Paperback Swap

For those of you who don't know, we're expecting our first child this January. This is great news, and we're very excited about it. What's more, Kristi is leaning toward naming a boy, if we have one, Calvin.

But that's not the reason for this post. Instead, I want to talk about books.

See, when making room for the baby, my study went through some changes. It's now the study/guest room, which means it lost a chaise lounge and gained a bed and two more bookshelves. When we moved all the books in the house to the study, we noticed that we had 40 or so that were completely useless to us. Seriously, I'm thankful for my time at Moody, but I'm never going to pick up any Andy Stanley or Roy B. Zuck again. I thought about opening an account on Amazon.com, but instead searched a bit more and found Paperback Swap.

I've already unloaded 10 books, made a wish list, and ordered 3-4 of Stephen King's The Dark Tower. I suggest you take a look.

Puritan Hermeneutics

Nick Batzig, over at Feeding on Christ, points out Packer's marvelous summary of some important hermenuetical principles modern preachers would do well to imitate!

Trueman on the Early English Reformers

One of the benefits of summer is extra time for reading. This is compounded by the many great books at the tip of my hands in the RTS-Library. Thus when I found out that they carried Carl Trueman's dissertation in monograph form entitled Luther's Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers, 1525-1556, I immediately picked it up and started to indulge myself. This is how he begins the book:

ALL five of the English Reformers in this study died at the stake because of their theological stance. While martyrdom in itself does not validate the beliefs which bring it about, it does indicate the passion with which those beliefs were held or rejected. To the twentieth-century Western mind, schooled in the philosophy of liberal democracy, sentencing a man to die because he disagrees with the Church's teaching on the Eucharist appears as nothing more than murder and, indeed, the willing acceptance of death for such a belief an act of total insanity. All this does, however, is to remind us of the massive difference between the intellectual and social values of our century and that of the Reformers. Because of this difference, it is of the utmost importance that something of the biographical and historical background of these men is known before a valid assessment of their theology can be made. These Reformers were no ivory-tower academics, playing a kind of theological 'glass-bead game'. They were men intimately involved in the events of their day. For them, theology was something of profound social, as well as personal, importance, something for which they were willing to pay the ultimate price.

Classic Carl!

Final Judgment According to Works: Reformed?

Rick Phillips has been doing a series largely against N.T. Wright's view of final justification on the basis of Spirit wrought good-works. In this polemic entitled "Five Arguments Against Final Justification According to Works" (Part 1) (Part 2), Rick Phillips goes on in part one to argue, "Future judgment according to works thus involves only those whose names are not written in the book of life." Again he writes,

"Those raised to death are judged according to their works; those whose names are written in the book of Christ's life are not judged: as Jesus taught, whoever believes "does not come into judgment" (Jn. 5:24). Revelation 20:10-15 therefore shows two different categories of persons who are judged by two different standards (book of their own works vs. the book of the life of Christ), which results in two different eternal destinies. Thus judgment according to works is a future that only those outside of Christ must face."

Because of this teaching, he has received inquiries into his confessionalism on this point because of various statements in the Westminster Standards concerning this, particularly WCF 33:1 which says,

All persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

Now, whether he is confessional or not (You can read Phillips defend his confessional orthodoxy here) is of second importance in this post, as is the question of Phillips's Biblical exegesis related to his argument. What I am interested in is the nature of the polemic itself. Phillips is combating N.T. Wright view of justification, which is by most Reformed estimates ambiguous at best and Roman Catholic at worst. However, in the aforementioned articles Phillips both denies believers judgment on the basis of works and judgment according to works on the final day. Take note of what Guy Waters writes in his Ref 21 book review of N.T. Wright's new book on justification:

Wright's discussion of good works and final justification merits two observations. First, some of Wright's critics may indeed deny a final judgment according to works. His Reformed critics do not. They deny a final judgment on the basis of works, but they do not deny a final judgment according to works. In other words, the believer's conduct is not the basis upon which he will sustain God's final judgment. Instead, his conduct will publicly show the Christian to be who he already is: a person justified solely on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith. If Wright understands the Reformational doctrine of justification by faith alone to necessitate much less to permit a denial of final judgment according to works, then he has been misinformed. Reformed readers' do not object to Wright's insistence that there shall be a final judgment of the believer at the Day of Judgment. They have objected to what he claims are the place or role of the believer's works in final justification.

Now if you are N.T. Wright, you should be screaming from the rooftop. After all, at least on a linguistic level, using the exact same terminology, you have one Reformed theologian (Waters) saying "Wright's critics may indeed deny a final judgment according to works [for the Believer]. His Reformed critics do not," and a Reformed critic (Phillips) writing, "Thus judgment according to works is a future that only those outside of Christ must face."

This gets me to Mark Jones's post a couple weeks ago where he pointed out that, "While I appreciate what Phillips is trying to do, I think he could have been a little more nuanced." This I find to really important. Whether Phillips actually agrees in substance with this definition by Waters of judgment according to works or not I am not sure (I'm not quite sure this is all some Reformed people mean with respect to "judgment according to works" anyhow. cf. Owen on sentential justification 5:160-162):

In other words, the believer's conduct is not the basis upon which he will sustain God's final judgment. Instead, his conduct will publicly show the Christian to be who he already is: a person justified solely on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith.

I am sure, however, that if Waters and Phillips agree then someone is using language rather ambiguously and very unhelpfully. If Reformed critics of N.T. Wright don't deny judgment according to works, why does Phillips write, "Thus judgment according to works is a future that only those outside of Christ must face?" Would it not be helpful to get our terminology right? Isn't this what is so important to the debate anyhow? Imputed not infused, justification by a faith that works not justification by faith because it works, Judgment according to works not judgment on the basis of works, etc...

Waters would certainly have a point against Wright misrepresenting the Reformed view of judgment according to works, except Phillips, who is a PCA minister denies it on the same website (at least linguistically).

Review of Goldsworthy on Preaching or Why Aren't We All Already Obsessed with Graeme Goldsworthy?

Graeme Goldsworthy writes Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture to help preachers apply a Christ-centered approach to sermons. Goldsworthy wants to address the difficulty of preaching from the Old Testament, especially those issues arising from discontinuity with the New Testament. He argues that the link between Old Testament salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be understood on the basis of biblical theology. Goldsworthy insists that the Gospel must be central to Christian thought. Through it, Christians are inducted into their personal relationship with God. The Old Testament provides the context of the Gospel and the New Testament reveals the fulfillment of God’s plan.
For Goldsworthy, biblical theology is the way forward for biblical preaching. Biblical Theology “allows the Bible to speak as a whole as the one word of the one God about the one way of salvation” (7). Goldsworthy explores this thesis by answering a series of questions about his assumptions and methods and the implications of these on the preparation of expository sermons. He concludes his book by examining various categories of Biblical texts and the exposition thereof.

Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture contains much that ought to be commended. Goldsworthy forges for evangelical biblical theology the place in service to preaching the discipline has so long deserved. Goldsworthy combines evangelical theological presuppositions, rigorous biblical theology and unabashed love for the gospel in a way that is tragically unique.
Goldsworthy’s major shortcoming arises from his over reliance on an appeal to evangelical presuppositions. Goldsworthy lauds the biblical theological approach for its inductive nature, but negates many of these advantages with his theological assumptions. Biblical theology of this the evangelical stripe is by necessity circular. We must approach the text with certain presuppositions, which Goldsworthy does. However, our task is not done here! We must, through thorough study and explanation of the text of Scripture, show how these presuppositions emerge from the text. Rather than simply finding what we set out to discover in the pages of Holy Writ, we must allow our study of Scripture to reforge and refine our assumptions. Goldsworthy fails to close the circle in this volume.
Goldsworthy also does not interact deeply with the large body of biblical theology from the last century. Goldsworthy is in the minority of biblical theologians on many issues he treats dogmatically. While this can be forgiven to a certain degree due to his insistence on evangelical presuppositions, writing off almost the whole of the biblical theological enterprise of the twentieth century as liberal in its assumptions and therefore erroneous in its conclusions can only go so far. Perhaps in one of Goldsworthy’s other works he defends these assertions more thoroughly against the conclusions of his peers.
Goldsworthy does not, however, fail to be helpful. His insistence that Christian messages be related to the Christian Gospel cannot be ignored. However, we must not in rush to the cross in our exposition of texts. As preachers of the word, we must give our hearers the hints of the Gospel present in the text and allow them to long for the message of Jesus Christ. We live in the tension of a partially realized eschatology, the already and the not yet. As evangelical preachers, we are fairly comfortable discussing this, why can we not acknowledge a similar tension in the world of the text? The people of the text lived in a similar tension between promise and fulfillment and the emerged and hidden aspects of salvation history. To ignore the tension is to squash salvation history and deny our hearers an appreciation of the intricate beauty of God’s plan, a plan made all the more beautiful in the waiting.
Goldsworthy’s volume is a wonderful reminder of the true nature of the preaching task. It is a clarion call to preachers to love the gospel and proclaim it constantly. I will undoubtedly refer back to the concluding sections on genres when preparing my next sermon. This book has reminded me of the gaps in my knowledge of biblical theology and inspired me to continue to study this discipline and to think about its implications for the preached text.

My New Job

As many of you already know, I am down in Jackson with my wife trying to make some money for Seminary. Anyhow, I just got a job working at the RTS-Jackson Library. Being around all of these books is like therapy.

Back to the Pulpit

I'd appreciate your prayers this weekend. Thanks to the gracious offer of the session at South Point PCA, I'll be back behind the pulpit for the first time in about six months. My text is Romans 8:18-30, and my title is "Eschatology and Suffering."

Originally I wanted to go with "Eschatological Angst and the Mystical Union with Christ," but thought better of it. Funnily enough, yesterday I got an email from my boss (an evangelical leader here in Atlanta) that the titles I've been suggesting for his future sermons weren't contemporary enough. Don't I know it.

Alan Strange on R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession

Alan Strange has reviewed RRC for Ordained Servant. I've expressed some of the same complaints (and praises) for Clark's work. Take a look.

I'm interested in one of his closing arguments - that WCF 21.6 teaches private prayer as a means of grace. Any thoughts?

---

Update

Over on the Heidelblog, RSC has pointed out that he's written a response, and that the response was written before a "helpful" exchange between he and Strange. Still, it'll be nice to read his thoughts next month.

I'd also like to take a moment to emphasize that many of us here at 21CTT have benefited greatly from RSC's work as a whole (RRC included), and any critique comes after reading and considering what he has to say.

Drama of Doctrine

"Similarly, the sharing of the body and blood of Jesus draws us into the theo-drama. The Last Supper is a complex communicative act whose similarities with the Passover blend the story of Israel (looking back to the exodus and forward to the return from exile) into the story of Jesus (the lamb whose death would redeem not only Israel but the whole world). The supper also hints at the future messianic banquet in heaven--a complex communicative action indeed! Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are 'deliberate double drama' whose purpose is not merely to convey information but to draw us into the action. indeed, baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace precisely because they are able to draw us into the pattern of Jesus' own communicative action."

-Vanhoozer

Creation

I was wondering if anyone could suggest books or MP3s on the Reformed understanding of Creation. Specifically the Creation account of Genesis 1-3. Thanks for the help.