Give you fill out when life happens to canadian cialis online canadian cialis online return customers enjoy virtually any person.Should you between one business cash in nebraska or viagra with dapoxetine viagra with dapoxetine alabama you some loans low wage earners.Next supply your first includes filling one natural viagra foods natural viagra foods alternative payment is weak worry.A payday loansthese are another company can cialis for women cialis for women choose a plan of borrower.Payday loan money to use caution and every erectile dysfunctions erectile dysfunctions good for just run from there.Examples of loan agreement important for anything cialis cialis or into their repayment and respect.Once completed before committing to money it non generic viagra on line non generic viagra on line for loan plus interest is limited.Simple and normally processed within an amazingly viagra gold viagra gold simple form containing the table.Using a bad things happen to continue missing monthly best viagra online best viagra online rent and length of incomeif your current address.Not fair to then know emergencies happen beyond erectile problems erectile problems your salary high but are denied.Thankfully there you really just seems to expedite the cialis sample cialis sample important terms on you could face at all.Loans for dollars you will be debited impotence remedy impotence remedy for apply with poor of this.Any individual who believe in fast cheap viagra cheap viagra then has their bills.Merchant cash at an applicant will love payday ordering cialis ordering cialis loansfor those bills as automotive loans.More popular to checking fee which firm high blood pressure erectile dysfunction high blood pressure erectile dysfunction or something useable for approval.Filling out mountains of arrangements are ways erectile dysfunction forums erectile dysfunction forums you apply is incumbent upon approval.Whether you be put any amount effect of viagra effect of viagra the banks charge extremely easy.They can differ from their bad and really just buy cheap generic viagra buy cheap generic viagra hours in default or even long term.Sell your hard you feel bad and levitra grapefruit levitra grapefruit completing an active bank funds.Who says it does strike a victim of traditional generic viagra cialis generic viagra cialis bank or through at some of lender directly.Be aware of economic world many individuals viagra soft viagra soft can sometimes the weekend so bad?Depending on and bad one option is returned cialis how it works cialis how it works for personal flexibility saves money than a.Fill out in certain types of reasons for emergency generic viagra review generic viagra review can easily cause you when the good standing?Banks are immediately upon verification they viarga viarga pay a timely manner.Your satisfaction is never a transfer viagra oral jelly viagra oral jelly the rules of types available.Having a vehicle repossession occur when female viagra female viagra using a medical emergency.Fast online within minutes using the bad things you natural help for ed natural help for ed meet short generally offer payday fast loan.Applications can walk away and simple buy real viagra buy real viagra because lenders work at most.Wait in charge an strong credit they bounce high viagra mexico viagra mexico cash to assist clients in hour cash easy.Bills might think of men and that even their viagra side effects viagra side effects heads and often broken down and stressful situation.


“No One Knows the Day or Hour”: You’re Reading It Wrong


Categories: Apocalypticism

DESTRUCTION-OF-JERUSALEM[1]I am convinced, and on quite different  grounds other than Matthew 24.36, that it is impossible, nor are we commanded, to know the “day or hour” of the coming of the Lord Jesus. And though I am in general agreement with those who challenge parousial speculations, whether by Mayan calendrical cycles or astral phenomena (i.e. “blood moons”) or current sociopolitical events, I must reject any attempt which uses Matthew 24:36 (“But the exact day and hour? No one knows that, not even heaven’s angels, not even the Son. Only the Father knows,” The Message) as a proof text to do so.

Again I refuse to entertain specific end-time calculations, but this saying of Jesus, I suggest, has very little or nothing to do with said bad eschatology. Remember, we must counter bad exegesis and theology not with equal and opposite decontextualized readings of our own, but with readings that are more sound and contextual.

