is presupposed here is that all of the elements described in the message Paul preached about Jesus were written in the Scriptures of Israel when it spoke of the “latter days” or “end of days”. Passages come to mind such as Genesis 1-3, Exodus 19:5-6, Deuteronomy 30:1-6, 2 Samuel 7:5-17, Jeremiah 31:31ff, Isaiah 42:5-7, 52:13-53:12, Ezekiel 37:1-28, and Daniel 7:9-13. Paul drew upon these and many other texts to display his understanding that Jesus’ resurrection and glory signaled the inauguration of the final leg of redemptive history.

The response to my answer and follow-up was:

Let’s continue our discussion about inaugurated eschatology. Please turn to 1 Corinthians 7:29-40. How does this view of the shortness of our time onearth in light of the eternity of heaven impact your views not only of theissues discussed by Paul ­ which include marriage, death, happiness, and material goods, but also whatever else is on your mind?

That’s an interesting question, because I normally don’t assess my understanding of the “shortness of time” with how it impacts my views of the topics you mentioned. It seems that Paul is essentially driving at the concept of not wasting the precious time we have here on earth. His central ground in verse 31 is that “the form of the world is passing away”. I don’t know that he was privy to the fact that there would be 2000+ years of kingdom expansion ahead of him. I also don’t think the apostles expected to be alive when Christ returned due to the fact that both Paul and Peter had their suffering deaths revealed to them by Jesus. But it is apparent that both Paul and Peter were aware of the accelerated suffering that the people of God would undergo. Here in the context of the passage of discussion, Paul forms his reasoning by considering “the present distress” (vs.26) which he is trying to spare his readers from (vs.28). I don’t think he meant that “life is hard enough, marriage will make it worse”. I think he is appealing to the possibility of either you being captured, tortured, and killed or your spouse being captured, tortured, and killed. The only thing worse than suffering is seeing your loved ones suffering. I think Paul is trying to brace his hearers for pain for the sake of Christ. When he says, “the one who is married is concerned about the things of the world” (vs.34), I don’t think he means that it is “less spiritual” or “less godly”, but simply that human marriage does not continue in heaven the same way it is on this earth. Since the “form of the world is passing away” and is temporary, to marry is to invest in a temporary venture.

I also don’t think we should miss the subtlety with which Paul is disclosing his understanding of the purpose of marriage. He says, “One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife” ( vs.32-33). He is using the very same language of marriage for humans as for covenant in Christ, showing that he sees a vital connection between the two analogously. I find it striking.

A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World, by Jonathan Edwards
This work is perhaps the most poignant and important work we’ve come across that wrestles with the existence and purpose of creation. On so many levels this work is a chief influence on our worldview and theology. Please take the time to work through it carefully. Edwards’ thought is extremely complex in certain areas, which may require slow reading and re-reading, but it is so worth it. Here is a link to John Piper’s introduction to this work as The End is included in his book, God’s Passion for His Glory. You can read the entire book online for free at this link. For more of Edwards, check out the Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale as well as Monergism.com’s Jonathan Edwards page.

Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, by Meredith G. Kline (PDF)
Meredith Kline is essentially the father of Reformed Covenantal Theology in biblical studies and biblical theology for the 20th century. He is a study unto himself, as he has put together his open stream of thinking into what used to be his notebook for classes at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. It has been published both by Two Age Press and Wipf & Stock Publishers, and Two Age Press has made the PDF file available for free on their site for the past few years. Kline’s thought process can be very complex in certain places as he crafts his own terminology which becomes self-referential throughout and there are no footnotes. Very much like Edwards, this work demands slow reading and re-reading but will be gold for those interested. For more Kline, see the Meredith G. Kline Online page.

The Life of God in the Soul of Man, by Henry Scougal
This is a classic work by a little known Scotch Puritan, who died at the age of 28, about the nature of Spiritual life and the heart of true “religion”. This is a dynamite little work that has inspired the thought of many theologians, paricularly George Whitefield and John Piper. The very small Works of Henry Scougal are available for purchase through Ligonier Ministries.

Introductory Essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by J.I. Packer
Here is probably one of the best theological essays by J.I. Packer, who is an expert on Owen, as he whets the appetite for probably the best defense of particular redemption in the Reformed/Calvinist tradition. You can read the entire work of the Death of Death at CCEL’s website at this link. For a great introduction to John Owen’s life and works, check out www.johnowen.org.

George Mendenhall‘s groundbreaking work (“Covenant Forms in the Israelite Tradition,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 [1954]: 50-76) on the parallels of Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms in the Old Testament have greatly nuanced the way we understand the nature of God’s relationship to Israel. It has helped us to put Israel in a more precise historical context among contemporary nations, as well as to see how much differently Yahweh is from the gods of the other nations. Although the structure of Later Bronze Hittite covenants had already been present in Ancient Near Eastern studies, Mendenhall was the first to point out the similarities of structure to portions of the Old Testament. The structural features in which he observed these commonalities were: 1. Identification of a Covenant Giver, 2. An Historical Prologue, 3. The Stipulations, 4. Provision for Deposit and Public Reading, 5. A Listing of Treaty Witnesses, 6. The Blessings and Curses, 7. A Ratification Ceremony, 8. Imposition of the Curses. These are obvious features to observe in the Pentateuch/Torah, which is why there has been very little objection to Mendenhall’s findings. In fact, Meredith Kline has shown at great lengths that Deuteronomy itself fits this structure as exactly as any Late Bronze Suzerain-Vassal treaty. Essentially, a Suzerain-Vassal covenant is a binding oath between a larger ruler (suzerain) and protected nation (vassal) sometimes issued when the larger ruler/nation steps in to help the other in a military campaign (see 2 Kings 16:1-8). Upon the victory of that campaign, the vassal is bound to the stipulations of the treaty in order to maintain the continued support and protection promised by the suzerain. This was ratified by the sacrificing of an animal, as it was normally cut into halves and each party would walk between the halves, symbolically invoking death upon the disobedient party. There would be two copies of the official document drafted, one to be placed in the respective temple of each nation. The covenant at Sinai encapsulates all of these occurrences, and we get a snapshot of this in Ex. 19-24.

