tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-100703712012-02-16T03:57:02.391-06:00rethinking soteriology in light of Augustine, and other random thoughts on the doctrine of justification, historical theology, and the relationship between social location and theological formationGeraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.comBlogger1801100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-53160217804257426662010-12-02T08:50:00.003-06:002010-12-02T08:53:52.982-06:00

As is evident from the date of the preceding post, I don't live here anymore. But I thought it best to come back and turn the lights off, and let you know that I now post regularly on the SAET blog.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-78623401395048157552009-10-31T15:51:00.004-05:002009-11-03T07:13:36.787-06:00

I'm pleased to announce the re-release of my book Raising Purity: Helping Parents Understand the Bible's Perspective on Sex, Dating, and Relationships. This is a revised and expanded version of the original, and, I think, is significantly improved in a few key areas. To give you a sense of what the book is about, here's the copy from the back cover:"Do they know? Do you? Many young people today

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-62846945449465864472009-08-14T13:57:00.001-05:002009-08-14T13:58:45.276-05:00

The kind folks over at Reformation 21 have posted my article, "Ecclesial Theology and Academic Theology: Why We Need More of the Former."The article briefly recounts the founding of the SAET, and is my latest attempt to flesh out a distinction between academic theology and ecclesial theology. If you read it and have thoughts, I'm interested to hear them.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-33398694915701392882009-05-25T15:51:00.003-05:002009-05-25T15:56:54.737-05:00

In April, John Piper and Don Carson gave twin lectures entitled, "The Pastor as Scholar and the Scholar as Pastor." For those interested, I've written a few thoughts on their talk and posted them on the SAET blog.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-53912135078382965182009-05-19T10:00:00.003-05:002009-05-19T10:09:07.779-05:00

Regarding Definition of dikiaowThe term dikiaow is forensic. And while dikaiow often involves a declaration of who is in the right, the meaning is broader than a mere declaration. More broadly, the term has the basic meaning of “vindicate’ (in relation to all sorts of contexts—legal, social, relational). There are two aspects to justification/vindication. The first is the actual declaring/proving

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-51129401718158521662009-04-17T21:13:00.010-05:002009-04-17T22:35:47.267-05:00

I just finished listening to this podcast. It's a good discussion by able NT scholars regarding Tom Wright's new book on justification. Wright's book is, in many ways, a response to Piper's The Future of Justification. Michael Bird has a good review post on the panel discussion that's worth checking out. Here are my two cents as well...I haven't read a ton of Wright, but I have read a good deal

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-59942122282253284772009-02-10T10:41:00.000-06:002009-02-10T10:42:32.475-06:00

My friend Bradley Chocran of U R B A N G L O R Y just posted a podcast of an interview he and I did regarding the SAET. It's a quick listen -- maybe four minutes, and it gives a pretty good introduction into what the SAET is all about.You can listen to the podcast here.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-66644207607957769702009-01-13T16:46:00.002-06:002009-01-13T16:47:31.002-06:00

Eric Redmond has a nice review of my recent Westminster Theological Journal article. In the article, I argue that the eighteenth-century transition in North America from pastor-scholar to professor-scholar has resulted in the loss of a distinctly ecclesial voice in North American evangelical theology. There is, I contend, a need to return theological reflection and articulation back to the domain

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-79515455812697528122008-12-11T09:03:00.003-06:002008-12-11T09:12:51.618-06:00

Just a quick word to let you know about the new Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET) blog. We've done a complete overhaul of the SAET site. It's not quite done, but I'm really pleased with it (thanks for the pro bono Todd). I'll be moving some of my blogging over to there; anything related to ecclesial theology, pastor-theologians, etc. Would love it if you would check out the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-38482183220854207482008-12-06T15:27:00.003-06:002008-12-06T15:31:18.688-06:00

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-85675545841812277602008-11-30T12:02:00.005-06:002008-12-04T09:49:29.355-06:00

My article, "Pastor-Scholar to Professor-Scholar: Exploring the Theological Disconnect between the Academy and the Local Church" is now out in the current issue of Westminster Theological Journal (vol 70, 2008). In the article, I argue that the eighteenth-century transition from pastor-scholar to professor-scholar has had significant implications for North American evangelical theology, namely

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-78440157443035146482008-11-08T16:27:00.003-06:002008-11-11T13:51:14.710-06:00

“You said that you knew the stranger—I mean the man I was looking for,” Matthew said. “He’s not…Is he…is he Jesus?” Matthew’s heart skipped a beat.“No, he is not,” the old man said. “Though it is a high compliment to both that you ask. It is a chief goal of the Father that all his children be conformed to the image of his Son. The man you seek is indeed a son of God, but he is not the Son of God.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-84183271488647221222008-10-09T13:19:00.004-05:002008-10-09T13:34:22.608-05:00

