what-does-it-mean-to-be-good-may-june-2006

PROPITIATION ❘ HOW GOOD IS GOOD? ❘ DA VINCI CODE RESOURCES

MODERN REFORMATION What does it mean to be good?

VOLUME

1 5 , NUMBER 3 , M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 , $ 6 . 0 0

MODERN REFORMATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS may/june

2006

|

volume

15

n u m be r

2

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Managing Editor Eric Landry Assistant Editor Brenda Jung Department Editors Diana Frazier, Reviews William Edgar, Preaching from the Choir Starr Meade, Family Matters Staff | Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Ben Conarroe, Proofreader Contributing Scholars David Anderson Charles P. Arand S. M. Baugh Gerald Bray Jerry Bridges D. A. Carson R. Scott Clark Marva Dawn Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan Richard Gaffin W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Donald A. Hagner John D. Hannah Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm C. E. Hill Hywel R. Jones Ken Jones Peter Jones Richard Lints Korey Maas Mickey L. Mattox Donald G. Matzat John Muether John Nunes John Piper J. A. O. Preus Paul Raabe Kim Riddlebarger Rod Rosenbladt Philip G. Ryken R. C. Sproul Rachel Stahle A. Craig Troxel David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith William Willimon Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2006 All rights reserved.

For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1725 Bear Valley Pkwy.

Escondido, CA 92027 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org

What Does It Mean to be Good?

3

Sin and Salvation: A Comparison of Major World Religions

4

Here Comes the Judge In a culture of entertainment that has turned courtrooms, trials, and lawyers into television entertainment, is it possible even to conceive of objective guilt pronounced by an objective judge on the basis of objective evidence of the transgression of objective laws?

by Korey Maas Plus: Appearing Before God Without a Lawyer

14 Consequences How does the reality of hell square with a loving and holy God? It is easier to conceive of what the author calls a “domesticated” god who will not really punish people’s sins with consequences. But, in Romans 3, the good news is announced: Christ’s blood propitiated God’s wrath.

by Robert A. Peterson Plus: What Does It Mean to be Good?

19 Resources for The Da Vinci Code Movie 23 Good News for Bad People How did God uphold justice and righteousness without compromising his mercy and love? The author relates the concepts of God’s wrath and righteousness to the covenant and explains Romans 1-3 as a trial being prosecuted in a courtroom.

by Michael Horton Plus: How Do We Become Good?

28 By The Numbers

ISSN-1076-7169

S UBSCRIPTION I NFORMATION US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR

$29 $22 $35 $52 $59

2 YR $52 2 YR $63 2 YR $94 2 YR $107

COVER PHOTO BY ADAM MITCHINSON/PHOTONICA/GETTY ONE

Romans Road page 2 | Preaching from the Choir page 29 Interview page 31 | Reviews page 34 | Family Matters page 40

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

ROMANS ROAD i n

t hi s

is su e

Our Road Through Romans

Sin and Grace

January/February: Romans 1:1-17, The Romans Revolution Introduction and overview of a year spent exploring the transforming message of the Book of Romans.

T

March/April: Romans 1-2, Does God Believe in Atheists?

What role does general revelation play in our witness to nonChristians? How can we use natural law to establish a place in the public square with people of other faiths? Included in this issue is a handy apologetics chart detailing the differences between different schools of thought and answers to basic apologetics questions.

May/June: Romans 2-4, What Does It Mean to be Good?

Look around you: sin is redefined as weakness and grace is merely self-help power. No one wants to believe that all of us are under God’s righteous judgment. But along with the consequences of our sin is the promise of good news: the turning away of God’s wrath and a righteousness not of our own making.

July/August: Romans 5-8, The Peace that Starts the War God’s divine pronouncement that we are righteous in Christ is not the end of the story. It is the prelude to a much larger narrative of victory and defeat in our ongoing battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil. How do we live the Christian life in the midst of a war zone?

September/October: Romans 9-11, Has God Failed? Can God be trusted? His work in history—specifically in the nation of Israel—becomes an object lesson for how we relate to God and grapple with the mysteries of his divine will.

November/December: Romans 12-16, In View of God’s Mercies Truth must make a difference in our real lives. How does knowing and believing the message of Romans actually play itself out in our daily interactions with our family, neighbors, and church?

4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

he shocking message of Romans 4:5 is that God counts as righteous those who are unrighteous. He calls “godly” those who are ungodly. God justifies the wicked. But who are the wicked? The blue state Democrat?

The gay person? The abortionist or pornographer? The mind reels as we try to comprehend the radical nature of God’s good news message. Most Christians, however, are stunned to realize that they, too, are among the mass of sinful humanity who must be justified freely by God’s grace. For, though we may confess that we, too, at one time, were among the ungodly (especially if we have an exciting testimony!), we now function as if our own inherent righteousness, or sanctification, is what keeps us right in God’s eyes. Far too many Christians, even those in Reformation churches, have forgotten the dual reality that the German reformer Martin Luther articulated in his famous dictum that we are, at the same time, both justified and sinful, both sinner and saint.

As we continue our journey through Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, we come to a sobering and exhilarating section in which Paul begins his detailed description of the nature of our human problem and the divine solution. It might take some convincing to bring some of us to the conviction that we are subject to God’s judgment, so Lutheran theologian Korey Maas brings Paul’s application of the law to bear in his introductory piece to this issue. Presbyterian theologian Robert Peterson brings us one step further along by applying the consequences of our being under God’s judgment: wrath and hell. Peterson also shows in his article how the forgotten doctrine of propitiation must be reclaimed in order for there to be a definite solution to our plight. Reformed theologian and editor-in-chief Michael Horton wraps up this issue by moving from the law to the gospel: There really can be good news for bad people because God went to his own courtroom on our behalf and sat, as C.S. Lewis so famously put it, “in the dock” for us.

