Between Two Worlds

In his excellent book, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, Stephen Westerholm offers a number of theses on how the apostle Paul viewed the Mosaic law following his Damascus Conversion. The section is entitled "The Law in God's Scheme," found on pp. 408-439. Here are the theses, which I find helpful and accurate:

1. Human beings find themselves in an ordered world not of their making, with the capacity to acknowledge or deny their dependence on the Creator, to conform to or to deny their dependence on the Creator, to conform to or defy the wise ordering of his creation. Life and divine favor are enjoyed by those who fear the Lord and do good. Those who reject what is good and do what is “wise in their own eyes” court disaster.
2. The law of Moses articulates the appropriate human response to life in God’s creation. It is a divine gift to Israel, a signal token of God’s favor to his people.
3. The law of Moses contains ordinances binding only on Jews; their observance has marked Jews off from other nations as God’s people.
4. Adamic humanity does not, and cannot, submit to God’s law.
5. For Adamic human beings the law cannot serve as the path to righteousness and life.
6. The giving of the law served to highlight, at the same time as it exacerbated, human bondage to sin.
7. The righteousness of God revealed in Christ Jesus is operative apart from law. Those who continue to pursue the righteousness of the law mistakenly attribute to the works of their unredeemed flesh a role in securing divine approval.
8. Believers in Christ are not under law.
9. Christian righteousness nonetheless fulfills the law.

Of course, for fuller explanation and defense, see Westerholm's work.

I see this as having rough overlap with an article by David Dorsey, professor of OT at the Evangelical School of Theology in Myerstown, Pennsylvania. He has written on “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34 (1991): 321-34. (Not available online so far as I can tell.)

Dorsey also offers a number of theses about the Mosaic law. In what follows, I've supplied the questions--the answers are Dorsey's:

What was the purpose or design of the law of Moses?

1. The corpus was designed to regulate the lives of a people living in the distinctive geographical and climatic conditions found in the southern Levant, and many of the regulations are inapplicable, unintelligible, or even nonsensical outside that regime.
2. The corpus was designed by God to regulate the lives of a people whose cultural milieu was that of the ancient Near East.
3. The Mosaic corpus was intended to regulate the lives of people whose religious milieu was that of the ancient Near Eastern world (particularly Canaan) and would be more or less inapplicable outside that world.
4. The code of laws was issued by God to lay the detailed groundwork for and regulate the various affairs of an actual politically- and geographically-defined nation.
5. The corpus was formulated to establish and maintain a cultic regime that has been discontinued with the Church (cf. Heb 8:18; etc.).

Should the law be divided into three parts—moral, ceremonial, and civil—such that the ceremonial and civil have been fulfilled by Christ, but the moral continues on into today?

1. The scheme of a tripartite division is unknown both in the Bible and in early rabbinic literature.
2. The categorizing of certain selected laws as “moral” is methodologically questionable.
3. The attempt to formulate this special category in order to “save” for NT Christians a handful of apparently universally-applicable laws—particularly the ones quoted in the NT—is an unnecessary effort. There is a more logical, Biblically supported approach to the law that retains for Christians not only the very heart of the so-called “moral” laws but also the underlying moral truths and principles, indeed the very spirit, of every one of the 613 laws.

What role does the Mosaic law play in the lives of Christians today?

"Having suggested that the Mosaic law in its entirety be removed from the backs of Christians in one sense, I would propose that the corpus be placed back into their hands in another sense: the entire corpus—not just the “moral” laws but all 613—moral, ceremonial, civil. If on the one hand the evidence strongly suggests that the corpus is no longer legally binding upon Christians, there is equally strong evidence in the NT that all 613 laws are profoundly binding upon Christians in a revelatory and pedagogical sense."

How then do we apply the OT laws to our own lives today?

"I would suggest the following theocentric hermeneutical procedure for applying any of the OT laws, whether the law be deemed ceremonial, judicial, or moral:

1. Remind yourself that this law is not my law, that I am not legally bound by it, that it is one of the laws God issued to ancient Israel as part of his covenant with them.
2. Determine the original meaning, significance and purpose of the law.
3. Determine the theological significance of the law.
4. Determine the practical implications of the theological insights gained from this law for your own NT circumstances."

