A U.N. Development Program employee, Myint Nwe Moe, and her husband, brother-in-law and driver were among those detained, the U.N. agency said.

Now Podcasting on iTunes, click the search engine for “School of Biblical Studies”
non-iPod mp3 players can download us from www.sbsinternational.org/podcast

A Christianity Today poll on how many Bibles we own

How many Bibles do you own?

Total Votes: 1164

This is somewhat sobering for people considering getting Bibles to tribes that have none.

Comment on Justification, Christianity Today and the “new” Perspective by jonas

I found the CT article good in many ways. And I agree with the author that NP adherents often seem to reduce “works of the law” to national identity markers (sabbath, circumcision and kosher) in a wrong way. Surely, works of the law and “establishing a righteousness of their own” includes the tendency to try to earn merit before God through good and upright behaviour. And it is extremely important that we understand this. However, the author’s view of OT righteousness is problematic. This is what he says:

“In the Old Testament, “righteousness” is the status that an Israelite received when he or she fully observed the requirements of the law: “And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness” (Deut. 6:25). The tragedy of the covenant, however, is that despite God’s glorious provision of redemption and of his Torah, the Israelites often behaved just like Gentiles. Stiff-necked and hard-hearted, they rebelled against God. They never attained the status of righteousness, which they would have possessed had they lived up to the ideal in Deuteronomy.”

So, the author believes that the way to become righteus before God in Old Testament times was not through faith but perfect obedience to the letter of the law? It is clear to me that the cluster of questions around the law, works, faith, obedience and righteousness can not be adequately answered with that kind of misunderstanding lurking in the background.

Any comment on this issue?

Blessings on ya all!

Jonas

Justification, Christianity Today and the “new” Perspective

The times have not really changed that much since Luther’s day.  It is refreshing to see that the editors of Christianity Today still get it about the central importance of justification for christianity.

Comment on Martin Luther, teachers, justification by jonas

Dear brother (and everyone else reading this),

Since the name of NT Wright is so often mentioned here, though very little of what he actually has written is commented upon, I thought it might me good to clarify his position with his own words. This is what Wright is saying about the doctrine of justification in The New Dictionary of Theology. Maybe this article can fuel the discussion and function as a reference here?

Justification

(Originally published in New Dictionary of Theology. David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson, J.I. Packer (eds), 359-361. IVP. Reproduced by permission of the author.)

JUSTIFICATION denotes, primarily, that action in the lawcourt whereby a judge upholds the case of one party in dispute before him (in the Hebrew lawcourt, where the image originates, all cases consist of an accuser and a defendant, there being no public prosecutor). Having heard the case, the judge finds in favour of one party, and thereby ‘justifies’ him: if he finds for the defendant, this action has the force of ‘acquittal’. The person justified is described as ‘just’, ‘righteous’ (on the terminology, see Righteousness), not as a description of moral character but as a statement of his status before the court (which will, ideally, be matched by character, but that is not the point).

Since this lawcourt imagery is used in Scripture to elucidate God’s dealings with Israel, his covenant people, ‘justification’ comes to denote God’s action in restoring the fortunes of Israel after she has been oppressed: it is as though Israel, or a faithful individual within Israel, is the innocent defendant in a trial (see Pss. 43:1; 135:14; Is. 50:8; Lk. 18:7), whose cause will be upheld by the righteous covenant God. As Israel’s troubles increase in the period after the exile, it becomes increasingly clear that what is needed is a final day of judgment, when God will right all wrongs, and vindicate his people, once and for all. This notion, which is closely correlated with the hope of resurrection (God’s vindication of Israel after her suffering) is staunchly upheld in the NT.

At the same time, in the NT Israel’s expectation is radically redefined. In his welcome for outcasts and sinners, Jesus enacts God’s vindication of (apparently) the wrong group in Israel — the poor, the humble. This man [the tax-collector], rather than the other [the Pharisee], went home justified before God’ (Lk. 18:14). In continuity with his paradoxical ministry, Jesus goes to the cross apparently condemned by God. The resurrection, however, is quickly seen by the disciples as God’s ‘vindication’ or ‘justification’ of Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:14-15, 26; 1 Tim. 3:16). God has finally acted, within history, to identify his covenant people, and it turns out that Jesus, ‘the king of the Jews’, has alone represented that people.

