Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." --John 8:31-32
No one can know truth except the one who obeys truth. You think you know truth. People memorize the Scriptures by the yard, but that is not a guarantee of knowing the truth. Truth is not a text. Truth is in the text, but it takes the text plus the Holy Spirit to bring truth to a human soul....
Charles G. Finney taught that it was wrong--morally wrong--to teach objective doctrine without a moral application. I have gone to Bible classes and listened to men who were learned in the Word of God. Still I have come away as cold as a pickled fish. There was no help, no lift in my spirit, nothing to warm the inside of my heart. The truth had been given to me just like a proposition in Euclid or a mathematical formula from Pythagoras. And the answer is, "So what? Let's go and have a soda!" Are we aware that we can give people objective truth without moral application? If God's moral Word is true, it means us. And if it means us, we ought to obey it. That is life. That is knowing the truth.
AW Tozer, Faith Beyond Reason, 64-65.
100 comments:
Yes.
Amen.
That's a gift of the Spirit, and the Spirit's working.
But it goes both ways.
One time a woman heard Andrew Murray (the writer of Abiding in Christ, a Christian leader at the turn of the last century) speak and asked what she thought, and whether it impacted her.
She said something like she was not impressed at all, but did remember that he pounded the podium around ten times.
Just like Stephen said, if someone resists the Spirit and the Spirit's working in their lives, it wouldn't matter if Jesus were speaking. There would be no conviction, no life.
Just the same though, I hate to hear a dry lecture or sermon on the word. Dead. And I hate it even more if I think it came out of my lips. I believe in prayer and much prayer, and more, before I or anyone else speaks, and I fail on that quite often. But prayer makes all the difference in the world, and we need it on both ends: the speaker and those praying for him/her, and the listener themselves.
And just like Ezekiel said, "They love to hear my words/God's word, and see them as a song, but they don't put them into practice."
Lorenzo,
(from the last post) :)!
I would be curious to know what else Tozer thought of Finney. Here's my two cents. Finney was sort of a clown. He was a big showman, but I have never known him to have a solid theological foundation. If he said something helpful or wise, I would guess it to be an accident.
Unlike Finney, I NEVER try to convert a soul. That's the Holy Spirit's job, and I dare not presume upon Him. My job is to tell the story and the Maalies of this life will scoff at my beliefs, but that's okay. When the Lord chooses to change their hearts, I will be right there with a hearty handshake, welcoming them to the true household of faith.
p.s. off to bed early tonight. I am supposed to be running a very hilly half marathon tomorrow and I am trying to think of ways of chickening out!
Thank you Craver! I have never tried to convert anyone either. I'm too busy trying to convince myself to bother about trying to convince other people!
It's not that I don't want to see the change. Only that I never put it on myself that I should be the causal agent. It is God's work and the hearer is held accountable for their response. As for me, I give pleasure to the Sovereign Lord whenever I obey his commands... so I tell the story, knowing that the reaping is not up to me or any scheming or cleverness on my part.
Hello, sorry I have been away for a while. What a lovely wedding day you must have had, your daughter looked gorgeous and you scrubbed up OK too! You both looked just lovely, I hope the day went well!
Hopefully I will be back to blogging as normal now, thanks for the commments whilst I was lost in my head.
"Finney was sort of a clown."
Finney taught that our righteousness was our own, but grace. He is a heretic, because he taught a salvation by works/righteousness.
The true good news is a salvation by God's grace alone, through faith alone.
And the Bible also tells us we are saved as God's workmanship, and for good works, which He works in us to will and to do.
I think Tozer is right, that just objective truth is empty, unless it comes from a conscience that has been convicted of his sin, and overwhelmed with joy of God's forgiveness and love.
I don't believe Charles Finney was a heretic.
Finney's view on the atonement and on salvation was not that people could save themselves, but it was one based on a governmental theory, probably influenced by his lawyer background, and not enough influenced by Christian orthodoxy, or grounded well enough in Scripture.
"...he...states that salvation depends on a person's will to repent and not forced by God on people against their will.[14] However, Finney affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.[15][16] Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith." (from Wikipedia article linked here)
See in this section on his theology, his view of the atonement. It does not deny that Christ died for us and for our sins. Or anything, for example, that Romans 3 or the rest says from Scripture. There is different interpretation.
While I differ with him on that view, I don't think at all that makes him a heretic.
And he did emphasize the Holy Spirit's work more later in his life, not that he didn't believe in it before. He did write, as I recall, that he did emphasize the human aspect too much early on, but felt like the Calvinists were not calling sinners to repentance, just thinking God would save his elect, the end of the story.
I feel funny trying to defend someone who I would not want to take time to read from. But what I'm trying to say is that I think his whole story and his writings are much more nuanced than what people make them out to be.
I want to add to this that I have a number of his books from the time I was discipled as a young Christian. I've read quite a bit about and from him. So I don't think on this entirely second hand. Though I acknowledge it is years, probably decades now, since I read that.
"Whenever he [the Christian] sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God ... If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true ... In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground (p. 46)." _From Finney's Systematic Theology.
I read this from Michael Horton.
Ted, this man taught, and preached a works gospel. Very clear. Were people saved? I believe so. Because of the hugeness of God's grace.
The genuine preachers of the gospel, will preach grace alone, through faith alone, and:
"This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."
It's healthy to discuss the teachings of prominent Christian leaders.
Charles Finney was a great man, no doubt. Yet it seems from his own writings that he was in grave error, and twisted the gospel.
Maalie, the gun is not that little. It is a 40 cal., the choice handgun of cops these days because 40 cal. bullets travel at higher velocity and have more penetrating power than any other handgun bullet.