Perhaps the reason why “covenant” slips under the radar in modern Pauline studies in the way we are describing may be the relatively few uses of the word diatheke, “covenant,” in his letters. He only employs it 9 times. This may be an indication to some of its de-emphasis because its Hebrew counterpart berit is used about 286 times in the Old Testament. However, we should be careful not to be guilty of the “Word-Thing” fallacy, assuming that just because a single word is not used often that a concept is not fully present. This is particularly relevant considering recent articulation of the phenomena of intertextuality that is littered throughout Paul’s epistles with the Old Testament. Paul was a burgeoning Pharisaic Rabbi before the Damascus Road experience, and he had devoted his life to study the Torah. So although he might not have used the word all that much in his writings, it cannot be overlooked that his entire framework for understanding the nature of theology and ministry was covenantal. We cannot escape this because the Mosaic Covenant/Old Testament had even created the theological terminology that he uses to describe what has taken place in Christ. Consider the following covenant words/themes found in Paul:

•  mediator (1 Tim.2:5)
• minister/servant (Rom.15:8,16; Eph.3:7)
• law (Rom.2:12; 3:19; Gal.2:16)
• commandment (Rom.7:13)
• bless/curse (Rom.12:14; Gal.3:10)
• righteousness (Rom.4:3: 2 Cor.3:9)
• eat/drink (1 Cor.10:3-4; 11:23-26)
• Father/Son (Rom.1:3-4; Phil.1:2; Col.1:2)
• sin/transgression/iniquity (Rom.3:23; Gal.6:1; 1 Thes.4:6)
• atonement/propitiation (Rom.3:25)
• temple (1 Cor.6:19; Eph.2:21)
• Sabbath (Rom.14:4; Col.2:16)
• kingdom (1 Cor.6:9; 15:24; 2 Tim.4:18)
• heir/sonship/adoption (Rom.4:13; Gal.4:7; Eph.1:5)
• redeem/redemption (Gal.4:5; Tit.2:14)
• witness (2 Cor.1:23; Phil.1:8)
• offering/sacrifice (Eph.5:2; Phil.2:17)
• know/knowledge (Phil.3:10; 2 Thes.1:8)

Surely we should be sensitive to the contemporary expression Paul had available to him the Greco-Roman world in which he lived. This serves to magnify the fact that Paul communicated with biblical/covenant language when crafting his more poignant theological dialogue, even to predominantly Gentile communities.

In two specific sections in his writings he discusses at length historical-redemptive covenant theology in 2 Cor.6:1-18 and Gal. 3-4. In these passages, he gives his rationale for why the Mosaic Law offers only death and how the New Covenant transcends by it offering life. In 2 Cor.6:1-18, he zeroes in on the Letter/Spirit contrast resident in the two covenants. He even goes as far as to label the Law of Moses as “the ministry of death” (vs.7) and “condemnation” (vs.9) as it was, written on tables of stone. He contends that this “letter” brings death, surely drawing from his argument in Rom.7:7-11:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me.

He likens the Law to the glory that was on Moses face which needed to be concealed to Israel by a veil over his face (vs.7). Even then, there was a veil over their hearts every time they read the Law (vs.15) because their hearts were hardened by it (vs.14). However, the glory of the New Covenant revealed in Christ is infinitely superior because it does not fade and has no end (vs.11). It is written not on a tablets of stone, but on the tablet of the heart (vs.3), drawing on Ezek.36:26 and Jer.31:33. Since this covenant is imparted directly by the Spirit on the heart with no outside mediator, those in it are now with “unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord and being transformed into the same image” (vs.18). So we can summarize by saying that the Letter/Spirit contrast is about the difference in the nature of the Mosaic and New Covenants.

In Galatians 3-4, Paul focuses on the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant. He is trying to remind the Galatians very forcefully that no one will be justified by the works of the Law (3:11). In other words, no one can please God escatologically by trying to execute their duties as prescribed by the Law of Moses. The reasons for this are because no one is truly able to execute this covenant so we are cursed in trying to do so (3:10), and the purpose of the Law was to make transgression fully visible and never to offer eternal life (3:18-19). This covenant came to bring us into slavery and imprisonment so that we could be rescued by Christ (vs.23-24). So Paul is setting up two different covenantal strands that find their culmination in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31. Hagar corresponds to the slavery that exists under the Mosaic Law and is demonstrated in the contemporary Judaism that is visible in Jerusalem (vs.25). Sarah corresponds to the freedom that exists under the New Covenant and is demonstrated in the promises God offers His people in the New (spiritual) Jerusalem (vs.26-28). So the Mosaic Covenant existed to serve as a physical template that would anticipate the spiritual realities to come in the new age that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, in order to partake of this inaugurated Covenant, we need to believe in what Christ accomplished on our behalf and so cast out the “slave woman” (the Mosaic Covenant) (vs.29-31).

One of the New Covenant symbols we carry forward in this inaugurated age is the Lord’s Supper. We don’t often think about it in covenantal terms, but it is very clear in 1 Cor.10:1-11 that it is a covenantal oath-sign. In 10:1-11, we are typologically linked to Israel as they came under the Sinai covenant through Moses in the desert. He points to the way they “ate and drank” and rose up to idolatry (vs.7). Paul’s use of “eating” and “drinking” together in light of the context inextricably link to the Lord’s Supper. This sacrament is brought to light at the start of the next section in 10:16 (“cup of blessing,” “bread which we break”) for the purpose of demonstrating to the Corinthians that there is a spiritual connection between God and his people as expressed in eating and drinking (10:16-22). The tie that may, perhaps, bind the picture of “food and drink” in Israel’s Exodus with the Lord’s Supper is the concept of covenant. “Eating and drinking” was a common oath-sign in Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms, and Israel partook of such “communion meals” during the Exodus period. Paul uses “eating and drinking” this way in 10:7, as quoted from Ex.32:6 where Israel, offered sacrifices and had a “feast to the LORD” (Ex.32:5) after ratifying their covenant with God (Ex.24:7-8). This squares with the Lord’s Supper as the proclamation of the New Covenant death of Christ (11:23-26), and accounts for the severe penalty for eating and drinking unworthily (invoking curse; 11:27-32). Paul argues on both sides of our passage that one is a “sharer,” or “partaker” of the sacrifices from which they eat (9:13; 10:17,18,20). It is the partaking of sacrifices that bind people to their gods/God covenantally, which is why he is so adamant that they should not knowingly eat what is sacrificed to idols (10:22).