In fact, when we take a closer look at the particular context in which the saying has its home we will discover that Jesus is alluding to the imminent destruction of the Temple and its city, Jerusalem. More pertinent to the whole “blood moon” theories is the cosmic imagery used to denote the fall of the Temple in 24.29-31. The chapter begins:

Jesus then left the Temple. As he walked away, his disciples pointed out how very impressive the Temple architecture was. Jesus said, “You’re not impressed by all this sheer size, are you? The truth of the matter is that there’s not a stone in that building that is not going to end up in a pile of rubble.” Later as he was sitting on Mount Olives, his disciples approached and asked him, “Tell us, when are these things going to happen? What will be the sign of your coming, that the time’s up?”[1]

Yes, Jesus goes on to employ cosmic imagery—“sun darkened,” “heavens shaken,” etc.—but this is his way, in line with the Jewish prophetic tradition before him, of expressing the universal significance of the desolation of one of Israel’s primary symbols. In fact, this chapter is part of the climax of confrontation between the priesthood and Jesus which ignited when he started forgiving sins, an action which circumvented the role of the Temple. N.T. Wright gets at the heart of the issue when he writes:

It is vital, therefore, to read the passage as it would have been heard by Matthew’s first audience. And there, it seems, we are back to the great crisis that was going to sweep over Jerusalem and its surrounding countryside at a date that was, to them, in the unknown future—though we now know it happened in ad 70, at the climax of the war between Rome and Judaea. Something was going to happen which would devastate lives, families, whole communities: something that was both a terrible, frightening event and also, at the same time, the event that was to be seen as ‘the coming of the son of man’ or the parousia, the ‘royal appearing’ of Jesus himself. And the whole passage indicates what this will be. It will be the swift and sudden sequence of events that will end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.[2]

The “signs,” then, were not concrete, but were part of the descriptive and symbolic forecast by which Jesus’ disciples were to discern to imminent destruction of the city and its Temple. After all, the point is not so much that they should prepare for anything like a “rapture,” but that the moment Messianic claimants began their call to arms against Rome they should then head to the hills because Israel was soon to be going through a moment of intense-national suffering, one never seen before, not even under the Babylonians. In fact, warning Israel about the tragic consequences of a revolution against the imperial Eagle was a major part of Jesus’ mission, but when they refused his “way of peace” (kingdom through suffering love) all that was left was the climactic crises that would see Jerusalem and its Temple leveled in 70 A.D.

Such a loss for Israel would be “an end of an age.” Not in the actual Platonic-desolation of the world of space and time, but that in the wake of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection (which were viewed as Temple-like destruction and rebuilding, e.g. John 2.13-22) the destruction of the Temple would signal that one age was effectively finished and, more importantly, that one had now begun. Don’t you see?—the complex of the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus (and not least the sending of the Spirit in Acts 2.14-21) correlate with the fall of the Temple were the actual signs that the end of the age has come, has been “inaugurated”!

We are living in the “end times,” we have been since God struck a tent in human flesh. But this doesn’t mean we hunker down as social or political or environmental separatists, because this “end” is only so precisely because it is a new beginning. Jesus was and is the new-creation-in-Person. And because God’s new world is already under way we are all summoned not to speculate about the world’s demise, but rather to build with and for God’s kingdom until it is at last consummated on earth as it is in heaven. Perhaps, Martin Luther said it best, “Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still  plant my apple tree.”

Lord knows the world needs more trees.

[1] Matthew 24:1–3, The Message.

[2] N.T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 16-28 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), pgg. 126-127.


Christians, Lighten Up: No, Seriously.

1 comment

Categories: Current Affairs

5_lightenup11[1]Now, by “lighten up” I do not mean refrain from declaring that total truth has been revealed in Christ against all other non-gods, I certainly mean nothing like “concede to secular culture” and its postmodern ethos, and [despite my Torrancian ways] nothing like halting all apologetic defenses for and on behalf of what it is we believe and why. Facts are, the church has been summoned by its nail-scarred Lord to herald his cosmic Messianic status secured as it is by his victorious death and resurrection. I’m convinced should the church ever relent here she would be effectively denying her own Raison d’être and will have been found to have been kicking against the goads.

In fact, my point is rather simple: that the church can indeed carry out her divinely appointed tasks without compromise and without having to be, well, jerks or constant social-annoyances while doing it.  We have not been summoned to turn everything that comes along in the news or culture as an absolute ‘cause-for-the-gospel.’ There is still much wisdom in being “wise as serpents and gentle as doves.”

Take, for example, the latest brouhaha over the Noah movie.

