withallyourmind.net

In my last post, I began an examination of the relationship of the Christian and the Mosaic Law. I finished, yesterday, with an emphasis on the discontinuity between the Law and the believer. Christ’s work has changed the way a New Testament believer approaches the Law.

Is the Law, then, to be regarded with disdain and seen as a vile thing? No, not at all. There is no doubting that the Law is good. The important question is, Good for what? The Law’s worth must be judged with regard to its purpose. It is clear that the Law was never intended to be, nor could it be, a means by which one might obtain salvation.

Douglas Moo calls the Law a hypothetical covenant of works. By this he means that, in theory, it would be possible to obtain salvation if one were to keep all the commandments of the law. Leviticus 18:5 states, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.” However, in practice, this is impossible, and the Law was never intended for this purpose by God. Sinful humanity could never achieve such perfection.

So, am I asserting a contradiction? The dual assertions that God did not give the law to bring about the salvation of His people and that one can be saved by full obedience to the law are not contradictory. The Law is not a legalistic document and does not advocate a method of salvation other than faith. God, knowing the inability of man to keep the law, did not give the law for that purpose. Acts 13:39 states that…

… by him [Christ] everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Galatians states…

… if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law… (and) if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.

In the Old Testament, as well as in the New, the only means to obtain righteousness was by faith in God. In Romans 4, Paul supports this principle by arguing that the promise of righteousness was given even before the Law was given. Therefore righteousness does not depend on keeping the Law but on grace through faith in the promises of God. God’s means of salvation has always been the same – faith in Him.

Next, the purpose of the Law.

This is the first in a short series of posts examining the relationship between a New Testament believer and the Old Testament Law. There exists a great deal of confusion on this very important topic.

Christians disagree about the place of the Mosaic law in the life of the believer because the New Testament itself contains statements that appear to support opposite conclusions.

With this statement, Douglas Moo presents the issue every Christian believer faces in regard to the Law: What role does the Old Testament law play in the life of a believer? Is the law good? Paul apparently thought so, for in Romans 7:12 he proclaimed that “the law is holy,” and in Romans 3:31 he stated that “we uphold the law.” On the other hand, Paul argued that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4), and that the believer is “not under the law” (Romans 6:14).

How are such conflicting statements to be reconciled? In the next few posts, I will attempt to provide a reasonable, scripture-based answer to this question.

First of all, one must address two important questions: What is the Mosaic Law (hereafter, at times, simply “Law”)? And what is its purpose? Albert H. Baylis identifies the Law as the constitution and national legislation of the nation of Israel. This was not just a man-made constitution, but a constitution given by God and therefore “holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

It is important to realize that the Law was given to a specific group of people within a specific geographical and chronological context. Any proper application of the Law to the New Testament believer must take this into account. There is no reason to think that the Law serves as a constitution for the Church or is binding in any other way on the Church unless explicitly stated to be so in Scripture.

Additionally, one must recognize that a marked change takes place at the cross of Christ. Clearly, the law does not hold the same status for the Christian as it did for a member of the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant. Indeed, there is a discontinuity between the time before and the time after Christ at the core of the Scriptures. This discontinuity between Law and Gospel which takes place through the life and ministry of Christ means that Christians are no longer “under law but under grace.”

A. T. Lincoln states that one can resolve the apparently conflicting statements of the New Testament writings of Paul regarding the Law by placing them in the context of Paul’s view of…

… God’s ongoing action in history for the salvation of men and women. He [Paul] circumscribes the validity of the law within this framework…

Romans 7:6 states:

We are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The coming of Christ changed the way that the believer relates to the Law - there is a definite discontinuity present. Nonetheless, this discontinuity does not entail that there is no continuity between the Law and the Gospel.

In my next post, I’ll continue these introductory remarks.

The Shack is a work of theological fiction which has gone through multiple printings and has gone as high as #8 on the USA Today bestseller list. It is quite popular, receiving reviews such as this from Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C.:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of “The Shack.” This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good!