So we have provided an orientation for grasping how the concept of covenant was understood and adapted by Paul. This, of course, is short in nature, but perhaps may help percolate thought on further studies for this in his writings.

For Further Study:

Beale, G.K. (ed.). The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994

Dunn, James. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Gallant, Tim. “Paul and Torah-An Introductory Overview.” forthcoming chapter in his book These are Two Covenants: The Mosaic Law in Paul’s Thought. Monroe, LA: Athanasius

Hafemann, Scott J. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Series 2 Volume 81. Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995

Hahn, Scott. “Covenant in Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004).” Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005): 263-292

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989

Hugenberger, Gordon. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998

Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975

——–. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000

Mendenhall, George E. & Herion, Gary A. “Covenant.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol.1. ed. by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992

Porter, Stanley E. “The Concept of Covenant in Paul.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991

448. END OF THE CREATION.

God is glorified within himself these two ways: (1) by appearing or being manifested to himself in his own perfect idea, or, in his Son, who is the brightness of his glory; (2) by enjoying and delighting in himself, by flowing forth in infinite love and delight towards himself, or, in his Holy Spirit.

So God glorifies himself towards the creatures also two ways: (1) by appearing to them, being manifested to their understandings; (2) in communicating himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying the manifestations which he makes of himself. They both of them may be called his glory in the more extensive sense of the word, viz. his shining forth, or the going forth of his excellency, beauty and essential glory ad extra. By one way it goes forth towards their understandings; by the other it goes forth towards their wills or hearts. God is glorified not only by his glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in, when those that see it delight in it: God is more glorified than if they only see it; his glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart. God made the world that he might communicate, and the creature receive, his glory, but that it might be received both by the mind and heart. He that testifies his having an idea of God’s glory, don’t glorify God so much as he that testifies also his approbation of it, and his delight in it. Both these ways of God’s glorifying himself come from the same cause, viz. the overflowing of God’s internal glory, or an inclination in God to cause his internal glory to flow out ad extra. What God has in view in neither of them, neither in his manifesting his glory to the understanding, nor communication to the heart, is not that he may receive, but that he may go forth: the main end of his shining forth, is not that he may have his rays reflected back to himself, but that the rays may go forth.

There are some massive ramifications here about the way we do everything, and it has consummed John Piper (among others) with a life time study to try to work them out. From this Piper has distilled it down to: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him”. This concept is truly epic-making, and has given a meaning and flavor to my life that was untapped until spring of 2000.

Cut to a few weeks ago. My wife was reading through John Eldredge’s book Wild At Heart. She stumbled upon the following on p.30-31:

In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-playing God playing both sides of the board, making all his moves and all ours too. But clearly, this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. No doubt the biggest risk of all was when he gave angels and men free will, including the freedom to reject him-not just once, but every single day. Does God cause a person to sin? “Absolutely not!” says Paul (Gal.2:17). Then he can’t be moving all the pieces on the board, because people sin all the time. Fallen angels and men use their powers to committ horrendous daily evil. Does God stop every bullet fired at an innocent victim? Does he prevent teenage liaisons from producing teenage pregnancies? There is something much more risky going on here than we’re often willing to admit.

Most of us do everything we can to reduce the element of risk in our lives. We wear our seat belts, watch our cholesterol, and practice birth control. I know some couples who have decided against having a child all together; they simply aren’t willing to chance the heartache children often bring. What if they are born with a crippling disease? What if they turn their backs on us, and God? What if…? God seems to fly in the face of all caution. Even though he knew what would happen, what heartbreak and suffering and devastation would follow upon our disobedience, God chose to have children. And unlike any hyper-controlling parents, who take away every element of choice they can from their children, God gave us a remarkable choice. He did not make Adam and Eve obey Him. He took a risk. A staggering risk, with staggering consequences. He let others into his story, and he lets their choices shape it profoundly.

The theological eye of my wife was attuned to point this out as she read this aloud to me. Our joint knee-jerk reaction was to lament that Eldredge could possibly be making such a mistake. I love Texas Hold’em, but I know that God does not play this game with His creation. John Piper actually has a chapter in The Pleasures of God where he takes time to deal with this increasingly common idea. I took the time to re-read part of Piper’s chapter to Kalila, and she was quick to give the Amen.

Eldredge ends the section with:

Trying to reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s free will has stumped the church for ages. We must humbly acknowledge that there’s a great deal of mystery involved, but for those aware of the discussion, I am not advocating open theism. Nevertheless, there is definitely something wild in the heart of God.

I will say, that I am glad that he is trying to point to God as the one who is wild at heart first, then moving to us to model Him. He is trying to start God-centered, which is certainly commendable. However, I do think that he is gravely mistaken about God if he uses the word “risk” or “risk-taker” to describe God. The reason is that the word “risk” implies “uncertainty”. Risk is what you do when you don’t know the outcome of something. So in essence Eldregde is teaching people that God doesn’t know what the “flop” will be, but things will work out for him somehow. It is obvious that Eldredge is implying “uncertainty” when using “risk” because he has to clarify that he doesn’t advocate Open Theism. Open Theism generally believes that God has chosen to create a world in which he would not know the future. That doesn’t mean that God couldn’t know the future, but that He has decided not to know future. I guess I am just curious as to how he would differ from that. Most open thiests like Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, and John Sanders would agree whole-heartedly with the idea that God is a risk-taker. In fact, John Sanders has a book entitled, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence. It quite naturally provokes inquiry when Eldredge makes these kind of statments.