Don, I love that hymn so very much! I do enjoy praise and worship music but really miss the old hymns. I think I could sing for hours!
Oh Martin, it is so lovely to have you back in circulation!!! We have missed you quite a lot!
Craver, your cookies are baked and will be delivered in the morning! I think you'll be happy with your big sister! :)
A half marathon - my goodness Llama, you are a brave woman. I'm just thinking about needing to buy new shoes to get around the block!
Yes. Finney was clearly a heretic. I've read his systematic theology. No one has laid out the gospel more clearly and then set out to refute it than Charles Finney. He is the poster child of heretics. He knew exactly what he was denying, more clearly than most Christians in fact and then set out to deny the Gospel. I wonder how many people were led to put faith in themselves through his "evangelism".
Finney taught that Christ had to obey the Law for Himself, and, therefore, He could not obey the Law in our place. What's more Finney taught that Christ's righteousness cannot be imputed to us. He also taught that Christ's atonement is not the grounds of our justification.
Here are a few short quotes from the heretic Finney's Systematic Theology from the section on Justification:
"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to the law in His own person, and that therefore His obedience was altogether a work of supererogation, and might be made a substitute for our own obedience; that it might be set down to our credit, because He did not need to obey for Himself.
“But if Christ owed personal obedience to the moral law, then His obedience could no more than justify Himself. It can never be imputed to us....It was naturally impossible, then, for Him to obey in our behalf.”
“I find it important to distinguish between the ground and conditions of justification and to regard the atonement and work of Christ not as a ground, but only as a condition of gospel justification.”
For more than 15 years I've known Finney to be a heretic, ever since reading his systematic theology. But a few years ago more dirt was uncovered on Finney. My systematic theology professor (John Gillespe) wrote his doctoral thesis on the theology of Charles Finney. And he uncoverd that Finney's journels do not match the ministry which he claimed to do. In fact, there is substantial evidence that Finney took credit for the work of his predecessor. Not only was Finney a heretic; he was also a deceiver.
Ted, John Gillespe is American but is the senior pastor of Grace Community Church in England. You can download his doctrinal thesis on the theology of Finney here.
....more precisely, Finney wrote his journals decades after the fact -- taking credit for the evangelistic ministry of his predecessor.
Don,
I should break out the Finney books I have here. I have the theology ones and I used to have much more. I really have something else hot on the stove right now, and I need to keep after it. But some time back we had a pastor who was a five point Calvinist, and I considered myself at that time, say maybe a four and a half point Calvinist. So I got rid of a key book I'm afraid.
Put this all a little into a historical contesxt. People like Tozer, and the president of Wheaton College who wrote a book on Finney, V. Raymond Edman, "Finney Lives On", and people then did not share this view on Finney. But I had a professor in my seminary, then influenced more by five point Calvinism than now- I'm guessing, but he called Finney a heretic in no uncertain terms. Dr. David Turner. I really respect Dr. Turner and would like to have his commentary on Matthew, and I see him as a top notch scholar and professor. That was years back, so I'd like to see what he says now.
I would want to see your quote in context, Don, because I never thought Finney taught that a Christian has to be sinless. His view on justification may be more akin to the Roman Catholic view which includes both what God has done through Christ, and what God has done on the sinner themselves, so as to understand passages that bring in the justification of works, as in Romans 2, and like when Jesus said, "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." I don't know on all this, but am surmising.
Finney toward the end of his life wrote and said he had not been balanced enough. And that in an area steeped with Arminianism where people thought it all depended on them, he would preach predestination, election (whatever he would mean by that) to help them see that salvation depends on God. I think I still have that book and it was written later in life with a mature and humble reflection on his past and his writings.
Unfortunately he saw a Calvinism not at all like Charles Spurgeon or so very many good Calvinists of the past. I wish Finney would have learned more from what had preceded him, like from Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Wesley, etc. Wesley learned and loved as his favorite writers, the Puritans. Finney would have benefited much from reading them. But Finney by his accounts saw a sleepy and for all practical purposes, a dead church. People more into the hyper-Calvinistic strain (we have a few in my area, I'm told). So he reacted, but depended too much in his well trained and well practiced lawyer mind. He knew Scripture well, but failed to consider well the teaching of the church through the centuries.
Just my limited (and too long here) take on this now. But I have to add a bit for Triston.
Triston (Lt'l Luther),
I can't wait to get my hands on N.T. Wright's latest book: Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. It is well done, what I've read of it in book stores. On justification, and you should read it for yourself. I'm convinced that he is more on the Biblical side of that issue, and Piper is holding more to the tradition of Luther. But actually one can see in reference to the law, the views, Calvin sides more with Wright than with Luther and Piper- whose work against Wright, Wright kindly, yet forcefully refutes.
I'll say no more, but this is related to this, because these Calvinists like Piper think they have Scripture down, but this is completely unacceptable to many of us, and our problem is in view of Scripture and its teaching.
I have read Wright on justification before, so I don't speak about something I know nothing about. But this new book on justification shows just how wonderful and deep and expansive it is in its Biblical teaching and resulting scope.
I say this here because I hear Finney being judged by a certain criteria which I consider way too narrow, and not thoroughly biblical or nuanced.
But one more comment after this (for now).
Ted,
It has little to do with Calvinism. It has to do with the Gospel, which Finney denies. Arminians should be just as opposed to the theology of Finney.
NT Wright's theology on justification (what I've read till this point) is also screwed up, but not to the extent of that heretic Finney.