Al Mohler takes a look at the cover story for Time Magazine on the topic of prosperity theology.

"Theological confusion takes many forms, but with this cover story, TIME directs us to one of the most pervasive perversions of the Christian Gospel in our times -- prosperity theology. The article, written by David Van Biema and Jeff Chu, is fair, balanced, and devastating. . . . TIME's cover story is a wake-up call. The fact that prosperity theology has TIME's attention should demand our attention."

What can we do about this? Very few, if any of us, will be able to have personal contact with someone like T.D. Jakes or Joel Osteen. And most boycotts don't work. But why not write a letter or try to meet with the manager of your local Christian bookstore if they sell books like this, seeking to persuade them that selling books like this is a disservice to the body of Christ? It would be a good way to practice being an ambassador of Christ, it would seek to serve the church, and it's something that might actually make a difference.

Six years ago Ruth Tucker made history as the first female professor at Calvin Theological Seminary (of the Christian Reformed Church denomination). Three years ago she was denied a tenure track. This summer she resigned. The Grand Rapids Press has an article about the controversy, and Tucker has devoted a blog to it. She has alleged that sex discrimination was part of the reason behind the administration's actions. "I was being held to a different standard than my male colleagues," Tucker, 61, said. "I do not believe that, had I been an insider and a man, that this ever would have happened to me."

Because of confidentiality rules, the administration has been unable to respond publicly to her public accusations.

Update: In the comments section below, Andrew links to a note from Neal Plantinga:

A Note from the President

Dear Students,

I write with great sorrow and determination. The sorrow, as you can expect, is over a published allegation by Ruth Tucker that I and "top administrators," namely, Henry De Moor and Duane Kelderman, made life difficult for her at CTS, and that we did so because of sex bias. I am deeply grieved at this allegation. For decades all three of us have contended for full gender equality in the church. For decades we have enjoyed collegial and respectful working relationships with women. We began our leadership at CTS with special determination to make our school a hospitable environment for women, and we believe we've made real progress on this front. I want you to know that this sorrowful episode has redoubled my determination to honor the women among us and, so far as it lies within my power, to see to it that CTS is a welcoming place for all.

You may give this note to anyone you judge will be helped by it.

Blessings,

Neal

Rev. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Ph.D.
President and Charles W. Colson Professor of Theology
Calvin Theological Seminary

Jesus said, "Some of you they will put to death. . . . But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives" (Luke 21:17, 18, 19). In other words, some of you will die--but you won't be dead.

Bob Kauflin's song below, adapted from a poem by George Bethune, is a fitting meditation on such a truth:

* * *

It is not death to die, to leave this weary road
And join the saints who dwell on high who've found their home with God
It is not death to close the eyes long dimmed by tears
And wake in joy before your throne delivered from our fears

O Jesus, King of grace
You bore the cross in our place
Though we suffer for a time
We will reign with you on high
And it is not death to die.

It is not death to fling aside this earthly dust
And rise with strong and noble wing to live among the just
It is not death to hear the key unlock the door
That sets us free from temporal years to praise you evermore.

O Jesus, King of grace
You bore the cross in our place
Though we suffer for a time
We will reign with you on high
And it is not death to die.
Copyright 2006 Sovereign Grace Praise.

Mark Moore writes an appropriately biting reflection on the teaching of Joyce Meyer, who has made statements like this:

"I'm going to tell you something folks, I didn't stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn't a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that's heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I'm righteous and I can't be righteous and be a sinner at the same time. All I was ever taught to say was, 'I'm a poor, miserable sinner.' I am not poor, I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is a lie from the pit of hell. That is what I was and if I still am then Jesus died in vain. Amen?