Many churches have encouraged the reading of this book (including the one I attend) with the understanding that it may transform one’s spiritual life. Some Amazon reviewers have said:

The character of God in the book is from a point of view I never would have imagined, or thought of. But all the answers and conversations are right on. It really changes the way I view God, and the way I can related with him. My relationship is so much deeper now.

I truly believe that “The Shack” has the potential to shake up and alter the entire Church. This book will seriously mess with your theology — and you will be GLAD. Yeah, it’s really that good.

Wish I could take bakc all the years in seminary!… Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and agin. With relish.

I would highly recommend anyone reading The Shack (or planning to) to read this excellent review by Tim Challies. (Included in the review is a brief synopsis of the book itself.) There are some serious problems with the book from a theological perspective, which Challies does a good job explaining. Although many have obviously been positively impacted by the book, a little truth mixed with a little error (or perhaps a lot of error) can be a dangerous thing. Challies does not claim that the book is devoid of value, but that it leaves the reader with a potentially perilous misunderstanding of important scriptural truths. Here are some comments from near the end of his review (read the whole thing, if you can):

Focusing on just three of the subjects William Yound discusses in The Shack, we’ve seen that errors abound. He presents a false view of God and one that may well be described as heretical. He downplays the importance and uniqueness of the Bible, subjugating it or making it equal to other forms of subjective revelation. He misrepresents redemption and salvation, opening the door to the possibility of salvation outside of the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross. We are left with an unbiblical understanding of the persons and nature of the God and of His work in the world.

He relies too little on Scripture and too much on his own theological imaginings.

That the Shack is a dangerous book should be obvious from this review. The book’s subversive undertones seek to dismantle many aspects of the faith and these are subsequently replaced with doctrine that is just plain wrong. Error abounds.

HT: Between Two Worlds

This Google Map presents an overview of the chronology and geography of the Passion Week. It is based on a harmonization by New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg.

HT: Justin Taylor

The Christian teaching on Hell is cited by many agnostics and atheists as an obstacle in them being able to come to Christ. Some Christians are equally troubled over the concept of their fellow human beings being subjected to the eternal torture of being burned by a fire that never goes out. Paul Copan, yesterday, talked about reconciling Hell and the goodness of God. His beginning statement was that Hell is “not a place with high thermal output.” This goes against some of the literal descriptions of Hell contained in the Bible. Copan is not the first to understand the description of eternal flames in a figurative sense. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that it should be understood figuratively.

First, the Scripture describes Hell as being a place of “darkness” and well as a place of eternal “flames.” These two descriptions are contradictory if meant to be interpreted literally. When I light a candle, I universally find that I generate light. It seems difficult to see how hell could be full of fire and yet be dark at the same time. Isaiah 66:24 speaks of “worms” in Hell. Once again, it seems obvious that there are not literal worms in Hell.

Lest one think that this figurative understanding of the fire of Hell is a departure from the traditional understanding of the Church, even Calvin and Luther held that the “fiery” passages are metaphorical. Yielding further evidence in support of the figurative view is the description of the original purpose of Hell in Matthew 25:41. Hell, we are told, was prepared for the devil and his angels - spirit beings who lack physical bodies endowed with pain fibers and therefore unable to be physically pained with fire. William Crockett, speaking on this subject, states:

Physical fire works on physical bodies with physical nerve endings, not on spirit beings.

So, if it is not the high thermal output of Hell which makes it suitable for the punishment of those who reject God’s grace, what is it? The essence of Hell, according to Copan, is the…

… agony and utter hopelessness of separation from God - to be “away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thes 1:9), the greatest loss possible.

Mortimer Adler stated:

The damned in hell do not suffer bodily fires or tortures. Their punishment is pain of loss, not of sense.

Today wrapped up the “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World” apologetics conference. It was a great day which began with Craig Hazen’s “To Everyone an Answer” in which he made the claim that Christianity is unique among world religions in that it invites investigation into its truth claims. It is testable in a sense that no other world religion can claim.