Triston,
On your very last statement, I don't accept that last sentence on Finney. He was humble and self-effacing. "Father" John Nash, an incessant prayer warrior who travelled wherever Finney went, and travailed in prayer the entire time by himself, that was where Finney pointed as to why the Spirit was evidently poured out and sinners were deeply convicted of their sins and brought to repentance and faith in Christ. Finney's later writings show a humble and if anything kind of broken man, from what I recall. And much better, in my recollection, as to his theology.
I saw your last sentence, so I wanted to add this before my last comment, for now.
Ted: In Maalie's words "Don't shoot the messenger." John Gillespie is a wonderful man. I don't think I ever sat in a seminary class more Spirit-filled than his. All the students went away changed. His theology class didn’t just fill our minds with knowledge. We left more devoted to Christ, desiring to sit at His feet. Gillespie did not set out to blacken the name of Finney. But in his extensive doctrinal research on Finney he found so many discrepancies. Clear, irrefutable evidential date discrepancies and such which showed that Finney clearly lied about ministry and took credit for another’s work.
I know Gillespie personally. He is such a godly man. And I'll believe him before I’ll believe that denier of the Gospel of Christ, Charles Finney.
PS: I've said it to you many times before, Ted, but I wish I had a dollar for every time you mention NT Wright's name over time. I'd be a rich man by now!
Triston,
Let me add, what is necessary is to believe that Christ died for sinnners and for our sins in some way. Just how is not clearly explained as the church has done at cettain times-though other times what the church says is explicit- but is arguably drawn out.
That's why I can agree with N.T. Wright that imputation is not explicitly taught in Scripture (I don't want to debate on this, you need to read Wright's latest book yourself, than we can discuss it)- yet at the same time I think we can draw it out of the teaching, that it logically follows, so that indeed I agree not only with double imputation, but in a sense multiple imputation. That is, that all true of us Christ took on himself in his humanity and death, and all true of Christ we receive as a gift by faith (apart from his uniqueness as the God-Human).
But getting to the point, you have to believe Christ died for sinners, for sin. And that this is essential for salvation. So in some sense a substitutionary sacrifice by Christ has to be accepted.
The way some Reformers taught is is NOT explicitly stated in Scripure. Like Christ took all the hell and punishment on himself of all sinners, or however it's described in that Wikipedia article. Maybe we can say it's implicit in Scripture, but not explicitly stated.
That Christ took punishment and death in our place I find essential. But to say Finney's teaching denies that, I remain unconvinced.
I wish, wish, wish I had some of his old sermons I'm afraid I sold to Baker's used books here in town. I would take the time to comb them some.
At any rate, this is part of my impression now. I am willing to change my view on further study. But I am convinced for now that Finney is not a heretic. But I would caution anyone about reading and accepting his teachings, though for most Christians, as those in his day, I don't think they'd understand all the issues theologically that are going on. Finney preached from the word, and in spite of errors (and who has everything right?) sinners were converted.
Triston,
Just what have you read from N.T. Wright? People at RBC Ministries with a dispensationalist theology appreciate him. Herb VanderLugt, in his 80's at the time went over his three tomes at least twice. But the critics of him- I've read some of their works, they don't compare with him. (sorry to say that, because I hate to compare people, hate it). But that's my view.
At the same time I have read actually little of all his stuff, and not even everything of what I have here. He is not my favorite writer, and some of his books I think are better than others (all I think are good, but some excel). And I'm not convinced by all he says.
But really, he is Reformed and Calvin would side with him overall more than with Luther, I think and would surmise- at least in some aspects. Look at this, if you have time.
Ted: Thanks for throwing another dollar my way by mentioning NT Wright again! :) I'm afraid that the only use I would have for his book though is as a log on the fire. I have little interest in reading, or respect for, authors who deny imputation.
The imputation of Adam's sin to us, the imputation of our sin to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us are all essential doctrines in my mind. To deny imputation is to deny the Gospel.
Finney pioneered that road. Dunn has gone down it (denying both the imputation of original sin and imputation of Christ's righteousness to us). It sounds like NT Wright is also tripping himself up here. If so, his book will go right next to Finney's systematic theology in my library. I have no interest in learning from guys who deny imputation. You don’t see my studying the work of Catholic scholars, do you? Well, I feel the same way about Protestant scholars who deny imputation.
BTW: You could hardly change my mind on this, Ted, so perhaps a new topic is in order?
Ted: The "New Perspective" on justification is a cancer in the Church. We see Paul fighting against works-righteousness among the Jews in Acts 15, Gal. 1-3, Romans, Philippians 3:2-11, etc. Despite the Law being given to redeemed people, human beings always strive to justify themselves before God by their own works. We see it with the Jews themselves; we see it with the Galatians, which is why Paul wrote his scathing rebuke to them (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:16-3:1). We see it in the Roman Catholic Church itself, which is the reason the Reformation of the Church became necessary. We see it in Finney's "ministry". We see it in much of Pentecostalism today. And that's just the Church. Every religion on earth is looking to win God's favor through their own works. This is the biggest deception of the devil on earth!
I say the new perspective on justification is not only anti-biblical; it is also a plague, as it discredits the reason behind the Reformation of the Church and, furthermore, leads people to deny the Gospel of Christ by denying imputation.
But by all means disagree with me!!!!!!!! I just really don't want to keep talking about it any more!!!
Halfmom, may I invite you to take a peep at this article in the New York Times ? It isn't about religion, it is about decision making in difficult times, and it stuck me that you might find it helpful under your circumstances.
"All men know that they have sinned, but all are not convicted of the guilt and ill desert of sin. The many are careless and do not feel the burden of sin, the horrors and terrors of remorse, and have not a sense of condemnation and of being lost.