Moore's post concludes in this way:

"Why sarcasm? Why sadness? Because it is not John, Paul, or Jesus who needs to be corrected—it is the church. Specifically it is pastors. Pastors who are weak and afraid. Pastors who are people pleasers and ear ticklers. Pastors who don’t declare the absolute authority of Scripture. Pastors who don’t lead their churches because they are being led by their churches. Pastors who don’t want to offend the women in their churches by telling them to stop wasting their time in long lines at bookstores to secure the autographs of Christian celebrities who are more busy flying around on their private jets than studying to show themselves approved being workman who need not be ashamed because they have rightly handled the Scriptures.

"The sad state of the church is that we are a cult of personalities rather than followers of the second person of the Trinity. Maybe its because one of those personalities doesn’t even believe in the Trinity. Maybe its because those of us that do don’t call those of them that don’t what the Church has always called them—heretics."

According to a recent survey, "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll." That's an astounding number!

The magazine Popular Mechanics has recently released a new book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts. You can read the magazine article here.

[Corrected link]

Andreas Kostenberger ponders the question of the literary genre for "blogs."

Here, in part, is his conclusion:

It occurs to me that some of us are not very good listeners or readers of others’ blogs. Much would be gained if we were to intuit the proper genre of another’s blog and critique that blog in keeping with the authorially intended genre. . . . But I have seen quite a few examples of genre-misidentification with resultant communication breakdown in the blogosphere.

Internet etiquette is important, especially for Christians. Wisdom and spiritual maturity ought to be the primary pursuit and heart’s desire of every Christian blogger. But my topic today is more narrow. What I would encourage all of us to refine and hone is our ability to reflect intelligently, and to develop skills in, is to identify properly which genre a given blog represents and to respond accordingly. That way we won’t try to drive a square peg into a round hole but rather write blogs that resemble well-driven nails (Eccl 12:11) and in our responses speak words that are apt and refresh rather than hurt and offend (Prov 25:11).

Sociologists from Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, with the help of Gallup, have now conducted the most extensive national survey of religion. USA Today summarizes the results.

Update: Ed Veith's comments summarize my initial reaction to the question about your image of God: "Well, how about those who believe God is COMPLEX, that He is BOTH Authoritarian AND benevolent. How about those who believe in the Triune God, not a generic God? How about those who believe we dare not contemplate God apart from His incarnation and the mediation of Jesus Christ? Was Biblical Christianity represented on the check-off box?"

Similarly, Al Mohler writes: "Biblical Christianity cannot choose between a God of wrath and a God of love. The one true God is both loving and holy, and God's wrath is a function of his holiness. God's love for sinners who deserve nothing but His wrath culminates in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross-- where He bore the Father's wrath for sinners."

Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, has provided a helpful recap of the SBC after the conversative takeover in the 1990s: Southern Baptists after the Revolution.

George suggests that the suprising election of Frank Page was the result of an "odd coalition of diverse subgroups within the Southern Baptist Convention that came together in Greensboro to register their concerns":

1. Charismatics
2. Neo-Calvinists
3. Woman’s Missionary Union
4. Baptist Bloggers
5. Younger Moderates

It's an interesting read.

(HT: Denny Burk)

Jim Hamilton reviews Graeme Goldsworthy's Prayer and the Knowledge of God.

Darrell Bock, NT professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has begun a series of blog posts on the Emergent/emerging church movement. If you're interested in such things, you may want to keep an eye on his site. See part 1 and part 2.

Ed Veith offers some reflections on 9/11 and the culture--and also explains why a number of his predictions from five years ago turned out to be wrong:

• 9/11 & the Culture: Unity
• 9/11 & the Culture: Postmodernism
• 9/11 & the Culture: Civilization
• 9/ll & the Culture: Religion

Richard Gaffin--known for writing books thin in size but thick in content--has a new book out, entitled By Faith and Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Paternoster). It's available through the Westminster Seminary bookstore (as well as Amazon.com).

Here is some info pulled from the WTS site:

Publisher's Description:
How, according to the teachings of Paul, does the individual receive salvation?