Hey everyone, just wanted to let you all know about a new pastor's blog I'll be contributing to called Straight Up. The blog is hosted by the Harvest Bible Fellowship, and the main contributor is James MacDonald, senior pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel (my church). James is the founding pastor of Harvest (now over 11,000 people) and his teaching can be heard daily via his radio ministry Walk in the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-21142162772937376432008-09-27T00:11:00.006-05:002008-09-29T11:52:23.755-05:00

Athanasius’ understanding of the cross is in harmony with the later Protestant/Reformational emphasis on penal substitution. Athanasius views Christ’s death as a vicarious sacrifice whereby the legal debt of sin is satisfied. This concept of penal substitution is woven throughout Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. “He is the Life of all, and he it is that as a sheep yielded his body to death as a

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-13252081912933969642008-09-15T21:20:00.005-05:002008-09-15T21:43:31.114-05:00

For Athanasius, the corruption due to sin is the forewarned expression of wrath for failure to adhere to the divine prohibition. The consequences were clearly detailed at the outset: eat from the tree and “dying ye shall die.” Had our first parents remained good, they would have kept “the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care, besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven.” But

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-66275810208273623422008-09-13T15:06:00.006-05:002008-09-13T15:29:12.756-05:00

I recently read William Young’s The Shack. For a book with an initial marketing budget of only $300, its success has been nothing short of remarkable. It’s currently number one on the New York Times best seller’s list, and has gained a wide readership in the evangelical community. It’s endorsed by Michael W. Smith, and Eugene Peterson, among others.The story opens with the abduction and brutal

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-91424818396018633482008-08-01T08:54:00.004-05:002008-08-01T10:55:18.365-05:00

I've been pleasantly surprised at the extent to which my book, Raising Purity: Nurturing the Image of God in the Heart of Your Child, has resonated with singles. As the title suggests, it's marketed toward parents. But at it's core, the book is really a theological, biblical, and practical look at the issue of purity, so the application is pretty broad. I've used it as the primary text for a

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-59790566969837154342008-07-18T10:12:00.002-05:002008-07-18T10:14:38.683-05:00

"The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism! That's just old-line

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-27312322313173677952008-07-06T12:19:00.002-05:002008-07-06T12:24:50.442-05:00

Athanasius frames the narrative of culpability in much the same manner as Paul does in Romans 2; God has given over humanity to its sinful desires, the result of which is a depraved soul that is now culpable before God precisely because it is depraved. Man was created in the image of God in order that he might know and dwell in union with the Godhead. Yet Adam’s rebellion introduced death into

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-24462097353964065152008-06-30T14:46:00.003-05:002008-06-30T14:49:18.294-05:00

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-90355769345595167702008-06-18T16:35:00.003-05:002008-06-18T17:04:12.182-05:00

I recently gave a lecture at my church on the complementarian/egalitarian debate. The debate is broad and multi-layered (exegetical, theological, practical, historical) and I only had a little over an hour to speak, so I focused primarily on the typological relationship between gender and the image of God. A major text in this debate is 1 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul notes a parallel relationship

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-43875581655482912332008-05-18T16:09:00.007-05:002008-05-19T09:01:09.180-05:00

Or to say what I said below in another way...Augustine, Biel and Calvin all agree that ontological renewal is necessary, but all have different ways of getting there. For Augustine, God observes our need and offers us a participation in Christ, resulting in a reverse incarnation. He became as us so that we could become as him. This is justification for Augustine. For Biel, God observes our need

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-71152870761407251682008-05-18T15:13:00.006-05:002008-05-18T21:24:04.441-05:00

I've been thinking through Calvin's doctrine of justification in preparation for this symposium. Things are beginning to take shape. It is helpful, I think, to explore Calvin's doctrine of justification against the backdrop of the via moderna. For the theologians of the via moderna, the divine justice does not bind God in his relation to humanity. God simply grants the blessing of ontological

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-44783814785506887032008-05-10T14:19:00.003-05:002008-05-10T14:37:07.759-05:00

Wright is concerned that faith not be viewed as a means of “getting in” to the covenant. He writes, “Faith…is never and in no way a qualification, provided from the human side, either for getting into the God’s family or for staying there once in” (What Saint Paul Really Said, 160). For Wright, justification—the divine declaration regarding who is “in” the covenant—is not based upon works of the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-81344219034092161812008-05-02T14:21:00.007-05:002008-05-05T20:01:24.101-05:00

On Wednesday afternoon I sat down with Craig Steiner, our Student Ministries Pastor, as well as a couple of ladies from the community who are acutely aware of what parents—Christian and non—are up against in the public school system. While I’ve had a general awareness of some of the issues, I had not realized the extent of the difficulty facing those families who embrace a basically

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-42666230840453332892008-04-26T13:59:00.004-05:002008-04-26T15:05:33.862-05:00

In a comment to my previous post, Matt correctly pointed out that it’s insufficient to simply compare Wright’s and Calvin’s view of justification, in as much as they don’t mean the same thing by the term dikaioo. Part of the point of my last post was to assert that maybe they are substantively closer than many think, but Matt’s point is legitimate nonetheless, particularly as it relates to