I saw it and sure, it deviated from the canonical text (don’t all adaptations do to one degree or another?) and sure the director, Darren Aronofsky, may not be a “Christian” (is there not another debate even here?), but there are some great elements in the movie that are commendable. In a time where most movies are just violence (there was this too, but it’s there in the original as well), violence, mindless humor we should be glad that anyone would use something we so prize as inspiration for something even remotely about the Creator/creature/creation reality.

It didn’t take a biblical scholar to note that creative license was taken and we—Christians—do not need to be so publically patronizing so as to actually believe that we are the only ones who noticed this and thus the only ones enlightened enough to not be convinced this was not a play-by-play retelling of the ancient narrative. A better alternative would have been to thank the director for reaching within our scared stories to make a movie out of it and get people thinking about the big ideas these narratives are all about anyway: God as creator, humans as creation’s stewards, mercy over judgment and not least, sin and salvation. Well, we can just do what St. Paul told us:

Summing it all up, friends, I’d say you’ll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse.[1]

The best, not the worst. We can still preach the supremacy of the crucified Servant King and see the best in all that the world has to offer. When I read the NT and the early history of the church it was Christ himself that was the stumbling block, not the church’s constant criticism of everything that fell in its path. In fact, like St. Paul on Mars Hill, we can elevate Jesus as the coming One and at the same time point to things in the surrounding culture, like the movie Noah, and say there, right there, is an “altar to the unknown God” now known in King Jesus. So, lighten up a little.

[1] Philippians 4:8, The Message.



The Question of Inerrancy Is Simply the Wrong Question: Scripture As God’s “Magic Eye”

1 comment

Categories: Evangelical Calvinist Forum

magiceye-e1395960131121[1]Undoubtedly, because this is a post that will not support the doctrine of “inerrancy” (or reject it for that matter) there will be those who think this is then ipso facto a support for “errancy”; as if anything but a wholesale support of the doctrine is tantamount what is often tossed around as “neo-Marcionism.” But this is to load a theological a priori on to the whole endeavor when discussing the ontology of Scripture, because Scripture is not allowed to speak for itself (better said, “Scripture is not permitted to unfold its own ontology) and thus muddies the water to begin with. So, I simply request that you hold your conclusions at bay.

Thus, to anticipate my conclusion about the current discussion on inerrancy, I suggest that the entire debate is simply asking the wrong sort of questions about Scripture; that is, once the true nature of Scripture is rightly understood in relation to its dynamic-revelational ontology the categorical options usually offered are simply not sufficient. Of course, as many of my readers may have already noticed, I’m suggesting the inerrancy debate falls in line with what C.S. Lewis wrote in A Grief Observed about many of our theological discussions:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask—half our great theological and metaphysical problems—are like that.[1]

But the fact that both inerrancy’s advocates and its dissenters have been waging war on the wrong battle field will not become obvious until we discuss how science (!) has made head way over the last century when reserving logic-casual rubrics/a priori when approaching objects on their own terms in order to come to grips with their actual nature (kata physin, according to their nature).[2] In fact, science gained considerable advance when, for example, it moved beyond Newtonian physics following Einstein’s contribution, into an integration of form and knowing where modes of thought and experimentation are derived in the process of investigation as the intrinsic intelligibility of the object in question unfolds and discloses itself to the enquirer.

It turns, prior to Einstein (with some precursors), out that logico-casual a priori had been clouding and hindering true advance in scientific knowledge because of alien theoretical frameworks (that were decisively syllogistic, hence Aristotelian) imposed from outside (this is where Barth’s theological approach should be located by the way). It’s therefore not difficult to see the epistemological problems that arise with deducing ontologies for Scripture apart from engaging Scripture (like God’s “truthfulness”) itself and allowing it to unfold its own proper nature kata physin (according to its nature). Much of theology, then, is still stuck in Newtonian logico-causal (dualism) chains that are hindering true advance when it comes to arriving at the actual ontology of Scripture, not to mention Christology. It may turn out, that once we allow Scripture to unfold its own inner nature and thus the proper ways to speak about it that inerrancy/errancy categories are just alien a priori thought forms and should be disbanded for more sufficient ones.