That is the focal question behind this book. Against some recent scholars Gaffin argues that it is both a meaningful and an appropriate question to ask. So what does the application of salvation to sinners involve for Paul? Does he distinguish between salvation accomplished (historia salutis) and salvation applied (ordo salutis) and, if so, how, and how important is the latter for him? And what exactly is the place of justification in his theology? Gaffin argues that:

“The central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. That is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. The center of Paul’s soteriology…is neither justification by faith nor sanctification, neither the imputation of Christ’s righteousness nor the renewing work of the Spirit. To draw that conclusion, however, is not to ‘de-center’ justification (or sanctification), as if justification is somehow less important for Paul than the Reformation claims. Justification is supremely important, it is absolutely crucial in Paul’s ‘gospel of salvation’ (cf. Eph. 1:13). Deny or distort his teaching on justification and that gospel ceases to be gospel; there is no longer saving ‘good news’ for sinners. But no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul’s gospel, in our salvation, as he sees it, there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ. Union with Christ by faith—that is the essence of Paul’s ordo salutis.”

Table of Contents

1. The Order of Salvation and the Theology of Paul
 The Study of Paul Today
 Paul as Theologian--Some Foundations
       Biblical Theology
       The Problem of Interpreting Paul
  Paul as theologian
  Biblical theology and systematic theology

2. The Order of Salvation and the "Center" of Paul's Theology
 The "Center" of Paul's Theology
  1 Corinthians 15:3-4
  Sin
  Union with Christ
  Union and justification
  The role of faith
 The Center of Paul's Theology and the Order of Salvation
  Justification in the order of salvation

3. The Order of Salvation and Eschatology - I
 Eschatology and Anthropology
 Eschatology and Sanctification
  Union with Christ and the resurrection
  Indicative and imperative
  Historical and theological reflections

4. The Order of Salvation and Eschatology - II
 Eschatology and Justification
 Initial Considerations
  The perspective of the Westminster Standards
  Justification as future
  Faith and obedience
  Paul and James
  Justification and the present


Here are some related resources:

• By Faith and Not by Sight lectures given at a conference in May 2006 (6 CD set)
• Dr. Gaffin's Acts and Paul Course at Westminster Theological Seminary (45 CD set) 50% off until 9/19!

The Washington Post discovers the emerging church movement, focusing on Brian McLaren. Scot McKnight, Tony Jones, and Don Carson are all quoted.

It seems hard to dispute this quote by Carson: "Though a 'creative, sparkly writer,' added Carson, McLaren has 'got so many things wrong in his analysis that his work is not going to last that long.'"

Timothy George points us back to Augustine for lessons on how to live today in an age of terror.

Douglas Wilson offers some thoughts on the active obedience of Christ as a thematic structuring device in the book of Matthew.

Kevin Cawley reproduces a helpful word by J. I. Packer on what made Francis Schaeffer so unique:

What gave Schaeffer his importance among evangelicals? The brief answer is that he embodied to an outstanding degree qualities of which mid-twentieth-century English-speaking evangelicalism was very short, and so brought a measure of depth to themes on which in that era of English-speaking evangelicalism was very shallow. He was not original in any far-reaching sense; he was a conservative Presbyterian who professed what was in essence the old-Princeton system of theology, with some garnishings of detail from Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til, and he had no fault to find with any part of this doctrinal heritage.

But Schaeffer was felt to be original because he did seven things (at least) that other evangelicals, by and large, were not doing.

First, with his flair for didactic communication he coined some new and pointed ways of expressing old thoughts. [...]

Second, with his gift of empathy he listened to and dialogued with the modern secular world as it expressed itself in literature and art, which most evangelicals were too cocooned in their own subculture to do.

Third, he threw light on the things that today's secularists take for granted by tracing them, however sketchily, to their source in the history of thought, a task for which few evangelicals outside the seminaries had the skill.

Fourth, he cherished a vivid sense of the ongoing historical process of which we are all part [...]

Fifth, he felt, focused, and dwelt on the dignity and tragedy of sinful human beings rather than their grossness and nastiness

Sixth, he linked the passion for orthodoxy with a life of love to others as the necessary expression of gospel truth, and censured the all-too-common unlovingness of front-line fighters for that truth [...]