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-68783508374121685212008-04-20T21:49:00.003-05:002008-04-20T21:56:00.814-05:00

I just finished reading Tom Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said. Here’s a few thoughts regarding continuity between Wright and Calvin, and between Wright and Reformed soteriology:Both Wright and Calvin agree that justification is a forensic pronouncement, not an executive act whereby God makes us ontologically righteous. Both Wright and Calvin agree that the “righteousness” of justification is

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-53710630521080031442008-04-20T21:42:00.002-05:002008-04-20T21:48:40.200-05:00

Wright works hard to distance himself from a view of justification (in his mind, the Reformation view) that makes it a doctrine of “how to get right with God.” Justification, Wright argues, is not about how to get right with God, but about who is already right with God—it is the divine pronouncement that so and so is in right standing with God. For Wright, this means justification is about

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-72756130196986434682008-04-07T15:31:00.004-05:002008-04-07T15:42:32.885-05:00

It is worth noting the influence of William Ockham and the via moderna in setting the stage for Calvin’s articulation of justification—most notably the medieval distinction between the “two powers” of God. The theologians of the via moderna made full use of the medieval distinction between the potentia dei absoluta and the potentia dei ordinate, God’s “absolute” and “ordained” power, respectively

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-36236296681083797142008-04-01T18:20:00.007-05:002008-04-04T14:34:14.392-05:00

I just finished up an interview with Greg Wheatley of Prime Time America regarding my book Raising Purity. It was a great opportunity to talk briefly about the book. If you follow the PTA link above, you can listen to the interview. It starts at 30 minutes in. Those interested in ordering a copy of the book can do so here.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-69158394535021397342008-03-22T21:21:00.006-05:002008-03-23T18:57:03.338-05:00

The obvious counter to my previous post would be that while Jesus and Paul are biologically male, thus making it inappropriate to refer to them with gender-neutral pronouns, God is spiritual and thus transcends biological categories. I agree that God transcends biological categories. But to state that God is biologically asexual is not the same as stating that God is gender-neutral. The feminist

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-53551818658223939972008-03-22T21:12:00.003-05:002008-03-22T21:30:31.559-05:00

The Scriptures occasionally use feminine imagery to illustrate God's relationship with his people. According to some, this is evidence against the traditional view that God should be conceived of in primarily masculine terms. Some even go so far as to conclude that it is inappropriate for us to refer to God with strictly masculine pronouns. But this leaves us in a bit of an awkward spot,

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-56092799745690743472008-03-02T15:35:00.003-06:002008-03-02T15:42:04.567-06:00

I recently read Brian Vickers’ Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness. The book is an exegetical defense of the Reformed notion of positive imputation, focusing on Romans 4, 5:19, and 2 Corinthians 5:21. The first chapter of the book provides a brief historical sketch of the major players, and the remainder of the book is dedicated to exegesis. A couple of brief thoughts. First, Vickers’ historical

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-30090912646281810192008-02-25T13:40:00.005-06:002008-02-25T14:44:35.760-06:00

I've been picking my way through the psalter and the prophets and I'm struck again how often the OT believers framed their soteriology in earthly terms. Salvation was not primarily deliverance from one's personal sins, as much as it was deliverance from one's enemies. Not that forgiveness didn't have a place, but it often seemed like a means to an end. Sin breaks one's relationship with God,

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-81520963439224885062008-02-11T12:44:00.000-06:002008-02-11T13:27:56.497-06:00

I just finished reading Calvin's Institutes. Or I'm done with it, anyway. I confess to skimming a few hundred of the 1500+ pages. His civil government stuff was at the end of the book and I was already growing weary, and he just kept going on and on about the Eucharist debates. I agree--enough already!It is impossible to review a book of such significance (and length) in a mere post, but one

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-84822863312340901012008-01-25T10:24:00.000-06:002008-02-10T10:32:04.395-06:00

My book is now available online. The publisher has put together a nice little Raising Purity website--you can check out sample pages, back cover, etc. And, of course, buy a copy.Update: So I was talking to my publisher--who is also an IT guru--and he mentioned how search engines work. The more that people link to your site using a certain phrase, the higher your site's search engine ranking will

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-28060223620140242562008-01-16T11:19:00.000-06:002008-01-16T11:30:42.535-06:00

This from Stan Guthrie in CT's January '08 issue. Evangelism--calling sinful people to repent and follow Jesus--is always a tougher sell than giving a cup of cold water. . . . Maybe our preference for social activism reveals a more basic problem: that we don't really believe our neighbor's deepest need is to be forgiven by and reconciled to God. We seem to think that if only he or she is fed, or

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-28107458942988759982007-12-12T08:59:00.001-06:002008-04-04T22:14:37.273-05:00

I signed my first book contract today. The work is titled Raising Purity: Fashioning the Image of God in the Heart of Your Child. It was picked up by Ryver Media, a small media group. The book highlights the typological relationship between sexuality and the gospel, with a specific application toward the subject of sexual purity. My aim is to help parents think through the discipleship they bring