In the first breakout session, I attended Dan Wallace’s session on “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?” Wallace is one of the premier experts in textual criticism and provided strong evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.

In the last morning breakout session, Paul Copan presented “The Incarnation of Christ in Philosophical Perspective” in which he explicated the difficulties of the divine Christ becoming a human being. After lunch, Copan then presented “Hell and the Goodness of God.” He showed how Hell is compatible with the teaching that God is good.

In the final plenary session of the conference, Gary Habermas ably finished things up with a discussion of “The Resurrection of Jesus” in which he convincingly argued that one can establish the historicity of the resurrection accepting only those “minimal facts” which are accepted by 90 to 100% of all scholars (liberal and conservative).

With a full mind and a tired body, I make my way home to Lakeland tomorrow.

Today was the final day of the EPS/ETS annual conference. I spent the morning in a panel discussion based on Doug Geivett and James Spiegel’s new book, “Faith, Film and Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen.” First, Geivett, of Biola University spoke on “Escaping into Reality: How The Truman Show Reveals Epistemological Conditions for Human Flourishing.” Then, David Hunt of Whittier College presented a paper called, “The Sleeper Awakes: Gnosis and Authenticity in The Matrix.” James Spiegel, of Taylor University, then presented his paper, “What Would Have Been and What Could Be: Counterfactuals in It’s a Wonderful Life and Run Lola Run.” Finally, “Rattle and Film: U2 and the Kingdom of God”, a paper by Douglas Blount of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was presented. This was an enjoyable session examining philosophical issues through film.

In the afternoon, I followed a sort of “aesthetics and culture” track. First, Joseph Wooddell of Criswell College presented a paper, “Christian Artists and Art Critics: The Apologetic Value of Evangelical Involvement.” Then, David Alan Reed of Bethel College presented, “The Logic of Aquinas’s Theory of the Beatific Vision.” Finally, a fellow Biola Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics student, Michele Armstrong presented her paper, “Beauty, Virtue, and Wisdom.”

Tonight at the “Reasonable Faith” Conference, James Sinclair offered a plenary session lecture called, “God, Science and the Cosmos.” The first part of his lecture provided additional support for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (that the universe began to exist) from current scientific thought. In the second part, he offered a defense of the Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument.

In the breakout session, I attended Ben Witherington III’s “Knowing the History of Jesus” in which he presented Christ’s own Christology (or how he thought of himself). Jesus spoke continually of two things in regard to himself and his mission: “Son of Man” - an obvious reference to deity from Daniel 7, and “The Kingdom of God” again found to be given to the Son of Man in Daniel 7. He argued Christ had a “high” Christology of himself.

Tomorrow, I will attend several sessions at the “Reasonable Faith” conference. More after that.

Today was a full day and I am unable to provide as much information on each session as yesterday. But, the first session of the day at EPS/ETS was by Jay Richards, of the Acton, Institute, answering the question of “Is the ‘Spontaneous’ Market Order an Example of Design without a Designer?”. Next, J. P. Moreland offered a response to Phillip Clayton on the subject of “Substance Dualism and Individuals in the Mereological Hierarchy.” Then, Michael Rea, of Notre Dame, answered the question, “Were the Cappadocian Fathers Social Trinitarians?” After Rea, William Lane Craig responded, “No” to the question, “Is Uncertainty a Sound Foundation for Religious Tolerance.” In the afternoon, David Hunt offered a “Defense of Simple Foreknowledge.” Then, in a plenary session of the EPS, Michael Murray, of Franklin and Marshall, addressed the question of whether “Evolutionary and Cognitive Psycology” could adequately explain religion. Of course, there were many other sessions taking place simultaneously in other areas of the conference.

