Monday, October 14, 2013
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
It’s called being polite and a good neighbor. For years, we have invited Muslim friends to attend our Easter and Christmas services and they have graciously attended year after year. Some have even celebrated our family’s personal Christmas service in our home. So when they have a potluck when their month of fasting ends, we go to their party. It’s a Jesus thing. The Pharisees criticized him as “the friend of sinners” because Jesus ate dinner with people they disapproved of. By the way, one of my dear friends is a Jewish Rabbi and my family has celebrated Passover at his home, and he attends our Christmas and Easter services. I wish more Christians would reach out in love like Jesus.
Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Now, of course, if we love our Muslim neighbors, we will not eat Iftar with them, as Paul's further instructions make it clear, for the sake of their conscience, not for our own conscience. If we truly seek the good of our Muslim neighbors, which is their salvation, then, according to Paul's directives, we must not eat their religious meal. For when a Muslim declares that a particular meal is "Iftar," does this not fall under Paul's instructions when he says, "But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice,' then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience"?
I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The following is from Credo blog.
To start off this week we would like to highlight the ETS paper of A. B. Caneday, who is also a weekly contributor to the Credo blog as well as a contributor to the January issue of Credo Magazine, “In Christ Alone.” Caneday’s paper is titled: “The Advent of God’s Son as Judgment in John’s Gospel-Justification and Condemnation Already.” Ardel Caneday (Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Studies at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has served churches in various pastoral roles, including senior pastor. He has authored numerous journal articles, many essays in books, and has co-authored with Thomas Schreiner the book The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Inter-Varsity, 2001).
Caneday begins his paper:
Despite mistakenly construing John’s Gospel against the backdrop of second-century Gnosticism, skewing his interpretation of the Gospel, Rudolf Bultmann correctly identifies divine judgment as an important aspect of Johannine theology. He observes that Jesus’ activity as “Revealer of God,” whose unitary advent (John 3:19; 9:39) and departure (12:31), is the eschatological event, “the judgment of the world.” According to Bultmann, Jesus’ coming cast the whole κόσμος into κρίσις. Yet, this eschatological judgment “is no dramatic cosmic event, but takes place in the response of men to the word of Jesus.” He contends, “Thus the judgement is not a specially contrived sequel to the coming and the departure of the Son. It is not a dramatic cosmic event which is yet to come and which we must still await. Rather the mission of the Son, complete as it is in his descent and exaltation, is the judgement.”
Despite holding significant disagreements with Bultmann, New Testament exegetes do not miss the fact that divine judgment figures prominently in John’s Gospel. So, for example, Köstenberger observes, “in an important sense, God’s judgment was already brought about by the light’s coming into the world in the incarnation of the Son (1:14). This coming of the light into the world, in turn, confronts people everywhere with the decision of whether to embrace the light or to go into hiding and persist in darkness.” All who reject God’s Son incur divine judgment, but all who believe in him “escape judgment already in the here and now (5:24), though the final judgment awaits the end of time (5:28-29).”
True as this is, arguments to counter or to qualify Bultmann’s insistence that John’s Gospel contends for a “realized eschatology” versus the traditional Jewish end-time eschatology tend to overlook important ramifications of the Last Day’s advance arrival with the advent of the Son of God. The exclusive claim of Peter’s proclamation that “there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) finds expanded expression in the Fourth Gospel.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their works were evil.
The life of the Age to Come is resident in and mediated through God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Hence, eternal life, which properly belongs to the coming age, is already present with the incarnation of the Word and is now being imparted to all who believe in God’s Son. Noteworthy as is the advance installment of eternal life, signaling resurrection’s encroachment into the present age, of equal significance is the announcement beforehand of God’s Last Day verdict of judgment, all who believe “are not condemned,” but whoever does not believe “is condemned already.”