Seventh, he celebrated the wholeness of created reality under God and stressed that the Christian life must be a corresponding whole-- that is, a life in which truth, goodness, and beauty are valued together and sought with equal zeal

(Introduction, Reflections on Francis Schaeffer, 8-9).

That's the question on the cover of this week's Time Magazine. They only provide the lede, so I haven't read it yet, but it apparently deals (at least in part) with Joel Osteen. If anyone has read it and wants to link to a summary, feel free to do so in the comments section below.

Update: Here's a summary. Alex Chediak also recaps. Here are some quotes:

"In a Time poll, 17% of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61% believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31%—a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America—agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money."

Rick Warren: "This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy?" he snorts. "There is a word for that: baloney. It's creating a false idol. You don't measure your self-worth by your net worth. I can show you millions of faithful followers of Christ who live in poverty. Why isn't everyone in the church a millionaire?"

Joyce Meyer: "Who would want to get in on something where you're miserable, poor, broke and ugly and you just have to muddle through until you get to heaven?" asks Joyce Meyer, a popular television preacher and author often lumped in the Prosperity Lite camp. "I believe God wants to give us nice things."

Update: I'm glad to see that the National Baptist Convention (the nation's largest African-American organization) has denounced the prosperity gospel. Thabiti comments: "Now, if we can just get the folks who denounce the prosperity gospel to give up the social gospel and preach the biblical gospel of redemption from sin and joyous eternal life through the blood of Jesus Christ . . . then we'll be getting somewhere!"

Michael Spencer has a good post on Joel Osteen--the smiling, telegenic, popular, gospel-free preacher.

Thabiti Anyabwile has written an excellent article on his experience of growing up without a father: Haunted By His Absence.

British readers may be interested in this upcoming conference: the Annual Day Conference of the TFA - Theology For All (formerly Tyndale Fellowship Associates).

This will take place on Saturday, 30th September in Richmond, London. Carl Trueman, professor of historical theology and church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, will address the theme of "Church and Theology Today: What is Really at Stake?"

For details and booking, click

For those who are interested, I've added a couple of posts to the Reformation 21 blog: one on Race and Barriers, the other on Race and Grace.

If you need help in deciding which commentaries of the Bible to buy, the Sixth Edition of D. A. Carson's New Testament Commentary Survey is due out from Baker Academic this January, as is the Fourth Edition of Tremper Longman's Old Testament Commentary Survey.

Other helpful resources are John Glynn's Commentary and Reference Survey, and Denver Seminary's Annotated Old Testament Bibliography and New Testament Exegesis Bibliography.

Mark Driscoll offers some helpful thoughts on how he prepares for preaching and the questions he asks in the process.

1. I prayerfully choose a book of the Bible (and sometimes a thematic theological series) that bites me and plan on spending months, sometimes years, studying that book in preparation to preach it. A book like Genesis will take me over 1,000 hours of work to study, write commentary, and preach.
2. I continually pray for the Holy Spirit to teach me His Word as I am studying the Scripture. No amount of theological training can overcome the deficit of a preacher who is not led by the Holy Spirit to understand and proclaim the very words that He inspired.
3. As I study, I wrestle with tough texts as Jacob wrestled Jesus. I find that preaching tough texts such as gender roles, the flood, hell, etc., are much like driving a car into a steep curve. If you hit the brakes in fear you will lose control, but if you accelerate into the tough turns, gravity actually slingshots you through smoothly. In the pulpit, momentum and authority come through accelerating into tough texts in the study and then driving the church through them.
4. As I study Scripture I steep in the verses/phrases/words/pictures that bite like tea flavoring in hot water. Too often the principles of Scripture are preached when the images and word pictures are far more impacting and memorable. For this reason other movements have even adopted the biblical images so that a dove now represents peace, not the Holy Spirit, and a rainbow represents gay rights, not the Flood, by which God killed people for sin (including sexual sin). I find that sermons are memorable if the images in the Scriptures can be drilled into the imaginations of people. Perhaps the master at this was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who would not just describe a scene of Scripture, but actually put you in it through your imagination.
5. Only after I have spent considerable time in the naked text do I check my studies with trusted teachers to ensure that I have not come to heretical conclusions. I try not to pick up the commentaries until I have had many months in the Scripture I am preaching to ensure that I do not get lazy or simply rely on another man's walk with God. I will read it repeatedly in multiple translations, and read every decent commentary from every theological persuasion I can find to examine the book from every angle.
6. I live what I learn, teach it to my family, and spend a lot of time repenting of sin and seeking to obey God's Word by the grace He provides. Much of my sermon is simply explaining what the Scripture says, how that has changed my life, and how that is transforming my family and those people with whom I live in community. In this way I hope to demonstrate to my church what it means to come under Scripture; by talking about my own sins and flaws, they see me struggling through Scripture and not just preaching my tidy answers at the end of my studies. Because of this my sermons are long, anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half.