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-25427835062014762102007-12-08T10:04:00.000-06:002007-12-08T14:15:22.488-06:00

I'm about 800 pages into Calvin's Institutes (which is why I haven't been blogging much lately). Previously, I'd read a bunch of it here and there, but most of my understanding of Calvin had been mediated through later Reformed writers. Consequently, I had wrongly assumed that Calvin was consistent with the contemporary evangelical/Reformed distinction between regeneration and sanctification (

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-26117835542179810942007-11-12T10:04:00.000-06:002007-11-12T10:55:53.186-06:00

In anticipation of the Fall 2008 SAET symposium, I’ve been working on a paper regarding Calvin’s doctrine of justification, specifically the extent to which he incorporates Christ’s resurrection into his soteriology. My working thesis is that Calvin does not assign the resurrection any real instrumentality in his doctrine of justification, focusing exclusively on the cross as the primary means of

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-12005816406370451982007-11-05T12:26:00.000-06:002007-11-05T18:22:45.410-06:00

In my lecture I argued both realist and anti-realist paradigms have potential to turn totalitarian. The strongest objection raised against choosing one over the other came during the Q&A time: there are so many different conceptions of truth even within a realist framework, that functionally it seems to make little difference whether we adopt a realist or anti-realist metaphysic. For all

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-89379515432818703002007-11-05T10:45:00.000-06:002007-11-19T12:42:44.688-06:00

Grenz’s book, Renewing the Center is in much the same vein as his co-authored work with John Franke. In both books, the authors—as much as I’ve read thus far—don’t come right out and deny metaphysical realism. But both books are sprinkled with phrases such as “the demise of realism,” and clearly associate realism with a debunked Enlightenment metaphysic. With such statements, do Franke and Grenz

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-15234725116010499532007-10-28T15:54:00.000-05:002007-10-28T16:34:18.817-05:00

Yesterday I gave a presentation at the Chicago gathering of the MENSA. What a great group of people and what a great time. The topic I choose this year was “Morality—Is it Relative or Absolute?” I spoke for forty-five minutes, and then followed up the lecture with an extended time of Q&A. The talk was an attempt to lay out the moral systems of realism and anti-realism, respectively. It was easy

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-28085282846028026392007-10-24T14:50:00.000-05:002007-10-24T18:30:56.512-05:00

Twice fooled, Oh Sancho Panza!You were not who I imagined you to be.As fictitious as the windmills that your master chased. Yet fooled again was I, for the man behind the maskWas more than I imagined. Who could have known—executive pastor by day, Yet philosopher by night?I, like Phillip, have been with you but did not know you.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-90195627831523393242007-10-22T16:42:00.000-05:002007-10-23T18:06:21.862-05:00

At the end of the day, the debates concerning theological method are not about foundationalism verse postfoundationalism, but about realism verse anti-realism. Does reality exist independent of our own construal of it, as realism insists? Or is it, in the end, merely the product of our own thought? And if we reject metaphysical realism, what does this mean for evangelical theology? Franke and

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-80586928685641841932007-10-22T16:27:00.000-05:002007-11-19T12:42:44.689-06:00

John Franke and the late Stanley Grenz are leading evangelical voices for a postfoundational theological method. In the first few chapters of their book they give an overview of the epistemological landscape and then lay out their proposal for doing theology in our postmodern matrix. It’s clear that Franke and Grenz side with postmodernity regarding the demise of foundationalism. They do not,

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-46515762662957542022007-10-08T00:34:00.000-05:002007-10-08T00:45:27.750-05:00

Notes from Epistemology at the Core of Postmodernism: Rorty, Foucault, and the Gospel, by Hinkson and Ganssle. Richard Rorty rejects the correspondence theory of truth, arguing instead for pragmatism. For Rorty, the search for truth is not about a search for “the world as it actually is.” Truth is socially constructed and, in some measure, a product of wish fulfillment. Rorty even goes so

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-4894737199362183822007-10-06T08:56:00.000-05:002007-10-06T09:02:20.144-05:00

“How can you be sure?” he asked.The old man leaned close. He began to speak and then stopped. Finally he spoke in a reverent tone. “Because. . . Because I’ve met him,” he said.There was long pause.“Met who?” Matthew asked finally, afraid of the answer.“Him. He’s alive you, know. That’s what the Church has always taught. Do you think Christians only believe because we’ve been told to do so? I do

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-19964535269310308442007-10-05T11:21:00.001-05:002007-10-05T11:21:58.905-05:00

I’m looking for the top three scholarly books that deal with Duns Scotus specifically, and the scholastic(?) idea of the “two powers” of God generally. Any recommendations?

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-64281747070115297412007-10-05T11:00:00.000-05:002007-10-08T09:56:57.516-05:00

I recently read The Glory of the Atonement (edited by Hill and James). Here are few scattered thoughts.The book is split into three basic parts. Part One consists of exegetical work on various passages related to the theme of atonement. I didn’t find this section particularly compelling. It wasn’t that I disagreed with the conclusions, as much as it wasn’t always clear what the conclusions

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-10236546085732626532007-09-10T09:12:00.000-05:002007-09-11T08:24:52.694-05:00

In my observation, the conversion of practicing Catholics from Catholicism to evangelicalism is usually precipitated by an existential crisis--the Catholic Christian senses he really doesn't know God after all, and is seeking a conversion experience (i.e., a "born again" experience) not available in the Catholic church. In contrast, when evangelicals convert to Catholicism, the conversion is

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-38319668938800638122007-09-09T22:54:00.001-05:002007-09-10T11:03:46.944-05:00

It is well observed how many countless former Catholics (some lapsed, some devout) are now in evangelical churches. So many of these converts, rather than finding Christ in the liturgy and sacraments of the Catholic Church, found themselves still in need of Christ. They intuitively knew they had not yet connected with God—had not yet been born again (in spite of their baptism)—and they sought an

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-71079327065633813852007-09-07T09:47:00.000-05:002007-09-09T23:19:29.847-05:00

As far as I can tell, Dunn is correct that the primary issue in Romans and Galatians is the Jewish boundary markers of circumcision and the kosher laws. (I've long thought this--even before I knew there was a New Perspective.) Good deeds enter into the discussion, but don’t seem to be the primary flash point for Paul’s letters. But Dunn comes up short, in my mind, when he tries to make Paul’s

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-82126606660098854292007-08-23T10:06:00.000-05:002007-08-23T10:53:48.020-05:00

I just finished watching Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Fascinating. I'm not a regular to the origins debates, so I can't speak as one particularly knowledgeable in the field, but I found the video excellent in both production and logic. The scientists in the video, many of whom began their careers as committed Darwinians, argue for "irreducible complexity"--the idea that certain things are so

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-33493518132261785732007-08-17T10:54:00.000-05:002007-08-17T11:23:36.485-05:00

One of the more significant problems I find with the NP is its frequent marginalization of Paul’s conversion theology. Many advocates of the NP tend to speak of Paul’s “call” rather than his “conversion.” From this perspective, Paul was not turning from a legalistic Jewish religious system to a grace based Christian paradigm. Rather, the Judaism of Paul’s day was already a faith-based system that

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-14663738950608317272007-08-15T10:35:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.961-05:00

Volume 2—The Paradoxes of Paul went down quite a bit better than volume 1. The book is wide ranging and generally a good read. An observations regarding the topic:Many traditional interpreters of Paul view the merit language of Second Temple literature as proof-positive of its pervasive tendency toward legalism and works-righteousness. Sanders and those who follow his covenental nomism have tried

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-60580548519811652392007-07-27T11:08:00.000-05:002007-12-26T08:51:48.546-06:00

Over the past few years a number of us have been working on the formation of a theological society that specifically focuses on the intersection of theology and praxis. The consummation of this effort is The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology (SAET). The SAET is a network of evangelical pastors committed to producing biblical and theological scholarship for the renewal of the local

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-65999540693921568642007-07-11T16:08:00.000-05:002007-07-11T16:17:41.011-05:00

My brother has written an essay on the challenges of missional ministry in a suburban context (published on Alleon.org). His basic thesis is that suburban living--given its individualism, fast pace, material comforts, and relative safety--makes it a difficult context in which to advance the Kingdom of God. Those of you who minister (or live) in the suburbs will want to give it a read.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-77062434754799547442007-06-10T12:03:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.962-05:00

I have three observations to make regarding Carson’s, et al’s, Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1—The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.The first is that I don’t enjoy reading, or reading about, Second Temple literature. If being a Pauline NT scholar means delving into the labyrinth that is Second Temple literature, then I’m out. I’ll stick with historical theology, thank you very

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-17709131606934828592007-05-27T12:30:00.000-05:002007-05-27T13:32:49.937-05:00

In the introduction to the Spring issue of Trinity Journal, editor Robert Yarbrough writes about my article,The last two articles take up matters of daily and growing dispute in various quarters of the church today. . . .Given the centrality of missions to many Trinity Journal readers, [Hamilton’s essay should] be digested carefully. The same holds for Gerald Hiestand’s close reading of a

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-17794528969146691922007-05-13T12:30:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.962-05:00

What Gathercole tentatively concludes below, Paul Rainbow argues for at book length. Rainbow's book is well written and worth reading, but in many respects it seems too broad in its approach. It's part systematic theology, part biblical theology, part exegesis, and part historical theology. It probably needs to be about twice as long in order to cover so much ground. Regardless, I think Rainbow

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-69767222344077385282007-05-05T12:50:00.001-05:002007-05-05T15:57:53.224-05:00

Sheldon Vanauken's book, A Severe Mercy, is a profound true story of love and loss. Vanauken and his wife were personal friends of C. S. Lewis, and the influence is noticeable throughout the book. The book has virtually nothing to do with social justice, except what is quoted below, but I found Vanauken's comments interesting. He writes, I was one of those caught up in the mood and action of the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-34156036253588783682007-04-21T14:50:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.957-05:00