With his advent, God’s Son already brings forward two correlated acts of God—resurrection and judgment—that belong to the Last Day which consummates the present age and ushers in the Age to Come. The mission of God’s incarnate Son sweeps forward both the wrath of God’s coming judgment now revealed in Christ’s sacrificial death and the gift of God’s resurrection life disclosed in Christ’s glorious resurrection from the dead. Because Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, the Father authorized him to have “life in himself” to bestow this life of the coming age to whomever he desires in advance of the day of resurrection and to set in motion execution of the coming judgment upon both those who believe and those who do not (John 3:16-19; 5:21-29). Johannine scholars affirm these emphases. Yet, lacking within discussions of the Fourth Gospel’s emphasis upon the present arrival of future resurrection and judgment in the person of Jesus Christ is development of John’s doctrine of justification, expressed with neither the verb δικαιόω nor the noun δικαίωσις but through less direct but no less emphatic expressions. In these expressions the affirmative is emphatically stated by negating its opposite so that “are not condemned” and “do not come into condemnation” bear the sense, “most assuredly justified.”
Friday, November 04, 2011
By A. B. Caneday
Deriving from the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century five Latin phrases— sola scripture, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria—have summarized the principal Christian teachings that the Reformers proclaimed in their endeavors to bring reform to the church. What do these five Latin phrases mean?
Sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
The English translation of the Latin indicates that the phrase is to be understood to mean the instrument by which God discloses himself gracious to redeem humanity is solely Scripture. The Bible is the Word of God, given through the Holy Spirit, the only authoritative source for teachings concerning Christian faith and practice. The Reformers used this expression, sola scriptura, to distill their firm conviction against the prevailing teaching of the church at that time. The phrase captures their affirmation that the Bible alone is the ultimate and final authority concerning God’s redeeming will. Neither the pope, nor the church, nor the traditions of the church, nor even the councils of the church are privileged to hold final sway over Christ’s church concerning what is to be believed and practiced as Christians. Scripture alone holds final authority concerning faith and the nurturing of faith. Whatever other authorities that God has established in this world—whether church, state, family, or any other—they are to be subject to Scripture. To whatever degree other authorities teach or practice contrary to the Scriptures, they are to be judged by the Bible and reproved accordingly.
Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
Again, the English translation of the Latin, with the word “by,” shows that this phrase indicates that grace is God’s appointed instrumentality by which he saves sinners. Because salvation comes “by grace alone,” humans are powerless to lay any claim upon God’s gift of salvation. God is not moved to be gracious to sinners by their foolish and futile notions that they have power to accrue merited favor with him. Indeed, God does save sinners, but he does so as it pleases him. God is not moved to save anyone by anything external to his own gracious will. God alone acts to save sinners by grace alone. To confess that God’s salvation is received “by grace alone” is to deny that human stratagems, devices, methods, and techniques are, in themselves, powerless to give birth to faith or to bring about salvation. Grace alone brought to bear upon us through the Holy Spirit who brings us to Christ is God’s way of showing himself glorious in our salvation. Thus, by grace alone God calls forth from their spiritual tombs utterly helpless sinners who are as dead and senseless in their sins as was Lazarus’s stinking corpse in the tomb. By grace alone God breathes into sinners the breath of eternal life.