I find myself continually coming back to five questions that shape every one my sermons:

1. What does Scripture say?
   To answer this we need to check translations, do our word studies, and find out exactly what words best convey the meaning of Scripture.
2. What does Scripture mean?
   Here we need to interpret what is said, which requires commentaries, cultural background studies, etc. At this phase John Glynn's Commentary and Reference Survey is a must-have for every preacher and teacher as he rates all of the best commentaries and other reference material on various books of the Bible and theological topics.
3. Why do we resist this truth?
   Here we are assuming that people will not simply embrace God's truth but fight it with their thoughts and/or actions because they are sinners who, like Romans 1:18 says, suppress the truth. So, we attempt to predict their objections and resistance so that we can answer them and remove their resistance to get them to embrace God's truth for their life. This part of the sermon must be confrontational and often ends up in people walking out, standing up to argue, and sending nasty emails, all of which indicates you've hit a nerve like God wants you to. The real fight begins at this point and a preacher needs to come with his hands up looking for an opening much like a boxer.
4. Why does this matter?
   We need to connect all that we have said to a missional purpose for our lives, families, church, and ultimately God's glory. Something may be true but if people do not find it to also be important they tend not to act on it. On this point I like to connect Scripture a lot to the character of God, nature of the gospel, our mission in our city, and the quality of our lives both individually and collectively as a city of God within our city.
5. How is Jesus the hero?
   The Bible is one story in which Jesus is the hero. Therefore, to properly teach/preach the Bible we have to continually lift Him up as the hero and any sermon in which the focus is not on the person and work of Jesus will lack spiritual authority and power because the Holy Spirit will not bless the teaching of any hero other than Jesus.

Kairos Journal on the life and death of the larger-than-life crocodile hunter, Stever Irwin:

"One aspect of Irwin’s life stands out. He was unashamedly enthusiastic about the wonders of the natural world. Children adored him because he showed them what it might mean to love animals whether great or small. The sight of Irwin wrestling a mammoth crocodile or running in the desert to catch a scorpion was almost guaranteed to implant in children a playful delight in living beings. Tragically there is no indication that Irwin was a Christian, indeed, he and his wife welcomed their children into the world with Buddhist ceremonies. Yet his life is one long rebuke to Christians who take little delight in their Father’s world. If a man could love the creation this much and not know the Creator—how much more should those who love God take delight in the work of His hands?"

[HT: STR]

Here's a great meditation by John Piper on the pleasure God takes in his creation, and another one on seeing the joy of God in the sun. An excerpt from the latter:

"As I've tried to sense God's leading for this morning's and this evening's messages, I believe what he wants me to do is put you in touch with one of his ministries to you that is often neglected, especially by urban, fast-paced, productive, efficient, rational, scientific people like you and me. And yet this neglected ministry of the Lord is one that God means for you to be helped by every day. There is not a day that goes by, nor is there a place in the world, where God does not extend this ministry for the healing and hope and happiness and humility of those who will receive it. I'm speaking of the ministry of the Lord through what he has created, through the world of nature, especially what we see when we look up into the skies during the day and during the night."