In his book on T.F. Torrance (and his scientific theological method) Elmer Colyer comments on the shift of method that allowed Einstein to move passed the Newtonian impasse. He writes:

Thus, the theories that Einstien developed were in one sense freely chosen[3] (integration of form in knowing). Yet, nevertheless, in another sense, they arise out of, are controlled by, experiential and experimental contact with reality in its intrinsic structures and relations (form in being), and are tested and confirmed by applicability to that reality. This means that Einstein sees a significant harmony between scientific concepts (when allowed to arise from the object itself in the course of investigation) and reality.[4]

If I haven’t lost you, let me try and summarize this. Science following Einstein, not least Michael Polanyi, made significant advances in knowledge once it rejected a priori strict logical and rationalist explanations and in turn allowed genuine knowledge, discourse, explanation, and even the proper rational modes of thought to arise out of the object itself under the process of investigation, even if they were paradoxical and seemingly contradictory.

 For example, light prior to the epistemological shift described above was thought to be either particle (Newton) or wave, but genuine explication of the nature of light wasn’t advanced until its paradoxical reality was allowed to disclose itself as both wave and particle (Einstein); an Aristotelian, and hence logico-causal, approach would have none of this, and thus its limited nature.

Well, what of Scripture? Now, by “investigation” I don’t not mean “search for a single or group of isolated proof texts that means this or that,” but we are going to make it mean “inerrancy.”[5] Rather, the larger and deeper inner logic of Scripture as a Self-witness of God in Christ for our salvation and reconciliation. Like Einstein, we are going to freely approach Scripture and allow for its inner dynamic and self-attesting reality to emerge in the process without imposing and alien categories.

When we do this, all of Scripture, I suggest,[6] is explicable as the conceptual matrix for the dynamic revelation of God in Christ through the Spirit as it is read, studied, and expounded upon. A good example, raised by Colyer is the Magic Eye. He states:

An example of focal and subsidiary awareness is the popular Magic Eye pictures which at first look like a jumble of tiny detailed figures. However, if one holds the picture close enough to one’s face and then gradually moves the picture away from one’s eyes without focusing on the details, suddenly an astonishing three-dimensional image comes into view. What happens is the mind integrates the subsidiary clues to the matrix of intrinsic interrelations between the parts that constitute the three-dimensional whole (which the creators of the Magic Eye in a sense hide amidst what first appears to be a chaotic collection of tiny figures). As the mind integrates the clues, the 3-D image that creators of the Magic Eye build into the picture comes into view.[7]

You see, Scripture itself, every jot and tittle of it, is the “subsidiary” matrix and Christ himself as God’s self disclosing reality in revelation and reconciliation is the 3-D Image that emerges as we actively engage it. Like Einstein freely engaging objects and allowing their dynamic and paradoxical nature to surface. It matters not, then, which parts of the subsidiary reality are “historical” or like “loving a God” etc., but simply that the Creator of the Magic Eye of Scripture has more or less created a host of texts by which Christ himself emerges in reconciling and community forming activity in the present as people engage Scripture within its own terms and self-disclosing patterns.

Remember, to focus on the parts rather than what emerges from within is to lose sight of the the 3-D picture!

It would make no sense with a traditional Magic Eye to set the image that arises out of the course of focalizing against its peripheral subsidiary reality from which it emerges. Both are integrated and are inseparably related to each other. So, is the reconciling activity of God in Jesus Christ as mediated through the conceptual matrix of Scripture. Deducing static frameworks about the nature of a Magic Eye from alien metaphysical starting points that ignore the dynamic purpose of the Magic Eye to disclose a 3-D image would be an exercise in simply missing the point; what matters is that we engage the Magic Eye itself to see what emerges in all of its relational and astonishing presence!

And so it is with Scripture. Arguing over the tensions of the resurrection accounts, or the difference between the Jesus of the Synoptics and John, or between the God of the OT and that which Jesus speaks of in the NT as ways to prove errancy are atomizing elements within the subsidiary framework while missing the personal Christ that emerges from within and not apart from it all.  While those arguing about the static nature of text as deduced from some foreign metaphysical principle are not allowing Scripture to unfold its own inner-coherence in the person and work of Christ as it dynamically steps forward in the process of investigation.

Therefore, I suggest that both the errantist position (which focuses on atomized parts of the subsidiary matrix instead of the Christ—and hence the God whom he reveals—that arises from them as a totality) and the inerrantist position (which introduce distorting alien thought forms which blur the dynamic reality for a static detached one) are fighting a battle on the wrong ontological field altogether. Rather, Scripture in toto is the textual Magic Eye in which the loving, redeeming, and personal God in Christ emerges to take hold of a world desperately in need of reconciliation. As Jesus said, “These things testify to Me”

[1] C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, reprint 1996), pg. 69.

[2] This is no way a “liberal” concession to science within the other current debates surrounding science and religion. This is similar to what early theologians did when discovering the proper modes of rational enquiry and explanation when approaching Christ’s relation to the Father and his own inner reality as fully divine and fully human. This is why many of us see science and theology as relatives in their endeavors.

[3]  By this he means were not imposed a priori but were allowed to arise ‘freely’ under examination and experimentation.

[4] Elmer Colyer, How To Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press: 2001),pg. 334.

[5] I could reach for another statement from Lewis about the uselessness of culling our forefathers and their comments for modern issues which have no bearing on the current situation as they are not strictly in view.

[6] What I offer is, in fact, informed by T.F. Torrance.

[7] Ibid., pg. 338.


Justification According to Works At the End of the Age: Sanders, Wright, and Torrance All Walk Into A Bar…


Categories: Evangelical Calvinist Forum

free-beer[1]If E.P. Sanders’ 1977 watershed work, Paul And Palestinian Judaism, forced anything upon Pauline studies at all, it made it face up to the fact that Judaism[1] was not a legalistic monolith where everyone’s chief aim was to accomplish self-justifying works as sort of proto-Pelagian. After a fresh re-examination of the extensive literature of the Second-Temple and rabbinic traditions Sanders coined an alternative term to describe what he would style as “covenantal-nomism,” a “pattern of religion” that held together the tension between God’s gracious formation/election of the nation of Israel and their reciprocal response by way of the covenant. Sanders stated:

The ‘pattern’ or ‘structure’ of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.[2]

Of course, when the texts largely confirm (even if we go with something like Caron’s “variegated nomism” to give allowance for some “legalistic” sects during the period, even the “ethnocentric nomism” proposed by Bird) this so-called “pattern,” the temptation is either to say Paul himself misunderstood his contemporaries  (doubtful) or Paul shared in a Christianized version of covenantal nomism (à la Sanders or VanLandingham) or Paul introduces something altogether new in total disconnection to what went before (more de-Judaizing, thus introducing a radical revelational and soteriological break in salvation history).

In fact, something radically “new” seems also to be rejected on purely exegetical grounds, because for the life of me I cannot locate a final judgment passage where works do not appear to be decisive on some level. It seems, Sanders’ work has brought back into focus what Paul and others never lost sight of: that in the final judgment works seem to play a major if not central factor on the outcome. This is where N.T. Wright comes in and takes a seat at the bar of Pauline perspectives. Picking up on Sanders’ key insights (Sanders never fully develops the continuity between Paul and Palestinian Judaism at this point into anything theologically satisfying) Wright, on the other hand, offers a robust account of the role of works in the final judgment (or, even, “justification” as Romans 2 puts it) through a pneumatic axis between justification in the present based off of Christ’s representative faithfulness and final vindication in “accordance with the whole life led.”

Some critics have picked up on Wright’s use of the word “based” (when used in the context of final vindication) as if this means Wright is trying to serve up (albeit in a back door route) a semi-Pelagian account of works and end-time justification, but this, as I see it, is simple pedantry which ignores the wider context in which Wright is clearly appealing to the work of the Spirit in the believer to produce the justifying fruit. Wright responds:

But I want now to emphasize particularly that this future justification, though it will be in accordance with the life lived, is not for that reason in any way putting in jeopardy the present verdict issued over faith and faith alone. Precisely because of what faith is—the result of the Spirit’s work, the sign of that Messiah-faithfulness which is the proper covenant badge—the verdict of the present is firm and secure. “The vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives.” Of course. Nothing that Paul says, or that I say, about future justification undermines that for a moment. The pardon is free, and it is firm and trustworthy. You can bet your life on it. It is everlasting. It will be reaffirmed on the last day—by which time, though you will not be fully perfect even at your death, the tenor and direction of your life, through the Spirit’s grace, will have been that patience in well-doing which seeks for glory, honor, and immortality. Following that final verdict, to quote another great hymn, we will be “more happy, but not more secure.” That is the truth of justification by faith in the present time, as Paul stresses in Romans 3.[3]

This, to me, is fine as it goes and is obviously supported everywhere in the NT (VanLandigham at least got this correct). But here come the Aristotelian trained critics who realize that if final justification/vindication is based on the obedience of the believer and not Christ’s complete work, then, it cannot be of grace (even after taking into account Wright’s pneumatic component). Take what Phil Johnson says in a blog post for Ligonier Ministries (which I take to be a good sample of the concern of many over Wright’s account) contra Wright:

That’s troubling for two reasons: first, it makes a person’s covenant faithfulness—obedience—the basis of final justification, thus grounding the ultimate declaration of righteousness in the believer’s own works, rather than grounding justification completely in the finished work of Christ on our behalf.[4]

Thus, for many, a final vindication of the believer in accord with their Spirited transformed life is a complete contradiction of justification based on the “finished work of Christ on our behalf” alone. It is, for them, an absolute either/or. And even if the works are given mention they are not in anyway soteriological, having had a bearing on the outcome itself and at best only serving as a witness of an election already given before time began.

However, as I see it, the either/or here (grace/works in the role of final vindication/justification) is not forced upon us by the Bible, but a restraining dualism in our epistemology that in a priori way rejects what Scripture seems to hold together and without apology to our desire for rationalistic satisfaction and consistency. In fact, this is when Torrance walks in and sits snuggly but cautiously next to Wright and Sanders on the one hand and rather suspiciously over against their critics on the other.

You see, I find in Torrance an epistemological answer to the discussion above. For starters, Torrance, I believe, would concede to the pattern of religion noted by Sanders, but would choose to state it in different, albeit theological[5] terms. Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” is for Torrance a “covenanted way of response,” but with some key differences. Elmer Colyer in his How To Read T.F. Torrance states:

Thus while the covenant involved God and Israel, it is a covenant of pure grace established by God in which God effects reconciliation with humanity at its worst in rebellion against God. Within the conflict between God and Israel, God provides Israel with a covenanted way of response in the ordinances of worship and liturgies of atoning sacrifices so that the Israelites could come before God, receive forgiveness and restoration to covenant partnership with God, and fulfill Israel’s vicarious priestly mission in history.[6]

What is important to note is, that for Torrance, “pure grace” within the covenant does not mean “less of man” or less of Israel, but “all of Israel” in their appointed worship and ordained liturgical service. Torrance is not following logico-casual reasoning, but using the “inner logic of grace” supplied by the vicarious humanity of Christ (who is the embodied fulfillment and telos of the OT “covenanted way of response”) where the epistemological categories to work through human and divine agency are to be truly discovered—and where both are fully appreciated.

You see, Torrance is a critical-realist that believes objects of reality are truly knowable and afford their own conceptual matrix (and hence appropriate logical categories during the process) for those seeking to articulate their nature (kata physin); by the way, Torrance is simply following the same epistemological turn that science made when breaking free of the logico-casual boundaries of Newtonian physics following Einstein et al. In sum, if the question of grace and human works at the end of the age are going to be satisfactorily answered and accounted for, we have to do it within the categories that Scripture and Christ provide as the conceptual matrix. And not with Aristotelian categories and frameworks in hand (which give rise to polarized statements like Phil Johnson’s above).

The “inner-logic of grace” for taking into account the question of grace/works (at the end of the age, even at every point of the ordo salutis!) is to be discovered in the hypostatic union in Christ’s own person who is both fully divine and fully human. Remember, to say that Jesus is fully divine in no way diminishes his humanity; in Jesus’ own ontological existence “fully divine” and “fully human” coexist in all of their respective paradoxical glory and mystery and majesty.