Justification in Paul and James

Although, therefore, the doctrine of justification is discussed quite rarely in the NT, the fact of it is everywhere apparent. God has redefined his covenant people around Jesus. The entire Christian mission is built on this foundation. It is left to Paul, however, to articulate this conviction fully and draw out its implications: and he does so at the appropriate point, i.e. when the question of the identity of the covenant people is raised (Rom. 3:21 - 4:25; 9:30 - 10:13; Gal. passim; Phil. 3:2-11). Five points need to be observed here.

1. The question of justification is a matter of covenant membership. The underlying question in (for instance) Gal. 3 and 4 is: Who are the true children of Abraham? Paul’s answer is that membership belongs to all who believe in the gospel of Jesus, whatever their racial or moral background.

2. The basis of this verdict is the representative death and resurrection of Jesus himself. In view of universal sin, God can only be in covenant with human beings if that sin is dealt with, and this has been achieved by God himself in the death of his Son (Rom. 3:24-26; 5:8-9). Jesus takes on himself the curse which would have prevented God’s promised blessing finding fulfilment (Gal. 3:10-14). The resurrection is God’s declaration that Jesus, and hence his people, are in the right before God (Rom. 4:24-25).

3. The verdict issued in the present on the basis of faith (Rom. 3:21-26) correctly anticipates the verdict to be issued in the final judgment on the basis of the total life (Rom. 2:1-16, on which see Cranfield, Romans, vol. 1, pp. 151-153). This future ‘verdict’ is in fact, seen from another angle, simply resurrection itself (Phil. 3:9-11). The logic of this ‘eschatological’ perspective is explained as follows: faith is itself the sign of God’s life-giving work, by his Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), and what God has begun he will complete (Phil. 1:6).

4. Justification thus establishes the church as a new entity, the renewed Israel, now qualitatively distinct from Jew and Greek alike, transcending racial and social barriers (Gal. 3:28). The sharp edge of this point, for Paul, was the conviction not only that pagan converts to Christianity did not need to become Jews in order fully to belong to God’s people, but also that the attempt to do so was in itself a renunciation of the gospel, implying that Christ’s achievement was insufficient or even unnecessary (Gal. 2:21; 5:4—6). At the same time, Paul warns pagan converts against the opposite mistake, that of imagining Jews to be now cut off without hope — the mirror image of the characteristic Jewish mistake, and one which some post-Reformation theology has not always avoided (Rom. 11:13-24).

5. ‘Justification by faith’ is thus a shorthand for ‘justification by grace through faith’, and in Paul’s thought at least has nothing to do with a suspicious attitude towards good behaviour. On the contrary: Paul expects his converts to live in the manner appropriate for members of the covenant (Rom. 6, etc.), and this is in fact necessary if faith is not to appear a sham (2 Cor. 13:5). His polemic against ‘works of the law’ is not directed against those who attempted to earn covenant membership through keeping the Jewish law (such people do not seem to have existed in the 1st century) but against those who sought to demonstrate their membership in the covenant through obeying the Jewish law. Against these people Paul argues a. that the law cannot in fact be kept perfectly — it merely shows up sin; and b. that this attempt would reduce the covenant to a single race, those who possess the Jewish law, whereas God desires a world-wide family (Rom. 3:27-31; Gal. 3:15-22). This means that Jas. 2:14-26 is not in conflict with Paul, but expresses the same truth from a different perspective. The ‘faith’ which is insufficient is bare Jewish monotheism (Jas. 2:19); and Abraham’s faith, through which God declared him within the covenant in Gn. 15 (Jas. 2:23), was simply ‘fulfilled’ in the later incident of Gn. 22 (Jas. 2:21).