But without this they cannot understand or appreciate the gospel method of salvation. One cannot intelligently and heartily ask or accept a pardon until he sees and feels the fact and justice of his condemnation.
....the conviction of ill desert must precede the acceptance of mercy; for without this conviction the soul does not understand its need of mercy. Of course, the offer is rejected. The gospel is no glad tidings to the careless, unconvicted sinner.
....The spirituality of the law should be unsparingly applied to the conscience until the sinner's self-righteousness is annihilated, and he stands speechless and self-condemned before a holy God.
....Now give him the atonement as a revealed fact, and shut him up to Christ as his own sin offering. Press the revealed fact that God has accepted the death of Christ as a substitute for the sinner's death, and that this is to be received upon the testimony of God."
Charles G. Finney, Power From on High, 34-35.
I wish I could find the book by V. Raymond Edman, Finney Lives On, and the book by an older Finney. But alas, I can't. And can't take the time to search now. Unused books become kind of buried in my organized messes, or I can miss them among the books shelved.
Interesting article Maalie. If I might add a thought or two.
Jesus said, "Do not worry, or be anxious, about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
"When tomorrow arrives, there will be new troubles, but alos renewed strength. ...let us also immediately be reminded of Lam. 3:22,23, "His compassions fail not. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness!" -William Hendikson
Yes Maalie, it is an interesting article. I guess it's "lucky" for me that I'm not terribly afraid of failure and willing to apply for whatever seems like it might have any chance of success.
I figure that, as scripture tells us, when God opens a door no one can close it and when He closes as door, no one can open it. So, I'm just trusting Him that if I open the wrong ones, He'll shut them. As to the others, I'm trying to do a good and active job investigating all possibilites with an open mind so that I don't miss an opportunity for "open" doors.
Lit'l Luther,
Without going into detail where I think you have it right, and where I believe you're mistaken, we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I will leave this, maybe I shouldn't, but I find it interesting by one who seems to be a sound advocate of the reformation:
"Brilliant Bishop Wright is one of God’s best gifts to our decaying Western church, and would-be learners and teachers of the faith will gain hugely from these fascinating pages."
J.I. Packer, on N.T. Wright's book, Simply Christian
Maalie,
Interesting article.
Faith involves admitting we're lost, in the dark ourselves. So faith trusts that God can lead us in spite of our ignorance and mistakes.
Therefore we should relax, knowing that God will work all things out in the end, in Christ, for good.
I just "preached" on this at the nursing home today, from the end of Romans 8 (I did try to touch on the entire chapter before working through the passage). That no matter what we experience: hunger, even death itself, etc., nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord- those of us who are in Christ. And that in everything, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. So that whatever God gives us to do, he will give us strength and ability to do it.
While God blesses all people with life and breath and good things, this special blessing is for those in Christ and seeking to follow Christ.
But I wonder just how much I'm playing it safe, and not moving out in faith to really follow Jesus in my life as I should. I can't come up with the answer on my own, but I want to be among those who are truly seeking to follow Christ in all things, in this world. Actually delightful, while challenging. And a life of love, along with the difficulties that inherently come with it. The same kind of life Jesus lived on earth.
Halfmom, yes, the final paragraph struck a particular chord with me, especially this bit: For me, an understanding of the role played by chance has taught me that one important factor in success is under our control: the number of at-bats, the number of chances taken, the number of opportunities seized.
Ted,
Thanks for the quote from J.I. Packer. I have a great deal of respect for him. His theology is sound, though I doubt it could be said that he speaks for the Reformed community. He seeks unity in the Church, which is a good thing, but many would say he takes it too far. When Packer endorsed the "Catholics and Protestants together" the Reformed community was up in arms and Packer changed his position afterwards. I wonder if Packer would still endorse your guy now that Wright is advocating the new perspective on justification? I doubt it. I know Packer would reject Wright's view on justification but he "might" be able to look past that because of his heart for unity in the church, which is admirable.
"role played by chance has taught me that one important factor in success is under our control"
It's not in your control Maalie, for God holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways. (Daniel 5:23)
And here's a couple more, Scot's- whose books I do read, and Michael Bird- a scholar in the UK, Scot's a little hard hitting, and Michael's interesting:
"Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots--the neo-Reformed--by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to tradition than to the sacred text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study."
--Scot McKnight, North Park University
"N. T. Wright provides yet again another fresh and exciting exposition of the apostle Paul. Here Wright shows how Paul proclaimed justification by faith as part of the Bible's theodramatic story of salvation, a story that stretches from creation to Abraham to Israel and all the way through to Jesus the Messiah. Wright responds to many criticisms including those of John Piper, and regardless of whether one gravitates toward Wright's or Piper's unpacking of Paul, you cannot help but enjoy the sparks that fly when these two great modern pastor-scholars cross swords over the apostle. Moreover, Wright artfully brings readers into the narrative world of Paul, and he sets before us a stirring portrait of the apostle to the Gentiles and his gospel."
--Michael F. Bird, Highland Theological College, Scotland
(html would only allow so many characters on a comment, so I split this)
Lt'l Luther,
If you'd read the book on justification, the new one, you'd be surprised. In my view it's Piper who is off track, not Wright, though if I studied it further I might side with Piper on something, but with Wright overall. I don't agree with Wright on everything. For example how he thinks Paul in Colossians is critiquing empire in his explication of the Lordship of Christ.