This evening, “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World” Apologetics Conference kicked off with an inspirational challenge by Lee Strobel. Afterwords, there were several breakout sessions including the one I attended in which J. P. Moreland discussed the “Argument from Consciousness”: A powerful argument for the existence of God. Briefly, Moreland presented arguments to show that conscious states cannot be identical to brain states. Physical matter cannot give rise to non-physical entities, and so consciousness is a recalictrant fact with which physicalism cannot deal. On the other hand, the Theist belief in God as a conscious being who created man in his own image does offer an explanation for consciousness.

Tommorow is another full day. Hopefully, I can offer another update tomorrow evening.

Well… I had anticipated blogging a little more frequently since my last post, but life has kept me from it. Today, I arrived in San Diego for the Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society Annual Meeting. The Apologetics Conference I spoke of in my last post takes place each evening, starting tomorrow, while the day is spent listening to papers from evangelical scholars in philosophy and theology.

I arrived in San Diego after noon and made it to three excellent sessions today. Here’s a brief summary:

First, J. P. Moreland delivered a paper entitled, “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” One might misunderstand Moreland’s topic without having attended the session. In one sense, Evangelicals are under-committed to the Bible, yet, Moreland argues, they have over-committed to the Bible in making it the sole authority, or source of knowledge. This stands in contrast to the historical view which holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority or source of knowledge. This over-committment stems from a withdrawal from the broader world of ideas, surrendering the source of “real knowledge” to the hard sciences. Moreland’s call was for evangelicals to recover the use of right reason, natural law, experience, Creeds , and tradition as subordinate sources of knowledge.

I then heard an excellent paper by Dr. Angus J. L. Menuge of Concordia University Wisconsin called, “Socrates in Service to Christ: The Formation of an Apologist.” One never knows what to expect and is often misled by the Title of a Paper. I was pleasantly surprised that Menuge’s paper presented a study of Oxford University’s Socratic Club under the presidency of C. S. Lewis, 1942-1954. He asserts that the Socratic Club provides an ideal model for training Christians in apologetics. His paper was quite insightful.

Lastly, I attended a session in which Steven L. Porter of Talbot School of Theology presented a paper called, “What does a foundationalist theological methodology look like?” Porter first recounts how philosophical nonfoundationalism has led to a nonfoundational movement in theology. He then asks why a recent resurgence in philosophical foundationalism has not led to a corresponding surge in theological foundationalism. Finally, Porter provided a sketch of how three foundationalist theories (externalism, doxastic internalism, and nondoxastic internalism) affect theological methodology.

Tomorrow’s another day. I’ll see if I can provide another update then.

Michael Horton was asked what advice he might give to an evangelical who is considering becoming Catholic or Orthodox. I think his answer, found in this article, is right on:

Here’s how I would counsel such a person: Start with the gospel. The gospel creates and sustains the church, not the other way around. If the Evangelicalism familiar to you has been a constant stream of imperatives and moral exhortation, whether in rigid and legalistic or warm and friendly versions, the antidote is not to follow different rules for attaining justification, but a constant, life-long, unremitting immersion in the good news that Jesus Christ’s obedient life, death, and resurrection are sufficient even to save miserable Christians.

That is what the Reformation was all about, and it is why we need another one, even in Protestantism as much as in any other tradition. If our salvation depends on anything done by us or even within us by the Spirit, then our situation is hopeless.

Despite their own differences, Rome and Orthodoxy are at one in telling us in their official doctrinal statements that this message is wrong, not just in emphasis, but in the doctrine itself. According to Roman Catholic teaching, it is a serious error, heresy, in fact, to believe that we are accepted by God in Jesus Christ apart from any virtuous activity on our part and while we remain in ourselves actually sinful. Our meritorious activity must play some part in our final justification, according to both Rome and Orthodoxy.

One might hear more of God’s grace in the Mass or in John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith than in a month of Sundays in many Protestant churches today, even some of our own churches that are confessionally bound to teach otherwise. But in Rome’s official teaching, not to mention in its popular piety, the doctrine that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from any inherent righteousness, remains anathema.

HT: Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds