2009-08-17

CotW looks at Romans 5, which supports the view of a historical Adam, by way of Paul’s comparison of the historical Christ to the historical Adam. i) The article argues that that verses 12b–17 constitute a parenthetical thought. Paul interrupts the main argument to clarify the relation between Adam an Christ. ii) death spread to all men because all sinned; when Paul uses the phrase translated ‘because’ (which can have different causative meanings) it always otherwise means ‘because’. iii) Adam is a type; a person prefiguring by God’s design Christ. But Paul contrasts them – the point of similarity is so that both did things that had far reaching consequences. iv) Paul uses the quantifier πολλοὶ (polloi) for the people affected by Christ’s sacrifice, which sometimes means ‘all’ but also means ‘many’. However, Paul has earlier used the word πάντες (pantes), which means ‘all’ or ‘every’, for those affected by Adam’s sin, indicating that he wishes to distinguish between ‘the many’ and ‘all’. Thus this does not teach universalism. v) One is counted sinful or righteous not by one’s own individual sinfulness or righteousness, but by way of relationship with Adam or Christ. The legal aspect of justification (δικαίωμα, dikaiōma) can be shown by its contrast with ‘condemnation’ (κατάκριμα, katakrima), obviously a legal concept in Romans 5:16. Thus Paul is using a typology in this passage which requires Adam and Christ to be equally historical since both acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. http://aturnfortheworse.blogspot.com/

Mohler agrees with a methodist theologian that it seems the only ‘heresy’ in much of liberal Protestantism is the heresy of believing in the possibility of heresy. This is loudly declared by many as well. Heresy has become the norm, rather than the exception. Historically, heresy is a term reserved for contradictions to Biblically revealed Gospel truth. Now, Bishop Jefferts Schori’s recent remarks that the ‘great Western heresy’ is “that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God” effectively identify what has been central to the Christian faith for the past 2000 years as heresy. Sadly, her comments aren’t aimed at the manipulative and formulaic use of the ‘sinner’s prayer’: her assertion of heresy was directed to the very idea of individual conversion to faith in Christ -- the faith that has always and everywhere defined authentic Christianity. She laments evangelism because it will divert attention from ecological, economic, and other political imperatives. “The irony of all this was not lost on many Episcopalians and other observers. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church finally summoned the determination to apply the word heresy --- and then applied this most serious term of odious rejection to the Gospel itself.” It is tragic, but in her words we see true heresy in its most undisguised form. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4129

DeYoung has two more questions after reading Wright’s new book: i) On what basis are we declared to be in the right before God? While Wright’s understanding that the present verdict of justification is on the basis of faith alone and the future verdict is based on works is close to the traditional Reformed understanding, Wright doesn’t want to say that we must give corroborating evidence of a justification by faith alone in our works. He doesn’t think debating ‘basis’ is a way to clarity. He does seem to be saying that we are declared to be in the right before God on the last day on the basis of works, in that works are not mere evidence of saving faith. So the basis of our justification matters. ii) Why not just say “imputation”? DeYoung takes issue with Wright’s view of 2 Cor. 5:12. a) That Paul is pleading with people in the church of Corinth to be reconciled to God isn’t out of place at all, given the situation. b) Wright imposes the larger context in such a way that the immediate context is dismissed. Hence, Wright doesn’t think Paul can bring up the atonement in 2 Cor. 5. But in this chapter Paul is talking about our heavenly dwelling, persuading others based on the fear of coming before the Lord, being made new in Christ, and being reconciled to God - all Old Perspective stuff: Heaven, reconciliation, faith. So it makes perfect sense that Paul would talk about the atonement and “how we get saved” in verse 21. c) For Wright, instead of 21b being about reconciliation through imputation, Wright assumes reconciliation so that 21b can be about something else, Paul’s apostolic ministry. When Wright will say, “the Messiah came and bore the covenantal curse in himself, so that the new covenant blessings might flow out at last to the world”, why won’t he just say ‘imputation?’ After all, how is it that we are declared righteous without some reckoning of it? Isn’t Wright saying that Christ did what we we’re supposed to do so we could get covenant blessings and bore the penalty we deserved as covenant breakers? Flying Monkeys and the New Perspective

Bird points to a post on whether baptism is a Gospel issue, which concludes, “"When we abandon baptism, we substitute other more individualistic and subjective forms of recognition and exclusion. We undermine the unity on which the NT places such a high value. We subvert the gospel."” Is Baptism a Gospel Issue - John Davies

Burk notes that the expansion of hate crimes protections to include homosexuals/transgendered happening in the Senate, combined with existing law, “could expose to prosecution Christians and others who proclaim the Bible’s teaching that homosexual behavior and other sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.” Someone who hears a biblical sermon, commits a violent act based on ‘sexual orientation’, could open the preacher to the charge of inducing the crime. Concerns about New Hate Crimes Bill

Courtney Reissig at Genderblog recommends The Legacy of Biblical Womanhood by Susan Hunt and Barbara Thompson. There is a generation of women who have an understanding of womanhood that is radically opposed to God’s design. The hyper-sexualized, self-focused, feminist worldview screams "this is what it is all about" at them from every corner. “The legacy of the world says that you can do anything a man can do, your career is top priority, and you must stop at nothing to attain these things. The legacy of godliness says that God has uniquely created you as a woman to live within his parameters for his glory (Titus 2).” You pass on what you love. Intentionally discipling young women in Christ is a great legacy because it exalts Jesus and makes much of Him and points away from us. Apart from Christ our legacy is to death. But women bought by the blood of Christ are called to leave a legacy of life (Genesis 3:20, Titus 2:3-5). Leaving a Legacy