Sola Fide (“by faith alone”)
Of the five Latin catchphrases, perhaps the most misunderstood and disputed is sola fide. For the Reformers it was not sufficient to affirm that salvation is sola gratia, by grace alone, for many of their Roman Catholic contemporaries agreed. Martin Luther’s published debate with Desiderius Erasmus makes clear the Reformers’ insistence upon affirming sola fide. Erasmus contended against Luther by arguing that God’s offered “rewards” are merited, that the reward of eternal life is earned. He insisted that salvation is received not “by grace alone,” but because of “free choice,” human merit attaches to faith with the result that human worthiness in addition to faith receives the reward of eternal life. Against Erasmus, Luther reasoned from Scripture (sola scriptura) that eternal life as promised reward to everyone whose obedient faith in Christ perseveres indicates God’s gracious ordered sequence of salvation, not the merited cause of salvation. Luther contended that God established that belief and unbelief should have their fitting consequences.[i] Calvin agrees with Luther when he states, “Nothing is clearer than that a reward is promised for good works to relieve the weakness of our flesh by some comfort but not to puff up our heart with vainglory. Whoever, then, deduces merit of works from this, or weighs works and reward together, wanders very far from God’s own plan.”[ii]
Given Luther’s and Calvin’s shared belief, it is necessary to guard against a misunderstanding of sola fide that would eviscerate faith, virtually reducing it to a solitary act of naked assent.[iii] In order to avoid any perceived intrusion of merit into salvation, some Evangelicals take the word “alone” (sola), in the Protestant motto, “justified by faith alone,” as an adjective that describes faith itself.[iv] The result is that they contend that faith in its solitariness justifies. This is quite different from historic Protestant understanding which takes alone as an adverb to describe how we are justified rather than as an adjective describing faith as solitary.[v] Thus, to avoid mistaking alone as describing faith—“faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (James 2:17)—it is not uncommon for Evangelicals to explain, “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.”[vi] By this, Evangelicals mean, “We are justified only by faith.” Naked or dead faith does not justify anyone (James 2:17). Only an active or obedient faith justifies (2:18; Gal. 5:6). Not faith itself but the one in whom faith is anchored justifies. Thus, sola fide is inseparably linked with solus Christus.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”) or Solo Christo (“by Christ alone”)
God justifies believers not because of what faith is nor because of obedience that inescapably accompanies faith, but because of Christ Jesus in whom obedient faith rests with full confidence and assurance. It is not the reliability of faith itself that justifies. Only the reliability of faith’s object, Jesus Christ, grounds one’s justification before God (Rom. 3:21-26). Thus, the Reformers insisted upon solus Christus, that salvation comes to humans by Christ alone, the only mediator between God and humans. The resurrected Christ who was crucified, no human priest through the sacraments, serves as the mediator of God’s grace and forgiveness. Solus Christus, then, was the Reformation motto that repudiated errors that became attached to Christ’s sacrificial death. Solus Christus denounces the fiction that humans can accrue merits that add to Christ’s sufficient atoning sacrifice and the fallacy that earthly priests mediate God’s grace and forgiveness of sins. Christ’s substitutionary atonement is sufficient alone for our justification; any intrusion of human merit falsifies the true gospel of grace.
Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)
Each of the previous Latin mottos finds its summation in this, the fifth Reformation motto: soli Deo gloria, which means “to God alone be the glory.” Because the Reformers believed that salvation is all of grace, that salvation is initiated solely by God, that salvation is accomplished solely by God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and that salvation is received solely through faith brought to life by the Holy Spirit, they insisted that all glory is due to God alone. The Reformers agreed with the apostle Paul, “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36). Therefore, “to God alone be the glory.”
Soli Deo gloria
[i] “The reason why the future consequences of a good and bad life are declared in the Scriptures is that men might be instructed, disturbed, awakened and terrified. . . . [S]o by these promises and threats comes a warning of what follows upon the sin and impotence which the law has pointed out—but they do not ascribe any worthiness to out merit. Wherefore, as the words of the law serve their turn by instruction and illumination, to teach us both what we ought to do and what we cannot do, so the words of reward, signifying what is to be, serve their turn by exhorting and threatening, and animate, comfort and uphold the godly to press on, persevere and triumph, in doing good and enduring evil, lest they should be wearied, or their spirit broken.” (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston [London: James Clarke & Co.; Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1957], 183).
[ii] John Calvin, Institutes, 126.96.36.199.
[iii] This caution may seem like an exaggeration, but it is not, for some Evangelicals insist that saving faith is not actively trusting Christ Jesus. Charles Stanley affirms, “Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy” (Eternal Security, 74). Likewise, R. T. Kendall insists, “‘What if a person who is saved falls into sin, stays in sin, and is found in that very condition when he dies? Will he still go to heaven?’ The answer is yes” (Once Saved, Always Saved, 50-51).
