Moonrise
the Man wakes to see
what he has no hands to change;
he smiles not to weep.
the Man wakes to see
what he has no hands to change;
he smiles not to weep.
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
11:36
1 contribution(s)
Starting Points: poetry
This weekend I finished the book which will serve as my introduction to the last two and a half decades of Pauline studies: Perspectives Old and New on Paul by Stephen Westerholm. Westerholm defends what seems to me to be basically the "Modified Lutheran" view as presented by Douglas Moo in Five Views on Law and Gospel.
Each of the three parts were helpful. In the first part, Westerholm summarizes Paul as he was interpreted by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Wesley. While one might be surprised at how much each of these four theologians thinks like a twentieth-century evangelical, Westerholm brings a wealth of reading from primary sources to the table and does not hesitate to point out those elements which would not fit so well into the schema of modern Western Bible-believers.
In the second part, Westerholm brings his readers up to date on the current conversation. He makes an admirable effort to present each scholar on his own terms and in ways that each would approve. His bibliography and clarity are both great assets in this section.
In the third section, the author presents the "Lutheran" Paul from the Scriptures, showing the flaws of the New Perspective and nuancing the traditional "Lutheran" perspective to better fit the Scriptural data.
Three quotes from this third section are especially memorable; each highlights the error of a central pillar in the New Perspective platform, namely that Judaism is a religion of grace or a bastion of "good Protestant doctrine."
"The most important and salutary emphasis of the new perpective on Paul is the insistence that Judaism was not 'legalistic': Jews did not think they 'earned' salvation; they acknowledged God's goodness in granting Israel his covenant and strove to respond to that goodness by fulfilling its requirements. Admittedly, refutations of 'Lutheran' readings of Judaisim as a relgion of works-righteousness at times owe more of their terminology to 'Lutheranism' itself than to Jewish ways of seeing things. Judaism did not, after all, distinguish grace or faith from works done in obedience to God, nor did it thematically attribute salvation, the election of Israel, or the granting of the covenant to God's unmerited favor. To say that salvation in Judaism was 'by grace' and imply that 'works' (in the 'Lutheran' sense) were excluded is simply not true to Judaism; nor should one expect that a Judaism that did not see humanity as fundamentally 'lost' nor requiring the death of God's Son for its redemption would construe the relation between divine grace and human works in the same way Paul did" (pp. 443-44).
"We may say that in a literature that does not see grace and works opposed in any way, one should not expect direct declarations that salvation, or even election, is simply a matter of grace.... Here Sanders's polemical purposes have surely imposed a 'Lutheran' construction on the texts: neither the 'total' gratuity of the election, nor, indeed, any exclusion of human contributions is in view" (p. 348).
"The position of Judaism on the relation between grace and works as Sanders himself portrays it seems to differ little from that of Pelagius, against whom Augustine railed, or that of the sixteenth-century church, upon which Luther called down heaven's thunder" (p. 351).
Westerholm has done his homework, and this volume provides a good springboard from which to dive into the rest of the conversation.
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
05:44
0
contribution(s)
Starting Points: justification, soteriology
Life before coffee:
I ruin my English muffins,
Perpetually.
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
09:04
0
contribution(s)
There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins;
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood,
Lose all their guilty stains.
The dying thief rejoiced to see
That fountain in his day;
And there may I, as vile as he,
Wash all my sins away.
Dear dying Lamb! Thy precious blood
Shall never lose its power,
Till all the ransomed Church of God
Be saved, to sin no more.
E'er since, by faith, I saw the stream
Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme,
And shall be till I die.
Then, in a nobler sweeter song
I'll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue
Lies silent in the grave.
-- William Cowper, 1731-1800. Psalms and Hymns of Reformed Worship (London: Wakeman Trust, 1991): 248.
We sang this hymn during our communion service recently, and I couldn't help but exult in the power of the Christ's death to reach its goal in me and in the human race. The final glorification of all the elect of every nation and through every age has been secured by the dying (and now living!) Lamb.
"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:10).
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
05:32
3
contribution(s)
Starting Points: hymns
In "Post-Conservatives, Foundationalism, and Theological Truth: a Critical Evaluation" (JETS 48 [June 2005]: 351-63), R. Scott Smith, on the apologetics faculty at Biola University, critiqued the recent works of Nancey Murphy (Professor of Christian Philosophy, Fuller Theological Seminary). Murphy has written a number of books which claim that the philosophical framework known as foundationalism, which Modernism and Evangelicalism presupposed, is fundamentally flawed. In defending foundationalism, R. Scott Smith critiques Murphy in ways I could only dream to do. His writing is clear, especially for the complexity of the topic, and his knowledge of the subject at hand incomparably outdistances my own.
However, in the opening paragraphs of his article he makes a concession which concerns me. Nancey Murphy claims that foundationalists have always required certainty for the basic (i.e. foundational) truths upon which all knowledge rests. But Smith responds "foundationalism need not require certainty" ("Post-Conservatives," p. 351). Now I am thoroughly unconcerned about the state of foundationalism as a philosophical movement, but Smith is not merely a foundationalist: he is a Christian. Yet as a Christian, he claims that the entire Christian faith "could be wrong. For example, it is possible that I am just a brain in a vat, and these sentences are just the result of the stimulation of 'my' brain by a mad scientist" ("Post-Conservatives," p. 363).
While I appreciate the damaging blows Smith deals to the post-conservative Christian philosophy of Nancey Murphy, here are my immediate concerns with his concession:
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
04:26
1 contribution(s)
Starting Points: apologetics, progressive sanctification, soteriology
All the pleasures of God are leading irrevocably to the establishment of a kingdom where disobedience and unbelief will be no more. God will reign in righteousness and justice and peace, and all of life will be the obedience of faith and joy.
The above paragraph and bullets are from John Piper's Pleasures of God (p. 258; I added the last reference from his discussion in the chapter).
This occurred to
Jeremy Pittsley
at
00:43
1 contribution(s)
Starting Points: eschatology, millennium