As noted in the previous post, Gathercole seems uncertain about how to handle Paul’s notion of final vindication. At the close of his book, he suggests a tentative resolution, In the context of the discussion of Romans 4:1-5, in particular, we noted a tension in Paul’s discussion between the initial justification of the ungodly . . . and the final vindication on the basis of works discussed

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-75101269465013355172007-04-21T14:43:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.963-05:00

I just finished reading Simon Gathercole’s Where is Boasting. Having read four major works on the New Perspective, plus numerous articles, I’m by no means an expert on second temple literature. (I’m not really an expert on anything.) All the same, here’s my take on things thus far. The New Perspective stumbles when it tries to insist that second temple literature does not recognize a strong

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-53055667803264292472007-04-16T21:22:00.000-05:002007-04-16T21:25:08.262-05:00

“Then what is to become of us?” Matthew asked. “What is to become of me, and what is to become of you, are two different questions," said the old man. "I too am caught between two worlds, but in a way that you are not. The world to come has been planted in my soul. Even now its seed is ready to burst forth with new life. My mortal life is all but spent, but soon I will lay this body down, and the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-62354159268642905262007-04-16T14:58:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.959-05:00

My boss gave mea copy of William Zinsser’s On Writing Well. Since I’ve spent the past year reading almost nothing but academic tomes, Zinsser’s book was like throwing open the windows of a boarded house and letting in a rush of fresh air. Zinsser has a lot of good things to say, but two in particular stand out. First, get rid of the clutter. If it can be said with ten words, don’t use fifteen. If

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-80156102366500708772007-04-07T17:29:00.000-05:002007-04-07T17:43:49.227-05:00

The man laughed lightly, and almost, Matthew thought, with a touch of condescension. But he couldn’t be sure. “Because it would mean that all of the fairy tales are true,” he said. “Noah’s big boat and all the animals, fire from heaven, prophets getting swallowed by fish. The empty tomb. You’re not one of those kind are you?” Matthew shifted uncomfortably at the man’s question. That he had seen

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-57437056925618787362007-03-31T14:18:00.000-05:002007-04-04T09:16:48.490-05:00

What I attempted to do here, Peter Leithart has apparently done here (Spring '07). For a good summary of Leithart’s article, see the Pontificator. The point that Leithart makes is that justification includes both “verdict” and “deliverance.” It includes both God’s “declaration that we are just,” as well as God’s “vindication of us as just individuals.” Leithart writes, Paul’s declaration that

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-28194931363592636782007-03-31T11:04:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.958-05:00

I just finished reading N. T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. I’ve read a number of Wright’s articles (and listened to a number of his lectures), but this is the first book length project I’ve read by him. One of Wright’s major premises in the book is that Paul’s soteriology is grounded squarely in a Jewish covenantal framework. Paul sees the death and

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-29761838306295564352007-03-12T16:37:00.000-05:002007-09-09T23:16:36.802-05:00

Following up from Part 1.Westerholm writes, “to be dikaiosified is, in effect, to be given the treatment appropriate to one who is dikaios; in a legal context it means to be declared innocent of wrongdoing, or acquitted" (Perspectives on Paul, 272-73). Westerholm’s definition here includes two basic components: a declarative component (i.e., what is said about the defendant) and an executive

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-20365019378239383062007-03-12T13:56:00.000-05:002007-09-09T23:16:18.541-05:00

The meaning of dikaioo (to justify) and its cognates has been an issue of long standing debate between Catholics and Protestants. Both Calvin and Luther (though perhaps more so Calvin) give dikaioo a decidedly judicial, declarative turn. For Calvin, the Pauline conception of justification is limited to God’s judicial declaration that the one believing in Christ is now righteous/innocent regarding

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-17925659399060314272007-02-25T22:02:00.001-06:002007-02-25T22:02:57.234-06:00

“Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God . . .” 2 Timothy 6:17“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. . . ” Matthew 28:19-20Over the last few years I’ve become profoundly

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-67303542767579289822007-02-07T21:42:00.000-06:002007-10-08T09:51:20.671-05:00

Augustine’s doctrine of justification is concerned about ontological change. The Reformation construal of justification however, is concerned more about relational change—i.e., what is my status, or relation, to God. I’ve always suspected that the shift from ontology to status was not strictly a product of the Reformation, but rather had its origins in the via moderna. I had never quite chased

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-29098380403895231862007-01-28T15:10:00.000-06:002007-01-28T15:27:42.187-06:00

David Wright suggests that Augustine views the initial event of justification as consisting primarily in the forgiveness of sins, the pardoning of guilt ("Justification in Augustine" in Justification in Perspective, ed. Bruce McCormack, 60). While Wright is correct that Augustine links the remission of sins to justification so as to make them synonymous, Wright fails to consider that for

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-10218687164392329992007-01-11T20:02:00.000-06:002007-01-11T20:11:07.829-06:00

Al Kimel (a.k.a the Pontificator) has responded to my review of his treatment of Augustine and justification. Those who followed the intial exchange and are interested in Al's response can read it here.Also, congrats to Al on his silver medal!

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-86018338137991902042007-01-03T21:31:00.000-06:002007-01-08T13:20:20.316-06:00

Sanders writes, “Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in,’ but they do not earn salvation” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 543). Sander's statement above sounds catholic. I've even used it--ignorant of Sanders--to describe Augustine's soteriology. But does the New Perspective construal of grace within Palestinian Judaism even qualify as

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1167429526753159092006-12-29T15:52:00.000-06:002008-05-18T21:39:51.646-05:00

Westerholm groups the competing voices in Pauline studies into two broad categories: those who view Paul as "Lutheran," and those who don't. For Westerholm, "Lutheran" readings of Paul understand Paul to be arguing against a Jewish proto-pelagianism. Thus, the Pauline formula of “justification by grace through faith” speaks to how a sinner can find a gracious God and merit eternal life. "Non

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1166752349005507942006-12-21T19:42:00.000-06:002006-12-21T19:59:46.146-06:00

Doug Sweeney, resident Edwards scholar at TEDS comments about the legacy of Jonathan Edwards. "Edwards teaches us that theology can and should be done primarily in the church, for the promotion of Christian wisdom among God’s people. In Edwards’s day, America did not yet have any modern, post-baccalaureate seminaries. Pastors were our nation’s most important theologians, and parishioners

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1165982336060662322006-12-12T21:33:00.001-06:002008-09-22T12:33:45.950-05:00

In this, the second half of my review of Al Kimel’s post on justification, I need to break away briefly to dicuss Al's portrayal of Protestant theology. I will return to his treatment of Augustine in my next post. For the first half of my review, see here. I am not satisfied with Al’s portrayal of the Protestant/evangelical position on justification and sanctification. Al uses the writing of

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1165615297315876802006-12-08T16:01:00.000-06:002006-12-12T13:37:16.633-06:00

In my estimation, marginalization and oppression can ultimately be traced to a combination of sin and raw physical power. White Europeans oppressed Native Americans both because they wanted to, and because they could (they had greater physical superiority through weaponry and numbers). We in the United States enslaved Africans for the same reason. It is latent within the fallen psyche for the

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1165247772344284072006-12-04T09:54:00.000-06:002007-09-09T23:17:37.997-05:00

Al Kimel at Pontifications solicited my thoughts on this article. Al’s blog has become one of my favorite places to visit, and while we don’t agree on everything, I usually come away enriched. The post in question discusses the Catholic teaching on justification, and uses Augustine as representative of the Catholic position. I won’t attempt to summarize the article beyond stating that Al (himself

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1165169796559630772006-12-03T12:15:00.000-06:002006-12-03T12:16:36.590-06:00

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1164927847959797312006-11-30T17:00:00.000-06:002007-03-31T13:35:42.292-05:00

N. T. Wright on the necessity of combining theological formation and pastoral ministry."When I was at seminary in my early twenties having graduated I remember talking to one of my advisors about my desire to do both pastoral work and scholarship and the advisor saying very firmly ‘well, you’re going to have to choose which you want.’ And I thought then and think now thirty-five years later that

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1164377630352974542006-11-24T08:09:00.000-06:002006-11-25T15:36:44.283-06:00

I am currently reading Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics. The book provides an overview of the ongoing debate regarding the so called “New Perspective.” Broadly speaking, the no longer new “New Perspective” argues that Paul’s justification language was not concerned with the question of how the sinner can find a gracious God (a later

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1163907031226286372006-11-18T21:28:00.000-06:002006-11-18T21:31:37.846-06:00

Theologian and Pastor Peter Leithart on critical biblical scholarship:"One of the most annoying things about critical biblical scholarship is the way that every discussion has to contribute to questions of composition, authorship, historical setting, etc. Harrington gives a very intriguing paper on holiness in Ezra-Nehemiah, but the whole thing is part of a "larger" argument about the common

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1162498151827034242006-11-02T14:01:00.001-06:002008-05-18T21:50:47.667-05:00

Al Kimel over at Pontifications has posted a short article on Augustine and monergism (monergism being the idea that God works alone in respect to an individual’s salvation). The article is written by a Dr. Phillip Cary who argues that Augustine maintains monergism in relation to faith, but is a synergist in relation to perseverance (synergism meaning that both the human will and the divine will

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1162096715684231612006-10-28T23:38:00.000-05:002006-10-29T22:00:29.820-06:00

I gave a lecture yesterday for the Chicago chapter of MENSA entitled, "The Origins of Moral Evil in World Religions: A Comparative Study." I wasn't sure what to expect, but I ended up having about 40-50 people attend the session. (The competing lecture was entitled "Aura Cleansing and Planetary Healing" and covered "intuitive electronic energy transfer channels," among other things.) The basic

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1160409023834452422006-10-09T10:45:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:07:43.103-05:00