I was initially surprised a bit at one of the endorsements on the blurb or inside the justification book, this one from Darrell Bock, though reflecting more on that I'm not, because he's a first rate scholar:
"Frank theological table talk is sometimes a necessary endeavor. Tom Wright's Justification is his substantive reply to critical work by many, including John Piper, on the New Perspective. Wright correctly reminds us that this approach should be better called New or Fresh Perspectives. The goal is to open up the text concerning what it originally said in the first century, not change it. This book sets up a meaningful and significant conversation between the camps in this debate through its direct interaction with the critique. It should be read and reflected on, just as work on the other side should be. So I recommend this book and say, pull up a chair to the table and pay careful attention to the conversation. In the dialogue, all of us will learn more about what Paul and Scripture say about justification (and a few other things as well)."
--Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
I'll add a couple writers whose books I'd read any day:
"For some time now, I have watched in puzzlement as some critics, imagining themselves as defenders of Paul's gospel, have derided Tom Wright as a dangerous betrayer of the Christian faith. In fact, Paul's gospel of God's reconciling, world-transforming grace has no more ardent and eloquent exponent in our time than Tom Wright. If his detractors read this book carefully, they will find themselves engaged in close exegesis of Paul's letters, and they will be challenged to join Wright in grappling with the deepest logic of Paul's message. Beyond slogans and caricatures of 'Lutheran readings' and 'the New Perspective,' the task we all face is to interpret these difficult, theologically generative letters afresh for our time. Wright's sweeping, incisive sketch of Paul's thought, set forward in this book, will help us all in that task."
--Richard B. Hays, Duke University
"This sprightly and gracious yet robust work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification. Although it is intended especially for those familiar with the debate between the various scholarly perspectives on Paul, it is in fact a straightforward and reasonably succinct exposition of Tom's interpretation that incorporates a defense of his approach to Paul in general and his exegesis of specific passages in Galatians and Romans in particular. This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year. Like all of the author's work, I found it hard to set down once I had started to read it. Strongly commended!"
__I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
I respect Scot a lot, and knowing him, what he said here was carefully thought out, and I doubt he'd back down, though actually I do think he's adjusted his thinking before- seen on his blog, "Jesus Creed."
I wouldn't state it that way myself, little old me over here. I do think Piper and company do try to exegete the Scriptures. I must say though that I am not on board with them, overall, so that I have to admit, I'd have a hard time doing what Bock says we should be doing. Though on the justification issue, if I'd have time, I'd do it. But Wright is fair and he'll bring out well what his critics say in his book.
They are not my words Litl Luther, it is a quote from the New York Times. But I don;t believe you anyway.
Ted,
I found another quote on NT Wrights new book to add to the many you provided:
"I have found NT Wright's book an exceptional read. It was so captivating I was knocked off my seat."
--Humpty Dumpty
Ted, I'm 100% positive I will remain in Piper's corner in this battle because he's on the right side.
Maalie, they are not my words either. They are God's words — an inestimably more trustworthy Source than the New York Times.
Well, the truth in Jesus is what unites us, that reality. And none of us have it all down correct, that's for sure, as far as our knowledge. After all, "we know in part."
You are quite right Ted. It is the Truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God that unites us, regardless of our various takes on some aspects of people or theology.
Interestingly Maalie, it is that same Truth that causes our disagreement on the final paragraph of the Times article. "For me, an understanding of the role played by chance has taught me that one important factor in success is under our control: the number of at-bats, the number of chances taken, the number of opportunities seized". For I do not believe in chance, though I am familiar with its mathematics (I know my dear how you love all areas of statistics, but those "chance" lectures were just dreadfully tedious for me!)
I believe in a God who was willing to incarnate Himself so that He might reveal Himself to humankind. He was subsequently willing, as the perfect sacrifice, to yield His life as an antonement for mine and then, of His own power, to raise Himself back to life, and that life eternal.
If such a God can do all this and keep my salvation safe for all of eternity, how can I not believe that a Living God would not care for me daily?
Humm, I should edit my work before I publish it! Perhaps that last paragraph contains too many negatives to be clear. If so, I wish to make sure I clearly state that I agree with the apopstle Paul.
2Tim1:12b "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've commited to Him until that day".
And also
Romans 8:32, "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all thing?"
"I bet that she, like Francis Collins (human genome project), does NOT believe that .... that the world's biodiversity evolved from what could be crammed into Noah's boat as recently as the Bronze Age.""
Maalie, this may well be true, but so what? Like Don tried to point out to you in the last post, I'm sure she, as well as Francis Collins both believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.
>how can I not believe that a Living God would not care for me daily? Well,
Halfmom, the glib answer to that might be "delusion".
But that aside, may I ask you in all curiosity if you think that any event at all in the Universe could be considered as "random"? Events that are classically regarded as truly random are lightning strikes, goals in football matches and radioactive disintegrations. Do you consider, for example, that every sub-atomic particle emitted from every decaying radioactive source has already been pre-ordained by an almighty heavenly father?
Or that he knows exactly that lightning will strike "point x" on the earth's surface at a nominated point in time in the future?
Litl Luther: I am seriously staggered as to why I should give any credence to a guy called Daniel who lived some 2000 years ago.
People who are elected for heaven seem to know they are. Since I haven't been told, I am sure I have not. So, hey, I have nothing to lose. It that goddam lake of fire for me. Where is it, by the way?
Funny you should ask Maalie, as "my" Andrew and Olivia and I were having a very similar conversation over Sunday lunch (well, when you get three theologians and two scientists together with a third person who probably has better natural theological instincts that the two scientists, you can have some interesting dinner conversation!)
In brief, yes He knows all things. In a manner of speaking, you can say He ordained all things after the manner of His will, NOT because He caused them, but because He, having all the power that exists, allowed them. So, by way of example, "Or that he knows exactly that lightning will strike "point x" on the earth's surface at a nominated point in time in the future?", absolutely yes, He does!