Of course, there are few out there that would say they have all the intricasies of divine sovereignty and human responsibility worked out. It just irks me that Mr. Non-Theologian Eldredge begins to dismiss “Theologians” who believe in an all sovereign God. He does it, not with any argument from the Bible, theology, or philosophy, but simply by saying, “clearly, this is not so”. Then he launches into his “God is a risk-taker” theology. Whatever, that’s fine, I guess there is no dialog, it is just wrong. No explanation, no footnote, no problem. I guess me and all my calvinistic friends can give up now. “Sorry guys, John Eldredge said that what we believe is cleary not so. No he didn’t give any reasons, he just said it wasn’t so” (in my favorite Brian Regan voice of course). Does this mean we are Arminians or Open Theists? “He said he doesn’t advocate open theism, so I we are just Arminians.” Forgive me for the sass, but it is just laughable to me. He has just written off part of my theology without even engaging it. If that’s the way he wants to write, so be it. I’m not the only one with reservations about his theology. There have been a few articles in Christianity Today that have featured him, including a negative one from last year. This particular article is about a paper a seminarian wrote that is linked on a church website. Eldredge’s response is interesting to his criticism:

I suppose my reaction is simply ‘You shall know them by their fruits’ (Matt. 7:20). Etheridge claims I diminish God’s sovereignty and lead people to idolatry (charges not unlike those leveled against Jesus and Paul, I might note). But that is not the actual effect that my works have had on those who read them. Far from it. Virtually every response we see is that people are drawn to a deeper worship of God and a deeper level of repentance. The actual fruit of my ministry—holier lives of men and women—is quite the opposite of what Etheridge describes. That’s not a bad test, as Jesus said.

Who is going to argue with that kind of response. So it is OK for Eldredge to trash other people’s theology, but when he is challenged indirectly, we get the holiness BS. I guess he doesn’t read a whole lot either, because he says in the same article, “I don’t read any press on me, good or bad”. It seems like he’s doing a hit and run to us. “I am going to make a contribution while combating a number of people, but I am not going to entertain any responses.” Dude, there are people talking about your book in like every Christian magazine and website, how can you ignore it? Why would you ignore it?

Whatever. I really don’t have anything against Eldredge. I’m sure he is a fine Christian and I’m glad people are getting stirred to think seriously about their spiritual life through his writings. I don’t really care for his books, so I dont’ have to read them or talk about them. If you want to see what I think about the sovereignty of God, click here.

In either case, a picture like this boggles my mind almost as much as the text of Ezekiel 1:

1Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. 2(On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin’s exile, 3the word of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and there the hand of the LORD came upon him.) 4As I looked, behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually and a bright light around it, and in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire. 5Within it there were figures resembling four living beings. And this was their appearance: they had human form, 6Each of them had four faces and four wings. 7Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf’s hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. 8Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, 9their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. 10As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. 11Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies. 12And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went. 13In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. 14And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning. 15Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them. 16The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. 17Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. 18As for their rims they were lofty and awesome, and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. 19Whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. 20Wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. 21Whenever those went, these went; and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. 22Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. 23Under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other; each one also had two wings covering its body on the one side and on the other. 24I also heard the sound of their wings like the sound of abundant waters as they went, like the voice of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army camp; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 25And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. 27Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. 28As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking.

Mark Dever is the only guy I have ever heard preach on this text, at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church (MacArthur’s church). Oh that we would ponder the depths of this vision and fall on our faces!

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com ]]> http://www.davesexegesis.com/which-theologian-are-you/feed/ 12 http://www.davesexegesis.com/transformation-and-information/ http://www.davesexegesis.com/transformation-and-information/#comments Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:07:00 +0000 Dave http://www.davesexegesis.com/?p=66 This post was actually designed to be a comment on Rick and Christy’s blog, but I kept rambling so I decided to post. It is in response to McLaren’s article in Christianity Today…

just read the article. a few comments. first, a qualifier: this is a good word for us to hear. obviously, nobody is going to disagree with McLaren’s premise. then comes the HOWEVER…he makes the statement: ‘that too many of our most “educated” Christians are some of the meanest’. here he gives a general sweep with no examples or reasons for prompting him to write this article. who exactly does he have in mind? and now people reading the article are drawing the inference that less education equals more godliness. i have met many people, and many christians (as i work customer service for a well-known christian book company) who are not educated at all and are extremely mean. just look at many fundamentalists who actually downplay education and can be some of the meanest people. and on the contrast, most all the smartest people around me are the nicest also. i was all but ousted from a church because i had “too much” education. i just guess that the 12 inch head/heart distance thing has become very cliche. i honestly think that we act on what we believe. i don’t think knowledge is the issue, so much as it is faith. i mean, come on, people are so afraid of “knowledge” that all you hear in churches is application. having gone through a seminary that has a “spiritual formation” class/program, requiring “spirituality”, i really think that McLaren’s statements about this are not helpful. our class was a royal waste of time. think about it, do we really think that the major problem in christendom is that people are “over-educated”? absolutely not! quite the opposite. to experience or learn Christ, you must learn about him. i know that i am automatically the bad guy as soon as I critique an article about being more godly. maybe i would have been better served by this article if he made it more narrative and described some of the negative experiences he has had with the “more” educated rather than just generalizing. as Piper said on Edwards:

“How many people in your churches do you know that are laboring to know God, who are striving earnestly in study and prayer to enlarge their vision of God. Precious few. Well then, what will become of our churches if we the pastors, who are charged with knowing and unfolding the whole counsel of God, shift into neutral, quit reading and studying and writing, and take on more hobbies and watch more television?”

“If the single-minded occupation with these things is left to a few academic theologians in the colleges and seminaries, while pastors all become technicians and managers and organizers, there may be superficial success for a while, as Americans get excited about one program or the other, but in the long run the gains will prove shallow and weak, especially in the day of trial.”

“You recall what Mark Noll said: ‘Edwards’s piety continued on in the revivalist tradition, his theology continued on in academic Calvinism, but there were no successors to his God-entranced world-view. . .’ The sweet marriage of reason and affection, of thought and feeling, of head and heart, study and worship that took place in the life of Jonathan Edwards has been rare since his day and still is rare.”