New developments

With the disappearance of Paul’s particular polemical situation, it was likely that the doctrine of justification would be reapplied in new ways, and this happened with its development as the over-all view of how one becomes a Christian — a much wider notion than the very precise NT usage. Allied to the medieval view of God’s righteousness as iustitia distributiva (see Righteousness), this encouraged a belief in good works as the means by which one earns merit or favour with God. In reacting against this, Luther never totally avoided the risk of making faith a substitute for works, and hence itself a meritorious performance on man’s part. His failure to note the Jewish, covenantal and eschatological content of Paul’s doctrine led to exegetical difficulties (e.g. the meaning of Rom. 2 and Rom. 9-11) and theological problems (the danger of a dualistic rejection of the law, and the difficulty of providing a thorough foundation for ethics) which have beset subsequent Protestantism. In particular, popular Protestantism has often more or less elided the distinction between justification and regeneration, using ‘justification by faith’ as a slogan for a romantic or existentialist view of Christianity, rightly criticized by Roman Catholics. Roman Catholic views of justification have continued to be influenced by Augustine, who saw it as God’s action in making people righteous, through pouring into their hearts love towards himself. This stress on the actual change which God effects in the sinner has continued into modern Roman Catholic theology. The result of this is significantly to broaden the reference of the word, to include far more than Paul (or the Reformers) intended.

Current debates

Current debates about ‘justification’ have tended to raise much wider issues than the specific concerns of Paul, and modern ecumenical agreement on the subject (cf. Küng), while welcome in its own right, does not always do justice to the nuances of biblical teaching. Thus, for instance, for Paul it is not the doctrine of justification that is ‘the power of God for salvation’ (Rom. 1:16), but the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Hooker noted, it is perfectly possible to be saved by believing in Jesus Christ without ever having heard of justification by faith. What that doctrine provides is the assurance that, though Christian obedience is still imperfect, the believer is already a full member of God’s people. It establishes, in consequence, the basis and motive for love (and true obedience) towards God. The teaching of present justification is thus a central means whereby the fruits of the Spirit — love, joy, peace and the rest — may be produced.

Bibliography

J. Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (repr. London, 1961); C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1975, 1979); Richard Hooker, Sermon on Justification (1612), in Works, ed. I. Walton (London, 1822, etc.); H. Küng, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (London, 1964); A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1986); G. Reid (ed.). The Great Acquittal (London, 1980); J. Reumann, ‘Righteousness’ in the New Testament: ‘Justification’ in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, with responses by J. A. Fitzmyer and J. D. Quinn (Philadelphia, 1982); H. N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (ET, Grand Rapids, MI, 1975).

Comment on Justification, what is it?-Beckwith resigns by jasondcp

I’ve read many a bio on Luther, and I would agree that, words would fly. Some people disagree with the vocabulary used by Luther at times, but intense times sometimes call for intense usage of Language. So were are our Luther’s today? I know of some who stand and let there voices be heard, but were are the rest? I pray that Wright would repent of this sin, and turn back to God. Please, as you hear about theses fellow evangelicals who fall and lead others astray, Pray for them, Pray to a sovereign God who is able to bring them back. Also pray, and give God thanks, that if it wasn’t for God’s perseverance in our lives, and his grace we also would be deceived.

jason.

Comment on Wow, ETS President Beckwith goes to Catholicism by jasondcp

This isn’t the 1st time I’ve heard about Evangelical leaders returning to Rome.
In one of the main resurgence of Rome Catholicism mag… there was an article about 5 Protestant’s returning to Rome. The main reason given was an inability to believe Sole Scriptura, that is Scripture alone as the final authority. If the Evangelical community keeps hacking away at the Authority, Honor, Integrity and life of Gods word, then this is only a taste of what is to come. My heart breaks for those 5 individuals and for Bickwith, It’s as if were standing on the shores of the Red Sea, and some of the Israelites, in light of the Pressure want to turn again into Slavery….

This should be a warning for us who hold to Solo Scriptura, or the other four tenets of the Reformation… it’s a slippery Slop back to Slavery…and it’s not physical slavery but Spiritual, and the life and destinies of individuals are at stake, and most important the GLORY OF GOD, God is most satisfied in us when were most satisfied in Him, and the main way we know this God, is through His Word. God’s word is a bulwark against sin, against false doctrine, against the lies of the devil. So if the church steps out from behind the Bible, there’s no protection for her.