As to, "People who are elected for heaven seem to know they are. Since I haven't been told, I am sure I have not." I would tend to have a different conclusion than you do entirely [gasp, shock and awe that you and I would look at the same "data" and come up with a different conclusion :)] I would think that just because you were curious, investigating and questioning that you were indeed one of the elect and God was trying to draw you to Himself!
As to where the lake of fire is - I do not think scripture clearly tells us. However, we do know that hell is the opposite of heaven, so we can glean a few things from studying what scripture does say about heaven. One is that God is there, so hell may, in one way, be defined by the lack of God's presence. NOT a place I want to be!
Funny verification word: "readders" - since we all are!
Maalie,
There is no such thing as chance or luck. I'm surprised to find out you are so superstitious.
BTW - dear Craver made it to worship service yesterday but he looked a bit green around the gills. So, please continue to pray for his healing and for his blood pressure to get itself regularly back to a normal range! I have tried administering cookies, but that didn't seem to work!
Thank you Halfmom. Seems strange to me that he already knows that he will zap some poor golfer who lifts his bat too high, some time, some place in the future
Litl Luther: I disagree. A chance event happens in a way that is considered to be one's favour we call it good luck. Conversly for bad luck. It is a matter of semantics.
However, I agree that we cannot influence the outcome of random events in the future by wearing "lucky charms" etc.
But I do agree that you can improve the odds that good things will happen by being proactive rather than sitting around on your bum waiting for god to take some spurious control.
That litl gun still looks awfully litl to me. Could it shoot a person? Does it make you feel important? In control of things? Do you think it is appropriate to flaunt a weapon of destruction on a religious blog? Oh, of course, you Christians like to smash hell out of each other, don't you? (E.g. in Ireland).
Ahh Maalie, you do like to be provocative, don't you? If you were one of my children, I'd send you off to your room with no supper to think about your "attitude" which is shown by chronic provoking the other children! :)
I do want to bring to your attention one point that, though it may seem small, is NOT a matter of semantics. I very carefully used the words, "... NOT because He caused them, but because He ... allowed them." It is not the same thing AT ALL to say, "he will zap". That is not at all consistent with God's character!
As to "improving one's odds", I suppose one could make a case that obedience, since obedience to God brings blessing, might improve one's odds. However, the promise is regarded as always being fulfilled in terms of a spiritual blessing, and only occassionaly as a physical one. So that would negate odds improvement for physical provision, wouldn't it?
PS Maalie - here in the US we refer to those as "clubs" when we are discussing golf.
(E.g. in Ireland).- Maalie
Where in Ireland may I ask?
Joke:
What did the British "Bobby" say to the fleeing law-breaker?
"Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again!" :-)
I like handguns Maalie, and for some reason, the kind State of Arizona saw fit to issue me a concealed weapons permit. For that reason I also bought a truly little .32 cal. pistol, small enough to fit in my pocket. The gun in my blog pic is a Smith & Wesson 40. cal. But my favorite gun of all is my 1911 model Colt 45 – which is the most popular handgun ever made. Sadly, all my pistols are separated from me by about 12,000 miles, locked away in my Dad’s gun safe.
Thanks to the powerful British military centuries ago, US citizens were encouraged by our government to arm ourselves.
>So that would negate odds improvement for physical provision, wouldn't it? Oh,
I see what you are getting at, but I'm not totally convinced. I had the pleasure of reading a Master's thesis in psychology last week (it had already been awarded a 'Grade A' in the respective University).
It was exploring the well-documented tenet that one achieves a greater sense of "well-being" and a consequent reduction in health issues related to anxiety (e.g. depression, heart disease, diabetes, you know it all) if one feels "in control" of one's life. If one feels out of control, there are things that can be done to make one perceive control, in at least some areas of one's life (e.g. take up blogging! LOL!).
Now, this thesis was not specifically about religion though a paragraph in the general introduction did make the point that one could achieve a perception of control by "placing it all God's hands". In other words, by entrusting control to a higher authority can in fact give oneself the perception of control. It was noted that people who were most likely to turn to religion were those who during their life had already suffered a traumatic loss of control of their own lives. Examples cited were: poor health; financial loss; bereavement; job loss; break-up of a relationship; imprisonment, and others I have likely forgotten.
It maybe coincidental of course, but thinking about it, I think this may be true in my experience. What do you think?
Donsands: If you are not aware that Catholics and protestants (i.e. Christians) have been blowing each other up in Northern Ireland for the last couple of decades, I can't imagine what newspaper you read. Not to mention historical wars when you had the ridiculous proposition of opposing armies on a battlefield praying to the same god that they will slaughter more of the enemy that they lose themselves.
Halfmom: Oh, club, is it? I thought that is what you played tennis with. I have never regarded as anything so silly as a bunch of men swiping a ball round a paddock until it drops down into a little hole!
“….people who were most likely to turn to religion….”
None of us here have turned to “religion” Maalie. I’m probably as anti-“religion” as you are. We turned not to a religion but to a person, a living Savior.
I recently watched a movie about Ireland, the IRA specifically: Hunger. It was dealing with the inhumane treatment prisoners received by the British government which caused them to go on consecutive hunger strikes. The British government was certainly portrayed as the bad guys, though I'm sure those IRA terrorists had it coming.
Luther you are gnit-picking. Call it religion, God, Jesus, the bible, whatever you like. The point is clear.
Susan,
I understand that Craver is looking "a bit green around the gills"? But I doubt that is related to his recent surgery and weakness. Rather, weeks of applying lime jello to his face is taking its toll. Even scrubbing his face with brillo pads won't get that stuff off, I'm told. But it was for a good cause. Martin is back home, safe and sound, and terrorizing his community again.