“In other words, it is to no avail merely to believe that God is holy and merciful. For that belief to be of any saving value, we must ‘sense’ God’s holiness and mercy. That is, we must have a true delight in it for what it is in itself. Otherwise the knowledge is no different than what the devils have. ”

“Does this mean that all his study and thinking was in vain? No indeed. Why? Because he says, ‘The more you have of a rational knowledge of divine things, the more opportunity will there be, when the Spirit shall be breathed into your heart, to see the excellency of these things, and to taste the sweetness of them.’ (Works, II, 162, see p.16)”

“But the goal of all is this spiritual taste, not just knowing God but delighting in him, savoring him, relishing him. And so for all his intellectual might, Edwards was the farthest thing from a cool, detached, neutral, disinterested academician.”

I mean not to generalize here myself, I just think that we need an Edwards-like model to help us balance. Thoughts?

The Glory of God. After creating the heavens and the earth, God created mankind in order to reflect and display the fullness of his immeasurable beauty and holiness. He did so by giving them intelligence, creativity, and a pure relationship with Him that brought them unending joy and satisfaction.

The Fall of Mankind. Although they delighted in God and his ways for a while, mankind foolishly fell under the temptation of the evil being Satan to abandon their Creator. They were enticed to become their own gods, and in doing so, they dissolved their relationship with God. In this act, their motivations and actions irrevocably became corrupted, plunging themselves and their descendants into unending judgment.

Jesus Christ, the Savior. Upon judging mankind for their open rebellion, God promised to overcome their judgment through a new Man. God fulfilled this promise by coming in the flesh himself, as the person of Jesus Christ. He was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin, and he enjoyed a complete and pure relationship with God. Although he maintained moral perfection, the mission of Jesus was to experience the judgment that mankind deserved. Therefore, he was crucified on a Roman cross, were he suffered the abandonment of God to infinite pain and wrath as a sacrifice. God raised Jesus from death three days after he died on the cross in order to restore him to the unending pleasure of His presence.

Access to God. There is no amount of good things a man or woman can do to cleanse themselves or rid themselves from their own corrupt nature. Therefore, if left to ourselves, we stand only to expect the judgment of God for our continual rebellion against Him. However, God has been merciful not to destroy us, but He has been gracious to come to the earth himself in Jesus Christ, to absorb the judgment we deserve. God has seen fit to save people from His wrath as they believe in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. He invites people from every tribe, language, and nation to believe this good news and enjoy the unending pleasure of His presence.

Dude, let’s talk about inerrancy. First, on a previous post I made the statment:

Since the Scripture was inspired in its writing, it was without error in its first inscripturation into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and therefore truthful and divinely authoritative in every matter it addresses.

You responded:

Shall we call the Scriptures “inerrant” or “infallible” if they don’t refer to themselves as such? Not that they’re any less valid or inspired or anything.

Later you said:

I guess I should say that I don’t equate “God-breathed” with “infallible”.

First, I will say that I never used the word “inerrancy,” I simply said “without error”. What I meant by this was that I believe the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as we know them to have been authored by God through men. Therefore, God is the originator and creator of the texts in their original writing. I said it this way:

God inspired holy men, prophets, and apostles to write the sacred Text in various literary forms to say exactly what he wanted to say using the authors’ own circumstances and personalities (2 Tim.3:15-16; 2 Pet.1.20-21). Thus we find covenantal forms, prophetic oracles, psalms/songs, wisdom literature, poetry, historic narrative, expository discourse, and apocalyptic literature each equally guided by the Spirit of God, whether consciously or unconsciously, in its original autograph, accurately portraying the heart of God (in human terms).

Other statements that Scripture makes about Scripture are as follows:

Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Psalm 89:34 I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began

1 Peter 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

Revelation 3:14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

Psalm 19:7-12 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; 8 the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9 the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. 12 Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.

Joshua 23:14 14 “And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.

This is not to mention Psalm 119. If we believe that all the Scriptures are inspired by God, and God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, all-holy, and without error, then it would follow that the Scriptures are without error. No? Why don’t you equate “God-breathed” or “inspired” with “infallible”? Why do you have a problem with saying that the Bible is without error? You say because it doesn’t refer to itself as such, but I think it does by implication. When you read statements like, “the Word of God will never fail…” don’t you think that implies it will nor err? I think you are either being a little nit-picky or may just disagree with certain things in the Bible. I would certainly think it is the former. On a sidenote, Jesus never said explicitly that he was God, but it was certainly implied by what he said and did. Wouldn’t you agree?

Second, if you do not believe the Scriptures to be without error, than you believe that they do have errors. If they do have errors, what are they? How do we know what is in error? Yea, we shall ask the question, if all Scripture is inspired by God, is he with some errors? Moreover, how do we even know what is truth? I admit I’m getting eccentric, but I am just trying to figure out where you stand epistemologically. Would you say that certain truths should be separated from the culture and not universally applied? Is that all you mean? Because I would agree with you; I don’t greet everyone with a holy kiss, nor do I plan to anytime soon.

I’m putting this on the front-burner for now since what you are saying about inerrancy has some big implications that I’d love to discuss and hear you out on. Whether you are planning on posting on it yourself, whether we talk about it personally, whether you want to comment, or all three, I just want to draw you out and pick your brain. Don’t mean to attack you bro, I know that has happened to you on your own blog a bit. This is a dialogue.