Comment on More thoughts on unrest in Reformationland by JQ

Dear Bro!

I can tell that N.T. Wright´s writings have become pretty controversial in the US! Of course Wright’s view on the theology of Paul in general and the doctrine of justification in particular has disturbed some evangelicals also here in Europe but to the extent that seem to be the case in your great contry. I wonder why that is, escpecially since lutheran theology never has been as near as strong in the US as it has been in Europe.

I just wanted to comment on the concept on the “reformation” in conjunction with Wright. Since I do not think that he is in disagreement with the reformation so much as with some aspect of the lutheran wing of the reformation. Really, his view on the law, which is important here, is in line with Calvin and basic reformed doctrine. Lutheran theology always have had a difficult time with viewing the law as good and as a guiding light for christians. In various degrees lutherans, historically speaking, have viewed the law as only an instrument to lead sinners to understanding their utter and complete sinfulness before God. As you well know, this is not Calvin’s view. In fact, I believe that the reformed tradition more faithfully represent a biblical and hebrew understanding of the law, which also should lead to a healthy suspicion of the traditional lutheran understanding of jewish theology in NT times as “legailistic” in the ethical sense of equating moral living with salvation. I understand Wright’s reading of Paul, building to an extant on Sanders and Stendahl of course, as trying to come to grips with the doctrine of justification without this misunderstanding of jewish theology in NT times.

I do not intend to elaborate on this, but it strikes me as odd that american evangelicals, with a basic reformed perspective on the law, are so upset with Wright while european evangelical, with more of a mix of lutheran and reformed views on the law, are more positive. Generally speaking that is. And I must confess that I lack good and solid arguments from the critics. It is simply not enough to refer to the reformation, or “history”, where are the exegetical and theological arguments? Also, being myself an evangelical who appreciate much of Wright’s work, sometimes it seems to me that many critics really have not read Wright as well as the should have. Or they read him just to confirm that he is somew kind of semi-pelagian liveral theologian, which he is not (and I can say that from having studying many years at a liberal theological department of theology).

So, in concluding, why not bring forth more solid arguments? Maybe we can in this way have a discussion that can challenge both sides of the conversation?

In Christ,

Jonas

Comment on Roger Nicole’s conclusions about Greg Boyd’s book on open theism by drpuritan

Just a note to let you know that I have published the authorized biography of Roger Nicole, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006). I hope you enjoy it! It is available from Amazon, Books-A-Million, Cumberland Valley and the publisher, Solid Ground.

Comment on Roger Nicole’s conclusions about Greg Boyd’s book on open theism by drpuritan

Just a note to let you know that I have published the authorized biography of Roger Nicole, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Life and Legacy of Roger Nicole (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006). I hope you enjoy it! It is available from Amazon, Books-A-Million, Cumberland Valley and the publisher, Solid Ground.

Comment on An Intro. to Open Theism and Open Theists by hosel

hosel…

Are you sure of that?…

Comment on An Intro. to Open Theism and Open Theists by hosel

hosel…

Are you sure of that?…

Comment on More theology from Mars by pappy48195

Why don’t you scholars see that Paul was an apocalypticist, and was expecting Christ to soon return(in his lifetime), and, that his concern with a bodily resurrection only was connected to that coming event. This hope of his has nothing to do with faith and life- it is only about the immanent return of Christ to establish the Kingdom of God, which was the main theme of Christ’s earthly ministry as well.

Comment on Sing to the Tune of Immortal, Invisible [Open theism, open theists, openness] by teetering

teetering…

I dont believe it. Where is the proof?…

Comment on Last official Spanish execution for heresy by Linda

It’s been well-known for a while that the Catholic Church is guilty of Mary worship. And the murder of a man of God who had the guts to exalt GOD instead of Mary is even more proof that the Catholic Church’s heart lies with Mary, not God.