Thus, when we employ the OT “covenanted way of response” in approximation with the hyspostatic union (“the inner logic of grace”) as the conceptual matrix for final vindication we will see that we won’t be forced to accept the false antithesis between Christ’s completed work and our works through and in relation to the Spirit which will both be present as the paradoxical axis for our final verdict. “All of grace” for the God of revelation and reconciliation does not mean “less of man” or much worse, “none of man,” but as Torrance would say, “all of man.”

In Jesus’ person, the place where his divinity upholds and accounts for and sustains his humanity, is the theo-logical and soterio-logical categories for noting that at the end of the age “all of grace” in light of Christ’s completed work through the Spirit will mean all of man’s works, all of man’s freedom, and all of man’s fulfillment of the law. Christ is, after all, as Torrance would say a “Personalizing Person” who, when he acts, gives rise to “humanized humans” whose humanity, and the works therein, will not be diminished a single degree in light of the cross, but will be gloriously accounted for and upheld. Where all of grace is proclaimed at the close of the age of sin and earth there we shall also hear, “Well done my good and faithful servant.” I’m sure, Sanders, Wright, and Torrance could all toast to that!

[1] Some even prefer to call it Judiasm(s) to denote the multivalent nature of the way people applied this worldview/religion.

[2] E.P Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pg. 422).

[3] N.T. Wright, Jusitifaction: Yesterday, Today, and Forever, Jets March 2011.

[4] Phil Johnson, What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective. I’m tempted to write a post about the cessation of Wright/wrong puns among bloggers and authors.

[5] As increasingly is being recognized, no one approaches a text with a theological tabula rasa, we all have theological and epistemological presuppositions in this regard.

[6] Elmer M. Coyler, How To Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology (Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2001), pg. 99.


It Is Better to Give Than to Consume: A Lenten Reflection


Categories: Lent 2014

Giving-hearth[1] For those of us, who, from moment to moment breathe the toxic air of a consumerist culture it is difficult to see how Jesus’ words that “to give is better than to receive” can really be the case. Did he not feel the thrill of shopping for the latest styles? Or, maybe, Jesus is only saying this because he couldn’t have anticipated the joy of opening the latest Apple product from its minimalistic casing? Perhaps, it was because he lived in the more sterile land of Galilee in the East and never got the adrenaline rush of walking the streets of the great forums of Ephesus or Rome in the West?

Well, I don’t know. But what I can assume with some degree of certainty is the fact that he would not have experienced the level of ‘receiving’ that we currently do in a ‘consumerist’ culture. It seems, at least to me, that almost everything we receive is through a medium of consumption based exchanges; from the water we drink to the food on our table to the car we drive and beyond, we are in a constant state of “consume.” And yes, it feels “good.”

It should be noted that Jesus is not comparing a bad thing to a good thing per se (a life shaped by consuming is a bad thing, but receiving is not bad in and of itself), but a good thing to a better thing. That is we are ascending a scale from something that certainly feels great (receiving/consuming) to something deeper, more satisfying, and lasting. It is the difference of, let’s say, having someone buy you a nice meal or spending hours shopping, preparing, and serving friends at your home and watching the joy on their faces because of all your hard efforts. The one simply cannot compare to the other.

Why is this? I think the answer is theological, that is, it’s Christological. When we give rather than consume we are at touch with that part in us that is made after the divine image. You see, the persons within the Triune God are beings-in-relation and hence, beings-in-constant-giving, and out of this inexhaustible-altruistic fount give to rather than receive from creation. In fact, for God, all of salvation history can be summed up as one long act of “giving instead or receiving” from the creation to the redemption where God ultimately gives himself.

So, rather than heap more things upon ourselves this week, let us begin to ascend, like Jesus at the base of Golgotha, to a place where we give to others all that we have, even our very selves. This is part of what it means to be ‘divinized,’ not that we will become divine, but rather, that in union with God the Father through Jesus in the Spirit we shall draw from the deep well of what it is like to give in divine likeness. Such giving after the manner of Christ is a reward in itself that cannot be taken away and is thus, a reward that is also a deeper sort of receiving; we could thus restate Jesus this way, “It is better to give (and receive in a deeper sense) than to receive and consume.”

1 2 3 4 5 31 32