A. Theological Orientation
I do not quite fit into one theological tradition because of my orientation toward biblical theology. However, I can be generally categorized as Reformed, baptistic, gently complimentarian, and cautiously charismatic. I do not necessarily embrace Covenant Theology in the traditional sense but lean towards what has been dubbed “New Covenant” Theology.
B. Doctrine of Scripture
a. Revelation. Although God makes himself known generally in creation (Ps.19:1; Rom.1:20ff.) and conscience (Rom.2:14-16), he has chosen to reveal specific details about himself that would otherwise be unknown to humanity in Holy Scripture. This revelation was to people chosen by God through dreams, visions, prophecy, signs, and providence. In Scripture, he has revealed things about his personhood and plan that are essential to believe in order to be in a favorable relationship with him.
b. Inspiration. God inspired holy men, prophets, and apostles to write the sacred Text in various literary forms to say exactly what he wanted to say using the authors’ own circumstances and personalities (2 Tim.3:15-16; 2 Pet.1.20-21). Thus we find covenantal forms, prophetic oracles, psalms/songs, wisdom literature, poetry, historic narrative, expository discourse, and apocalyptic literature each equally guided by the Spirit of God, whether consciously or unconsciously, in its original autograph, accurately portraying the heart of God (in human terms).
c. Canon. The inspired Scriptures are comprised of the portions contained in the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament traditionally understood as the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. God has sought fit to offer everything necessary for salvation and sanctification (see below) in these writings alone, as much as they reflect the original autographs and communicate their message.
d. Inerrancy. Since the Scripture was inspired in its writing, it was without error in its first inscripturation into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and therefore truthful and divinely authoritative in every matter it addresses.
C. Doctrine of God
a. Attributes. God is infinite, eternal, and spiritual in his being. He is infinite in his power, beauty, sufficiency, knowledge, wisdom, holiness, righteousness, mercy, grace, love, justice, wrath, and satisfaction. He is completely and fully devoted to his own pleasure and glory as the chief end of his existence. He is the creator, definer, determiner, preserver, and sovereign over all things and is unrivaled and unchallenged by another being since he created all other beings.
b. Trinity. Although God is alone in his Godhood, he enjoys infinite and eternal fellowship in himself as a triune God, existing as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguished in role but equal in power, essence, and glory.
D. Creation
a. Purpose of Creation. When we bring the lens of creation as far back as it goes, we can see that everything begins with God. “From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever” (Rom.11:36). Thus, God loves God more than he loves anything, and His glory is the driving force behind everything He does. He is infinitely more glorious, beautiful, and desirable than anything that can be imagined. Creation is, then, designed to demonstrate and reflect His glory and beauty in all its manifestations back to Him like a mirror, so that He can receive maximum delight in Himself.
b. Theology of Creation. God spoke the physical and spiritual realms into existence out of nothing by the word of his power, creating the heavens and the earth. He created pure, spiritual, and undying angelic beings to worship Him and serve his creation, as well as perishable and exclusively physical creatures, animals and insects, to rule over the earth. No aspect of the physical world was either deified or evil in its creation, but was good in the sight of God.
E. Anthropology
a. Creation of Man/Women. As the capstone of his work, God created man in his own image, dignified and reflective of God’s creative fiat, from the dust of the earth. Man was created as both a physical and spiritual being to rule over the creatures and fill the earth with his offspring. God created woman from a rib of the man in order to be a helpmate suitable to the man for his duty and become bearer of future offspring. Thus, man and woman are distinct in their roles, but equal in their covenantal standing before God.
b. The Fall. God created the man and women, Adam and Eve, and placed them in the temple-garden Eden, commissioning them as kings and priests, to rule and guard the garden. He placed two trees in the garden to test them, charging them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or else they would die. Adam and Eve failed in their duties and transgressed their covenant with God by allowing the fallen angel Lucifer, in the form of a serpent, to enter the garden where he persuaded them to eat from the forbidden tree, subjecting them to immediate spiritual death and imminent physical death.
c. Original Sin. Man’s nature was corrupted by the sin of their first parents Adam and Eve (Gen.3). It is through their fall that this corruption spread to all people (Rom.5:12). Therefore, all human beings from birth (Psalm 51:5) are spiritually dead (Eph.2:1-3), having every part of their being tainted with sin (Rom.1). This renders man incapable of coming to God (Rom.3:10-11; 8:5-7) and helpless (Rom.5:6-8), only to expect judgment (2 Thes.1:6-10; Rev.20-21).
F. The Person and Work of Christ
a. Person of Christ/Two Natures. Jesus of Nazareth was miraculously birthed by Mary who, as a virgin, conceived him by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was born as the only God-man, fully God, and fully man. Thus, he experienced the fullness of life as a man without forfeiting any portion of his divine nature as the incarnate Son of God.
b. The Mission of Christ. Jesus was the fulfillment and consummation of the redemptive plan of God, sent as both the Redeemer of man and the Messiah of Israel. He was the “seed of the women” prophesied in Eden who would judge Satan and his offspring and bring victory to his own offspring. He covenanted with the Father, swearing to keep the law of God and fulfill all righteousness in order to inherit the throne of God.
c. The Atonement. The covenantal allegiance of Jesus led him inextricably to die on the cross of Golgotha. His death was prophesied and typologically prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures to bear and appease the wrath of God, and thus forgive the sins and the absorb the depravity of people from every tribe, nation, and language. God vindicated Jesus from the shame of the cross by raising him from the dead three days later and seating him at the right hand of his throne. The Cross is the ratification of God’s new covenant with his people and the most precise demonstration of all the glory of God.
G. Salvation
a. Regeneration. In order to overcome the will of man which is hopelessly enslaved to sin, the Holy Spirit graciously reveals the irresistible glory of Jesus Christ to individuals who were determined by God from all eternity. In doing so, the Spirit quickens, recreates, and renews the soul to be alive to God by writing the law of God upon it and generating faith in the person and work of Christ and repentance of sins.
b. Justification/Sanctification. The initial faith that the soul exercises in the gospel of Christ is the means through which God forgives all sins of the individual, past, present, and future, and unites him with the righteousness of Christ, declaring him righteous in the sight of God. Upon receiving this gift of righteousness, the benefactor also receives sonship status as a child of God, standing to inherit infinite blessing and satisfaction from God in their imminent resurrection. The continuing faith of the newly righteous one is instrumental in conforming him to the image of Jesus Christ as future grace leads him to obedience of the law of God.
c. Perseverance. Those whom God has chosen, purchased, justified, and is sanctifying will be preserved by God in their faith all their lives. Only those who persevere in Christ to the end will experience eternal life and prove themselves to have been genuine children of God.
H. The Person/Work of the Holy Spirit
a. The Personhood of the Spirit. As the divine presence of God on earth, the Holy Spirit is the holy enabler of the purposes of God. As the Spirit which empowered many in the service of God in redemptive history, and the Spirit which rested on Christ in his ministry, the Spirit of God was promised by Jesus to be given to his followers as Teacher and Helper in his place.
b. The Fruits/Gifts of the Spirit. Beginning at the feast of Pentecost which followed the resurrection of Jesus, the Father and Son sent the Spirit upon the disciples of Christ, baptizing them all into the body of Christ. The Spirit manifests his work by producing love for God and love for man in all their variations, and he builds up the body by giving different spiritual gifts to each member of the body. Although some gifts are completely supernatural and others are woven into the fabric of one’s personality, all of the gifts, both in speaking and serving, are operative continually amongst the saints for the edification of the body.
I. The Church
a. The Nature of the Church. The local church is a small manifestation of the universal body of Christ which He loved and purchased with His death in order that He might present her holy and blameless to Himself for the glory of the Father (Acts 20:28; Eph.5:25-27). God has ordained her to represent Him in the world and show forth His glory (John 17) as the temple of God, having given them unity and spiritual gifts in the Spirit of Christ (1 Cor.12-14). Therefore, the local church has the responsibility for being a training ground for the people of God (Eph.4:11-14) so that that they might be theologically and spiritually adequate to bring the gospel to the nations (Matt.28:18-20).
b. Church Government. God has chosen to place men uniquely in authority over the church of God as its shepherds (1 Tim.2:12-15), and they, as well as other recognized servants in the church, need to meet the theological and spiritual qualifications necessary to carry out this task (1 Tim.3:1-13; Tit.1:5-14). They are not to lord over the flock of God, but should be examples, encouragers, counselors, rebukers, administrators, preachers, teachers, and servants as they lead and train (1 Thes.5:14; 2 Tim.3:14-4:2; 1 Pet.5:1-4).
J. The Sacraments
a. Baptism. God has ordained that upon confessing faith in Christ, one should be immersed in the waters of baptism as an initiatory covenantal sign, picturing union with Christ in his death and resurrection.
b. The Lord’s Supper. Before his death and resurrection, Jesus instituted the communion meal as a regular covenantal oath-sign to be enjoyed by the church, consisting of the eating of bread and drinking from the fruit of the vine. Because of the oath-sign ramifications, personal and corporate examination is appropriate before participating, giving opportunity for the confession of sin.
K. Eschatology
a. Millennium. The “millennium” is the symbolic period of time between the advents of Christ in which Satan is restricted from affecting the spread of the gospel to the nations, and dead saints reign in heaven with Christ till He returns to consummate redemptive history. Jesus inaugurated His kingdom in a real sense through His first advent to be fully consummated in His second advent (Matt.12; Luke 4; John 12; Rom.14; 2 Pet.3).
b. Second Coming. Jesus Christ will return again to the earth in all of his glory to gather and resurrect his people and gather and judge all those who are unbelieving in his gospel and unrepentant of their sins. For his people, God will renew and regenerate the heavens and earth as the New Heavens and Earth where He will dwell with them and satisfy them forever. For those unbelieving and unrepentant, God will resurrect them only to cast them into the lake of fire where they will suffer torment forever.