Scot McKnight is reviewing Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology. Though I haven't read the book, I've been following along in Scot's review. Here's a thought or two. Olson writes,If God is the all-determining reality and creatures have no incompatibilist (libertarian) freedom, then where did that first evil motive or intent come from? If the Calvinist says from God, which is logically consistent

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1159646003394123472006-09-30T14:24:00.000-05:002008-04-26T14:42:44.936-05:00

I recently read a short article by N. T. Wright that details (at least in brief) his understanding of how the Scriptures function as an authority in the life of the Church. Though Wright critiques many different traditions, the evangelical tradition—of which he seems to count himself a part—receives his most attention. Not unfairly, he accuses evangelicals of too quickly using the Bible as a mere

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1159218530350386452006-09-25T16:02:00.000-05:002006-09-25T16:18:33.746-05:00

The ground on either side began to break apart and slide slowly, horribly, toward the abyss. The earth shook again and a large fissure opened ahead and to the left. Rocks and earth, torn loose by the wind and the earthquake tumbled past them, plummeting over the edge into the gaping blackness. The storm above them roared in fury. The young man was on his hands and knees screaming, his eyes wide

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1158007618721054912006-09-11T15:25:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:03:37.959-05:00

I am about half way through Garrigou-Lagrange's book Predestination, which argues for a Thomistic understanding of the doctrine. Garrigou-Lagrange was prolific Catholic theologian who wrote extensively during the last century. The first half provides a historical summary of the doctrine of predestination (not unlike McGrath's treatment of justification in Iustitia Dei). The second half promises

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1156093095013281072006-08-20T10:25:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:39:51.647-05:00

I just finished Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Here are a few of my impressions, some positive, some negative. First, though I am in basic agreement with Luther’s conclusion (even if not his semantics) I did not find his argument compelling. Though he does a fine job of dismantling Erasmus’s outright Pelagian/semi-Pelagian tendencies, Luther’s arguments do not address a more congruist/Arminian

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1154979703462875242006-08-07T14:40:00.000-05:002006-08-13T16:03:52.860-05:00

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1154047358224295142006-07-27T19:31:00.000-05:002006-07-28T07:19:10.076-05:00

Well, as interesting as my double imputation posts can be, I thought it appropriate to honor my second son's first birthday. As you can see, he is quite the looker (takes after his mother). We've got it all here: Nathan happy, Nathan looking at the sky, Nathan as a suave football lineman, Nathan as a fearless kung-fu fighter (of course he has a way to go before he can compete with this kid), and

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1152554474718031392006-07-10T12:54:00.000-05:002006-07-13T11:35:37.593-05:00

Due to a link regarding my Augustine posts by the Pontificator, both Mike (Catholic) and Perry (Orthodox) have jumped into the discussion regarding the nature of freewill, turning the discussion away from Edwards and Luther and toward Augustine. Fine with me. The previous thread got a bit heavy, so I want to take up the discussion here in the form of a post. A couple of preliminary thoughts:1)

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1152150691782133172006-07-05T20:40:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:39:51.648-05:00

Following up from my last post . . . both Edwards and Luther reject libertarian freedom, and both Edwards and Luther affirm compatibilistic freedom. They just use different terms to say the same thing. But why?Luther arrives at his conclusion in light of Catholic scholasticism, which is arguably semi-Pelagian. Consequently, he is very concerned to demolish the sense of self-sufficiency that came

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1151956772498306242006-07-03T14:55:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:39:51.649-05:00

I have been told that Luther and Edwards—though both finding continuity with the Augustinian tradition—differed slightly on the subject of freewill and grace. On the surface this seems true. Edwards maintains the existence of freewill in his treatise The Freedom of the Will (unsurpassed in my mind). Luther on the other hand, denies the existence of freewill altogether in his of the Will.

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1151880399387624002006-07-02T16:49:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:39:51.650-05:00

Having finished with Braaten, I am now reading Luther’s Bondage of the Will. For those that don’t know, Luther’s Bondage of the Will was written against Erasmus’ Freedom of the Will. In the historical/theological introduction, editors Packer and Johnston do a fine job of establishing the context for Luther’s work. Erasmus, arguably the finest scholar of his day, was a humanist who had

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1150684374861783602006-06-18T21:28:00.000-05:002007-10-08T10:11:43.691-05:00

In the beginning God created the world in love and gave it to Mankind, the highest of his creatures. But Satan, a cunning evil being, coveted the world for himself and purposed to rule it as his own. He convinced the first man and woman, who were yet immortal, to seek after the knowledge of evil—hitherto unknown to them. In their God-given freedom, mankind fell into the trap of Satan, rejecting

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10070371.post-1150059438410693202006-06-11T15:12:00.000-05:002008-05-18T21:39:51.651-05:00

Having finished with the Finns, I’ve moved on to Carl Braaten’s Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls. Braaten is an unapologetically Lutheran theologian who argues for an unapologetically Lutheran view of justification. Of course, the Lutheran articulation of justification is up for grabs and that’s what this book is about. If I’m not a Luther scholar (and I’m not), I am

Geraldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14013963385157671557noreply@blogger.com5