Maalie - I am sorry, I'm not quite sure what "it" you are referring to in the following quote. I want to make sure I am answering the actualy question you intended. "It maybe coincidental of course, but thinking about it, I think this may be true in my experience. What do you think?"
Hah, Maalie my dear - not only is is "club" for golf, we call it a course, for a paddock is for riding horses! The parts of the we are supposed to play on are called the "green" and the "fairway". The parts that we accidentally get into when we didn't intend to but that are still part of the "course", we call the "rough". The parts that we get into that are not properly part of the course, well, that I cannot repeat here!! :) And I must say, there is something quite wonderful about golf courses for they are lovely places, especially in the cool of the early morning or the late of the day when the light is beginning to fade. I, for one, shall be so very grateful when I am physically able to swing a club again! I have so missed it. In fact, I took my frustrations during qualifying and comprehensive exams out on the driving range!
As to tennis - that would be a racquet. At one point in my life - actually before the auto accident, I was quite a sports woman and I do admit that I miss it greatly!
Maalie,
The truth is Jesus. Not us his followers. Though we're to be following Jesus who is the truth. And together becoming more like him.
And you know a good number who identify themselves as Christians are so, evidently in little more than name, anyhow. That takes in all who would kill another in the name of their religion, I'm afraid out of hate, too often, or retaliation.
Not the way of Jesus. A different way of him who is the Way.
Oh Litl-Luther - I bet you are quite right. I had forgotten about Craver's recent and brave foray into the wild country to rescue Martin. Hopefully that is all there is to the green colour, a badge of honor and not a cause for alarm!
Halfmom, sorry if I wasn't clear. The point that was made in the thesis is that people who feel (consciously or sub-consciously) that they have suffered a major loss of control (for one or more of the possible examples given) seek to gain a perception of control by derogating their control to an entity such as "God" (which particular God clearly depends on respective culture).
I have met some people during the course of my life for whom this scenario appears to fit, and I wonder if you have? That's all.
Litl Luther, I saw the comment before you deleted it. In my humble opinion, it makes you look like a thug.
Would this make for a better blog pic, Maalie? It's my Colt 45 -- a bit bigger than the other gun and the envy of all his peers.
Maalie, since I'd much rather put the fear of God in you, rather than fear of armed reprisal, perhaps I should go with this pic for a while? It's from a stopover we did a couple years back in Honolulu one another one of those ghastly holidays Simon warns me against.
Ahh, now I see Maalie.
No, I do not think I have met people who, when their lives feel very out of control, turn to Jesus to feel more in control.
I have, on the other hand, met a lot of people who turn to religion to gain control over others.
I have also met and counseled many who, when life felt out of control, have turned to other people (relationships), illegal and legal substances (cocaine and chocolate to name a few), and actions (sex/spending/anorexia/bulemia/cutting) to feel in control.
The thing about turning to Christ is not that there is a false sense of control, but rather that you give over control of your life to one is is kinder, wiser and more powerful than yourself. I think a couple of quotes by Jim Elliot sum it up nicely. "God always gives His best to those who leave the choice with Him." and "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
Oh Trison - I like this one every so much better. Secretly, I'm afraid I agreed with Maalie - you did look like a bit of a thug. What I think would be even better is for you to crop the "sunglasses" picture that you recently sent me and use just the one wearing the sunglasses. That would be the best and most truly representative picture of the you I know!!
Now I must be off to the grocery or there will be no chores done at all today. I will have spent the entire day reading, emailing and blogging!
I see now. If you can’t get me to become winsome in my own right, you will get me there through my son. You are a clever one, aren’t you Susan?
Litl Luther, yes, I think that is better :-)
...but I doubt I will keep this pic for long, as I couldn't bear to have Maalie constantly yelling at my son! :)
Thanks Maalie. I'm glad you approve.
Good, Triston! Much better. :)
Glad you agree with me Maalie and Ted!
I don't know Triston, Maalie is a softy for babies!! He's a grandpa now and his grandson isn't much older than Sammy I don't think.
Ahh Man! Everyone likes my new pics., but I wanted to look like a thug. It’s just not fair!
I missed your earlier point Maalie.
I surely did know the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have been warring for many years.
But it's more apolitical thing, isn't it?
And not every person who calls Jesus Lord is a Christian.
Jesus said, "..why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?"
Jesus commands that we love one another, as we believe in Him. He also charges us to love even our enemies. Why? Because the Father in heaven loves them, and provides for them.
There may also be deep rooted predjudice in Nothern Ireland as well. But seems to me to be political strife, not Christian against Christian.
I haven't really studied all about Ireland, but I may just do that.
Whatever one can say about Finney's theology, having gone over some of it for myself tonight, it is confusing at best, as I look at the two books on theology I have by him. God may have used him in spite of his theology. It's as if Christ is not the Savior, but just the means by whom people can save themselves. There are a number of problems I'm seeing, like his denial that justification is in any way forensic.
So I take back my earlier defense of Finney. I thought that given the support he has had, even in Christian History (connected with Christianity Today) that surely he is okay, not off so far. But looking at it tonight has changed my view of things.
Just wanted to clear that up here, since I was defending him earlier. At best he is confusing; at worst he doesn't even measure up to Roman Catholic teaching, much less Reformation teaching.
Why have guns Luther? hand guns are designed specifically to kill people.
If you have god on your side you don't need guns..unless of course you live in fear- the fear of death or something...
I never used a gun, not even to hunt feral pigs...
Welcome back into the fold Ted.
JUST KIDDING BRO! :-) I know I'm a hard-ars on a lot of things, but Finney's theology was certainly screwed up. I'm glad the books you have of his are revealing this. He is certainly not a hero in the church.