[iv] The confusion seems to stem from Martin Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 into German. Even though the Greek text of the passage does include any equivalent word, Luther inserted alone into his translation: “So we now hold that a man is justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law.” By translating the passage this way, he created what seems to be a contradiction with James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” In James 2:24, alone is an adverb that describes how justification takes place; justification takes place not by faith alone but by faith that entails deeds. Luther explains that he added “alone” (allein, German), to make Paul’s argument clear (Steven Paulson, Luther for Armchair Theologians [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004], 158). Unfortunately, instead of clarifying, the addition introduces persistent confusion to the motto, sola fide (“justification by faith alone”).
[v] For example, the Westminster Confession affirms: “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (XI, On Justification). It is noteworthy that The Westminster Confession includes Galatians 5:6 and James 2:17, 22 and 26 as biblical support, for these are passages that Roman Catholic scholars routinely used to object to the Protestant doctrine of justification, a teaching they misunderstood.
[vi] This clarifies that the accepted sense of alone is an adverb, describing how one is justified, and the rejected sense of alone as an adjective, portraying faith as naked and void, is precisely the kind of faith that James exposes as false (James 2:17).
First published at Credo Blog.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Here is the most recent review on Amazon.com. I cannot take time to interact with it now. I may do so later.
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Paperback)
The Race Set Before Us is a book which, after reading the introduction, I was excited to dive into. I had strongly agreed with Schreiner in his defense of the penal substitution view in The Nature of the Atonement (though with slight modification, which I will not go into here). Unfortunately, I was greatly disappointed in reading his and Caneday's argument here. Though there were a couple of shining moments, there were three major problems in this work that, as a result, have prevented their argument from convincing me: 1) Logical fallacies, 2) a considerable amount of hypocrisy, and 3) the redundant nature of their argumentation.
1) Unfortunately, the fallacy the authors made concerns their main argument. It was the authors' primary concern to establish the fact that warnings in the Bible are not a sign that a person could possibly fall away: "Paying heed to the admonitions does not...threaten assurance but is the pathway by which assurance is maintained" (308). The logical problem here is obvious. Essentially, this makes the warnings in the Bible from God comparable to a father saying to a child, "Don't touch the sun; it will burn you!" To say that the warning to not touch the sun prevents the child from touching it is not simply superfluous; it is ridiculous. Since the author's say that the warnings prevent believers from falling away, they would have to contend that, should a regenerate believer happen to never read those specific warning verses, such a person could fall away.
2) The hypocrisy the authors commit relates to their point that we should not try to impose the warnings in scripture over the promises in scripture, so that we lose our assurance of salvation (205). This is a valid claim, but is not the issue. The problem is that the authors do the same thing, only in the opposite way. They impose the promises of scripture on the warnings, so that the warnings become exactly how I described them above: nonsensical and superfluous. For the authors, promise overrides warning, but they deny any attempt to claim the opposite, saying instead that "the two stand compatibly together" (205).
3) Even in those beginning portions when my optimism toward the book was high, I was still bogged down by the method the authors used in writing the work, for three reasons. First, they were highly redundant; they seemed to make each of their points several times, and then even came back to them again later. The argumentation could have been made more effectively in half the space. Secondly, the amount of details and side-arguments seemed way over the top, making it difficult to follow their line of thought. Finally, the book has a negative tone because they spend so much space refuting other views. While it is important to do this in moderation, they were often guilty of creating straw-man arguments. Sometimes they refuted other views by means of their own feelings, saying something to the effect that the opposing view did not offer a true sense of assurance to them. But we should use logic and not emotion to argue our points.
Even with these problems, the authors did make some good points. The here and not-yet aspects of salvation were generally very well presented, and they took the right position that it is not up to us to determine the salvation of other people (309-310). At least in the first chapter, they did a good job at presenting the opposing four views fairly. It is not as if I learned nothing from reading this book; it certainly helped me clarify my own views on salvation. Nevertheless, the three main problems given above have left me unconvinced.