Think Wink.

In Genesis 1, Elohim gave humanity in Adam the responsibility to subdue the earth and to take dominion over it, filling it with the image of Elohim through procreation. Humanity’s great position in the universe is to reign as Yahweh’s vice-regents and to represent his presence upon the earth. However as we look around the world around us, we can clearly see something happened because the image of God, humanity, is busy rejecting the very God who created them to rule and have dominion over the earth. The created order is at war with the imago dei with violent storms and earthquakes and the animal kingdom fixed an a circle that is deadly to humans. Humanity itself is so concerned with itself that it will kill itself. The question is, what happened?

Genesis 3 is where the answer to this question lies. It is here that humanity will find out why the world around them is so broken, ravaged by disease and death. Read more

Imagio Dei

An Informative Review

“In his image” and Aramaisms

Michael Bird has collected together Michael Horton’s helpful critique of N.T. Wright and his book Justification. I believe his critique of Wright and this book has been the most helpful because he doesn’t just point to previous works that Wright has written but also to what is in this book that is helpful to understanding Paul and Justification. Most reviews of Wright will just point to previous works, like Wright’s defense of the resurrection of Messiah, and how helpful they are but not in the study of justification and Pauline theology. While I’m not entirely sold on covenant theology I enjoyed reading a response to Wright from a classical covenantal framework. Here are the links to the review.

Introduction
Justification and God’s single plan: The Covenant and History
Justification and God’s people
Justification and God’s Righteousness: Imputation and Future Hope
Justification and God’s Righteousness: Covenant and Eschatology
Justification, Faith, and Faithfulness: The Works of the Law
Justification and the Testimony of Paul
Justification and Romans
“Works of the Law” – Soteriology and Ecclesiology
Conclusion

Two Good Links

More Thoughts On N. T. Wright’s Justification

Reviews of N. T. Wright’s New Book

I have been thinking about the imagio dei in Genesis 1:26-28 and how it relates to humankind and to Messiah. More and more I am having to agree with my theology prof. that part of what we see in the four canonical Gospels is the Image of God par excellence fulfilling the command that the original Image of God failed to do. The following is my thoughts on Genesis 1:26-28 and what I am believing it to mean in when Elohim created the human race. Read more

Thinking Through the Death of the Amoral

Imago Dei Part 2

One of the things that has always bothered me about debates on the meaning of the cross is why a reader of sacred Scripture must only hold Christus Victor or penal substitution or moral-influence. It seems like I am supposed to be only one. When I read the text of Scripture, I see all three present. But when I read Greg Boyd I’m told there is only one. When I read a Conservative Evangelical, I’m only to see one theory. Why is that? I think NT Wright, and my Theology prof, are correct when they insist that all three major theories are present in the Biblical text. We should be more inclined to try to read the cross as the climax of the great meta-narrative known in Scripture rather than just an event that produces certain doctrines when meditated upon. Here are some thoughts by NT Wright, who isn’t entirely evil by the way.

Looking Towards Easter

Some Things of Note

Golgotha

Over the summer I took a look at the relationship of Isaiah 53 to the justification passages found in Acts and Paul. What I found was overwhelming in that Paul and Acts sees Jesus as the servant who becomes the Righteous One through his suffering and resurrection and thus justifies many. The other night I noticed a connection between 1 John 2:1-2 and Isaiah 53:11. In the following I just want to look at that connection. Read more

Some Thoughts From Isaiah 40-55

The Nature of Prophecy

A Key Term

As I have blogged through Greg Boyd’s objections to the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9, I have noticed a common theme in all three that I have responded to, namely Boyd does not start at Romans 9:1 and work through to the end of the chapter. In doing so key exegetical questions are not being asked and answered. Furthermore, the arguments are contradicting themselves and each other. It appears that Boyd is more concerned with defeating a theology that he has rejected than presenting an honest counter-exegesis. I say that because it is something I notice about non-Calvinistic responses to Romans 9. They are not consistent with themselves nor with the rest of Paul’s letter. Some (Boyd hasn’t to my knowledge) say that Neo-Calvinists fail to take into account context when exegeting passages. I have not doubt that Neo-Calvinists make that mistake. But what I am noticing in this response by Boyd is that Boyd is guilty of this failure to take into account the preceding context that leads Paul to his discussion found in Romans 9. Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

I have been reviewing Greg Boyd’s arguments against the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9, namely that election is to eternal destiny. In argument #1 Boyd argued that this reading minimizes the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, that is God’s love. However, this is very dangerous in that it appears to minimize the fact that Jesus reveals God’s righteousness, holiness, and justice as well as God’s love, mercy, and grace. Calvinism has always argued that all is shown equally in Jesus. Piper will try to reduce all of these attributes (and there are many more to be sure) down to God’s honor and beauty, namely God’s glory and name. But he definitely goes too far in how he does so. Calvinists have not minimized the revelation of God, for as Paul says in Romans 9:22 God desires to show his wrath and make his power known and thus patiently endures vessels of wrath prepared for destruction along with displaying his riches of glory prepared for those vessels of glory. Calvinism has always sought that balance. Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

Here is an article by Dan Wallace that interacts with NT Wright’s assertions in defending the NPP in his book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (I might have mixed up the subtitle). There is nothing new here from one who favors a more Protestant view of justification. But it still is a good read. I did want to reproduce one paragraph citation that Wallace quotes from Gerald Bray,

Bishop Wright’s views on Paul, Israel and justification have been known for many years, and have often been debated in scholarly circles. As this latest book makes clear, those views have not been widely accepted—indeed, they have been openly opposed by almost everyone engaged in the field, from the most conservative Evangelicals to the most ardent liberals. In response to this, Bishop Wright has gone on digging his heels in ever deeper, and has defended his corner with great determination, despite the fact that his disciples seem to come mainly from the ranks of those who have not studied the subject in any depth. Many of them are students who are bored with traditional ideas that their elders expect them to absorb in parrot fashion, and who are therefore responsive to an alternative voice, like Bishop Wright’s, whose powerful rhetoric has carried them along and helped them across whatever hurdles may be thrown up by the facts. Unfortunately, most of these people have not had the time or the inclination to examine the issues involved with the seriousness that they deserve, and so they are swept up in a heady atmosphere of protest that can easily lead them to abandon their earlier moorings in the gospel.

Another quote from Wallace himself that I have noticed from every review I have seen on this book,

We will come back to his treatment of 1:17 shortly, but we need to make an important point about Wright’s rhetoric here. This line is characteristic of what one will see throughout the book: Wright speaks in absolute terms. To say that anyone who doesn’t see things his way has lost his moorings and has, in fact, “allowed the little ship of exegesis to be tossed to and fro with every wind of philosophy…,” is akin to saying that if anyone disagrees with Wright that God’s righteousness = God’s faithfulness he couldn’t exegete his way out of a paper bag. This kind of language is both unbecoming of the bishop of Durham and stifles genuine dialogue because it belittles his exegetical opponents. ‘My way or the highway’ may work in monarchical episcopacy, but it has no place in exegetical debate. The worst feature of this important work is Wright’s hubris. He takes such an incredibly dogmatic stance on almost every aspect of his understanding of Paul’s view of justification, and condemns his exegetical adversaries with such sweeping statements, that one gets the impression that we are seeing the reincarnation of Athanasius: Wright contra mundum. And all too often, that hubris is converted into rhetoric that has very little substance. Rather than reading a reasoned, sustained argument for a New Perspective view of Paul on justification, I felt as though Wright assumed that the debate was over and that he simply wanted to browbeat people into submission. Strip away the rhetoric and the book would have been half the length. Of course, it wouldn’t have been nearly as entertaining to read, but the argument would have been clearer and, I think, more forceful. But I digress; enough for now on tone.

A very good read if one is interested in this topic.

This Sux

NET Second Edition and Romans 2:27

Michael Horton’s Review of N.T. Wright

Continuing my review of Greg Boyd’s response to the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9. In argument #1 Boyd counters by saying that the Reformed picture of God, derived by its interpretation of Romans 9, does not fully reveal the character of God that Christ reveals. God is love and Christ came to reveal that love. However, this is a dangerous approach because it takes one sentence used twice in one context of one chapter of one epistle in the NT and subsumes the entire character of God into one attribute. In effect Boyd is minimizing God’s holiness and justice and honor in order to maximize the love of God. But Jesus does not do that. The cross and resurrection do more than show the love of God, they demonstrate the holiness and justice and righteousness of God. Boyd has actually minimized what of God’s character Christ has revealed. Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Determinism and Author of Sin

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5