Simon,
Handguns are designed for personal protection in close quarters, such as against bear attacks on hunters and campers.
But I thought I made it clear in the past that I have no qualms about killing a burglar in my home, or the mugger, rapist, carjacker, if they are putting my families’ life in danger.
You should have seen the poor dog I drug to its death behind my bike after my wife's life was put in danger by it. There's a time to kill.
I should explain about the dog I killed before there are numerous displays of righteous indignation:
The only road to our house, being unpaved, would become literal ditches during the monsoon here because of all the heavy trucks running up and down it each day. Hindus don’t kill street dogs so there are literally more than 20,000 of them in Kathmandu valley. Sometimes they see a foreigner and, because we look different, we are their sworn enemy. That is how it was with one street dog I had to pass everyday when leaving or returning home. Everyday it chased me. Though it was a street dog, a family was feeding it, bringing it in their compound at night and then letting it loose in the day, in which it would terrorize me. Three times I spoke to that family about the dog. Also, three other times I brought the police to their house about that dog. But nothing. Well one day I had Jaya, my wife, on the back of my motorcycle and the dog proceeded to chase us. It was within inches of biting Jaya’s ankle so I speeded up and because of the horrible road we were bouncing up and down. My wife bounced sideways and barely kept herself on the bike. At that speed she would have probably broken her neck if she’d fallen off. She came within inches of losing her life that day. And so I said “That’s it! That dog dies today!” I went to the police again. They didn’t want to do anything. So this time I offered them a sum of money to kill the dog. They took me up on the offer and went and got it. The family also said to the police “Take the dog.” At the police station they supposedly fed the dog rat poison, but they wanted me to give them the money and leave. But I wasn’t going anywhere until I was sure the dog was dead. Nothing happened. And so I started discussing with the police how we could kill the dog. We talked about hanging it, using the cop’s gun, etc. Then the chief officer there suggested to me to tie the dog behind my bike and drag it. I was desperate at this point to see it die, so I took him up on his suggestion. I bought some rope, made a noose (a knot I’d learned in Boy Scouts) and paid someone to tie the rope around his neck and to the back of my bike. I took off and ran him until he had no steam left then dragged him to the nearest dumpster. He was dead. I cut the rope and threw him in.
…and if you are horrified, I could care less! The choice was between that dog’s life and my wife. So I chose my wife. There is no humane society to take a dog to here. This is real life stuff in the 3rd world. I know of three other Christians like myself who had to kill a dog with their own hands (1. with a bat .2 brick. 3 strangling), so it’s not the first time and certainly not the last in a city full of dangerous street dogs.
See how much more humane it could have been if only I had my gun!
Thanks Triston.
Amen Don on God loving and blessing our enemies therefore we needing to do the same.
Unlike the American prison officers in Guantanamo Bay, British Prison Officers did not illtreat the IRA prisoners in Ireland. They are too closely monitored to get away with torture, and the American guards did.
The IRA prisoners went on hunger strike as a means of blackmail to get out of prison so they could carry on bombing and shooting the Loyalist population of Northern Ireland. Please get your facts right here.
I thought you played golf with a bat too.
Ugh Triston. That sounds awful - for you guys and the dog! I suppose a gun would have been the most humane choice at that time. Having been bitten more than once I do suppose you had to do something though!
Hey Lorenzo,
You should watch the movie "Hunger". It seems to have been written by an IRA sympathizer’s perspective. Those guards were truly cruel to them (in the movie anyway). But 14 prison guards were killed in cold blood on the streets by IRA at that time, so perhaps there would have been some retaliation going on inside the prison by guards, wouldn't you think?
Susan,
Thanks for the support. I like dogs a lot, by the way, and they usually like me. I’ve had dogs as pets all my life. I’ve got one right now.
"The IRA prisoners went on hunger strike as a means of blackmail"-Llama
There's much more involved in that. I see both sides as wrong. Bobby Sands' hunger strike was for "Five Demands":
1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest"
The whole turmoil over in Northern Ireland isn't plain to me yet. I'm still studying on it.
I do agree with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when she said, "Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims".
Sorry about this rabbit trail.
Susan, I believe you could have an award for most interesting subjects discussed in one thread from one post!
"Green around the gills." That's from Cyrano de Bergerac, right?
Friends, I'm just so glad to be able to walk around without an IV. The blood pressure is still pretty bad, but we're going to work on it. A headache and neck pain have been pestering me most of the week, but the pain is minimal now.
If history is any guide to go by, then the actions of the British government against enemies of the State, including IRA prisoners, was probably ruthless. For "the sun to never set on the empire" cannot be achieved through warm and fuzzy handshakes but by vicious totalitarianism.
"..but the pain is minimal now."
Good to hear Craver.
I was all set to start using this blog pic as soon as someone jumped on me for killing that dog, but no one did. You guys are cool!
Ninety-nine.
And...
I would gladly kill every street dog in this city if it was necessary to protect my wife’s life because she is precious and they are not. She is in God’s image and a child of God; they are not. That was the point of the comment really — not to justify the use of handguns but to justify killing for the sake of your loved ones. I’ve never killed a person, so the dog story was all I had. But I wouldn’t think twice about doing it again to protect my family, or to protect an atheist stranger for that matter because people are precious; animals are not.
Those who put love for animals on par or above people need to be confronted (and that is exactly what many do. Their hearts warm for baby seals, or birds covered with oil from a leaking tanker but with the same breath they support abortion or would never tell a woman not to kill her unborn child--they believe it is her choice).
PEOPLE are precious.
Post a Comment