As one whose church is under the authority of C.J. it is pleasure to be continually inculcated with the gospel. He is as relentless in person as he is in this book of interogating the people of God with the gospel. This is a great gift book because of its readability and brevity. However, such a topic that C.J. is trying to address may beggar further extension. Sometimes we can inadvertently create buzz words that lack significance because of repetition with no variety. I fear that may result from the “cross-centered” model. People could confuse the idea of “cross-centeredness” with “cross-onlyness” assuming that if you have not mentioned the cross or some element of redemption, then it is inadequate. The danger with even the title is to accent the event rather than the person (Christ); the means rather than the end. Also, we are faced with the choice of being redemption-centered merely, rather than wholy God-centered; since God is doing other things apart from saving people (i.e. judging people). This book would be best supplemented with John Piper’s “Pleasures of God”.

I was just having a discussion about this with my friend Dave Scoggins today. He actually brought it up, but this is something I’ve been thinking about ever since I heard of this book and the SGM mentality. I really think that the way that C.J. presents this model, redemption/man seems to be what God is centered on. Is God cross-centered? No, God is God-centered. Thus man should be God-centered. Bottom line. The cross is a means to an end; it is the ratifying event of the New Covenant, the absorbtion of depravity and judgment for all who believe, and the penultimate expression of God. Now God forbid that we boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 6:14). But we boast in the cross for what it purchased for us. All boasting is cross boasting. It purchased everything we experience that is good, and everything painful God takes and turns for our good. God designed the cross, though, so let’s center on him. Let’s give him his place. Let’s make him supreme, because that’s what he designed the cross for; to satisfy himself and enjoy himself. You can download Piper’s sermon on boasting in the cross at http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/bpaudio/piper/021300.mp3. It is an epoch making sermon. I’ve listened to it 50 times. Seriously, check it out. It has shaped much of my thinking about the cross.

Presuppostions. I think that God loves himself more than he loves anyone or anything. I think God finds himself so satisfying, that it spilled over into the creative fiat. I think that God created the world so that he could experience his own delight and glory. In order to express all of his glory, his love, beauty, holiness, infinitude, eternality, righteousness, justice, wrath, knowledge, and wisdom, all the manifestions of his glory, he created people whom he would bless and people whom he would curse. This was based upon nothing that they would do, but solely on his choice. He made people whom he would bless so he could demonstrate his love, mercy, imminence, kindess, care, trustworthiness, and peace. He made people whom he would curse so he could demonstrate his holiness, righteousness, wrath, and transcendance. He has woven and intergrated his creation such that all would demonstrate his wisdom and beauty as a whole picture of himself. I embrace the doctrines of Grace, known as Calvinism, although it did not start, nor does it end with John Calvin. Essentially the doctrines of Grace affirm the wholistic sinfulness of humanity and their inability to come to God in their sinful nature. Since we can not choose God, if anyone is going to be saved, God must choose them. Since God has chosen some for salvation, he took on flesh and became a man as the person Jesus Christ. By the death of Jesus, he purchased all those whom were chosen. He then, through the power and regenerating work of the Spirit of God, draws them to his beauty and glory in the message of Jesus Christ and generates faith in them for God in Jesus Christ. Since God has chosen, purchased, and drawn them to and for himself, he preserves them in this grace through their lives. This summarizes the “five points of Calvinism”, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints (TULIP for short).

Philosophically. Although I am not a big fan of Jay Adams, he does make a good point in his “More Than Redemption,” aka “A Theology of Christian Counseling,” that God is the environment we live in. He is our atmosphere. Now he gets this from Acts 17 (“…in Him we live and move and have our being…”) when Paul is talking to the hotshot philosophers of the day, and thus serves as a good orientation toward philosophical reasoning about the sovereignty of God. God is our environment because every true believer intuitively believes in monism (that all things come from God). There is no reality that exists outside the realm of God. He creates and defines all that is. If he doesn’t, then it doesn’t exist. This can get thorny when we talk about non-matter things, but we can not escape this. God creates everything he controls and he controls everything he creates. Everything is held in existence by him and if he doesn’t control it, it will cease to exist. He has created nothing to stand on its own, because he has given sovereignty to nothing else. This is particularly true for humans. God spoke us into existence and controls both actively and passively all of our lives. Most people want to prize human freedom, but we forget we did not have a choice in the matter. God created us, there was no input from us. God birthed us to our situation, we had no choice of that either. I had no choice over my eye color, my height, my skin color, my native language, etc. It was all chosen for me. Even in an Arminian world (Arminians generally believe God is sovereign over everything but human choice), we never got a choice as to whether we wanted a choice or not. That was determined by God. And really what it comes down to is that if you affirm that he has planned/determined/ordained anything at all, he must have planned/determined/ordained all things. For instance, if you believe he planned that Jesus Christ would come to suffer for sin, there is no way he could be sure of this unless he planned everything leading up to it. That Mary would not be killed before she was ten, or that Joseph wouldn’t marry someone else. Most people would say, he knew beforehand what would happen that is how he can plan. Sure he knew beforehand, but how did he know. How can he know what choices you would make. If you are totally free in your will, then there is no way anyone can anticipate what you would do. God could guess, but he could be wrong. My point is that prior knowledge would mean that you could only have one choice. If we look at time/historical redemption/timeline of history, everything has not happened, but there is one story of humanity. If you are going to say that there is any symmetry or plan to all or part of this story, then you must by default say that the whole thing was planned. This is a tough logical pill to swallow, but it makes sense.

Objection. God can know something without planning it, so it doesn’t follow that he must plan everything in order to plan some things.
Answer. This kind of reasoning gets you into trouble another way. Let’s say that God knows everything that is going to happen because he has infinite knowledge past, present, and future and not because he planned it. If he sees the future of his creation before he creates and sees that people are going to suffer, disasters are going to happen, people will reject him and go to hell, why would he still go ahead and create them? He knows what’s going to happen yet he goes right ahead with it. In a sense, then, he is creating it to happen. He is bringing it forth by “initiating” creation.

Objection. God would not be causing it to happen because they have freely chosen to reject, it was their choice and they would be suffering the consequences of their own actions.
Answer. If you are going to say that God is loving and doesn’t want anyone to go to hell and suffer forever, and he has a chance to prevent this from happening, why wouldn’t he prevent it from happening? You would have to say that love here would cause God to let them do what they want to do. Thus God is powerless to do what he wants (save them) because he loves them too much. That doesn’t make sense because in effect, you are saying that they are going to hell because they are experiencing the “love” of God. That’s comforting. “Thanks for loving me God, think of me when I’m in hell.” This is a warped view of the love of God.

Biblically. Although it would seem the Bible is split on this issue, I would say that from Genesis to Revelation, God prizes his own sovereignty as the foundation of life. Genesis 1 is crystal clear about the fact that God created and initiated all of existence. “God…, God…, God…” How can one escape all of the mammoth texts that exalt the sovereignty of God:

Job 23:14-15, “But He is unique and who can turn Him? And {what} His soul desires, that He does. 14 “For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such {decrees} are with Him”

Psalm 33:9-11, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart from generation to generation.”

Psalm 115:3, “But our God is in the heaven, He does whatever he pleases.”

Proverbs 16:4, “The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the wicked for the day of evil.”

Isaiah 14:26-27, “This is the plan devised against the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out against all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has planned and who can frustrate it? And for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?”

Isaiah 43:13, “Even from eternity I am He, and there is none who deliver out of my hand; I act and who can reverse it?”

Isaiah 45:9-10, “Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-an earthenware vessl among the vessels of the earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you begetting?’ or to a woman, ‘To what are you giving birth?’”

Lamentations 3:32,37-38, “if He causes grief, then He will have compassion according to His abundant lovingkindness…Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

Romans 9:11, “…for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…”

Romans 9:14-18, “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

Romans 11:36, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever.”

These generally suffice to say and maintain that God gloriously ordained all that has and will come. There are many exegetical presuppositions that I assume in these passages and take on a case by case basis. My point here is to emphasize the shear breadth of biblical testimony that undergirds and shapes my language and thinking about the sovereignty of God. We see God hardening hearts, causing calamity, and doing whatever he pleases. I believe the Bible to be God’s inspired testimony, covenant, and promise of his glories and that it is providentially and prophetically impeccable (notwithstanding issues of textual criticism).

Personally. There is nothing more comforting, satisfying, attractive, dreadful, aweful, and humbling than knowing that God is behind everything. Every scratch I get, every one who cuts me off on 128, all my car problems, every time I get sick, every time I get an overdraft charge, miss a payment, every time somebody is in my way, every time I oversleep, every shower I take, every book I get, every thought and sight of my fiance, every laugh, every good meal, every good song, movie, or show, every heartache and tear is ordained and maintained by the grace and glory and will of God. I’m never outside the control of One who is greatest of all beings, the infinitely helpful, tasty, and pervading One.