With the theatrical release of The Da Vinci Code, the editors have also compiled a list of resources relating to the best-selling book by Dan Brown. Use this list to find insights into the sorts of ideas your friends and neighbors will be grappling with this spring. You might want to begin with our interview of Peter Jones, co-author of the best-selling book, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts.

Each issue of Modern Reformation this year brings us further along through Romans. I trust that the progress we have made thus far has proven to be an encouragement to you in your Christian life. If you have benefited from the insights into God’s Word that you have gleaned in these pages, take a moment to send a gift subscription to someone who also needs to be challenged and comforted by a “Romans Revolution” in their own life. If you know of a graduate in your church or family, a gift subscription might be the ideal gift to encourage them in the next chapter of their lives. Use the enclosed postcard to take advantage of our special offer for graduates!

Eric Landry Managing Editor

Sin and Salvation: A Comparison of Major World Religions What does your friendly Baha’i neighbor believe about salvation? Are there any points of agreement between you and your Jewish postal worker about sin? The following chart will help you understand how some of the major world religions understand the issues in play in Romans 4, 5, and 6.

RELIGION

SIN

SALVATION

Judaism

It is assumed that, in general, people have the ability to follow the law of God. Grievous sins within Judaism is not anticipated. God disclosed his law to Moses on Mount Sinai. God’s revelation of his moral will is the foundation of Jewish belief and practice.

The covenant God made with his people at Sinai is permanent and irrevocable. However, the terms and conditions of this covenant have been elaborated by authorized rabbis and can be altered (within limits) over time, as the cultural conditions faced by successive generations of Jews change.

What happens to each person when God judges him or her after death is the consequence of how that person lived during life on earth. If the person was generally obedient to the Ten Commandments, that person will be in God’s favor. If the person was disobedient, there may be suffering due to just retribution by God. However, even an extremely evil person can come to repentance and afterward atone for sins by walking according to the law of God. Three main views about atoning for sin have emerged within Judaism since the Roman army destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem: • Atonement can be made by repenting of sins, praying, and doing good works. • The corporate sufferings of the Jewish people atone for the sins of every individual Jew. • The Jewish people are assured of happiness and peace in the next life just because they are Jews.

Islam

The doctrine of Original Sin is denied; human beings do not have sinful natures. People are sinless until they rebel against Allah. People should not behave according to their lower (animal) nature. Instead, they should use their free will to act in total submission to Allah.

One must believe the teachings of the Koran and obey Allah’s commands and do his will. Islam does not recognize any work by Allah for the benefit of delivering Muslims from their sins. Persons must atone for their own sins by sincere confession and good works. Allah will judge each person by the balance of good or evil that he or she has done. Yet, even the most pious Muslim is not guaranteed entrance into paradise; only the martyr can be assured of this. Additionally, Allah is under no compulsion to be merciful.

Baha’i

Human beings, by nature, are neither sinful nor evil.

Each person has been given the capacity by God for spiritual growth and progress. Evil, in fact, is seen as only the absence of good. Satan, understood in some religious traditions as an evil angelic being, does not exist, but rather is a personification of a human’s lower nature, which can destroy those who fail to gain harmony with their spiritual nature.

Salvation, a state of happiness, is realized by those who turn toward God and believe in the manifestation of God that appears in the age in which they live. Salvation does not save anyone from a sinful nature or acts of sin but instead frees humans from bondage to their lower nature. It is this lower nature that threatens the destruction of society. Only through God sending manifestations are people able to reach their true potential.

It is through the teachings of these historical manifestations that people evolve to a higher place of spirituality and unite with God.

Hinduism

Sin consists of two primary elements: (1) ignorance concerning reality and (2) the illusion that persons are real.

The persistent quandary in which human beings find themselves involves misapprehending the nature of the self and the cosmos. By recognizing that everything is one undifferentiated reality, including oneself, a person escapes from the otherwise endless cycle of reincarnation. Evil actions, especially violent ones, result in a person accumulating bad karma, which inhibits the person’s ability to break free from ignorance and illusion.

People who realize their identity with the Brahman obtain release from their ignorance and are no longer subject to the karmic laws that cause one’s soul to be reincarnated. Instead, they have attained enlightenment and provisional union with Brahman that will become final at death.

Spiritual paths that can assist a person in this quest include “the path of devotion” and “the path of knowledge.” In all cases, a person must act consistently with the dharma (the ways of Hindu spirituality).

Buddhism

In Buddhism, sin is not viewed primarily in ethical terms, but as ignorance of the true nature of reality.

Since all existence is one undifferentiated unity, evil and good are ultimately the same. Nonetheless, individuals are responsible to have a proper sense of virtue and decency, and acting in a vicious manner will inhibit one’s movement toward liberation. Rather than the absolute sense of right and wrong, good and evil found in some religions, Buddhist ethics seeks to avoid moral extremes which cause struggles and to avoid viewing the world as a reality that is independent from oneself. The Five Precepts are the manner of life that adherents are to follow, including commandments not to kill, steal, lie, or be unchaste, and to avoid alcohol and drugs.

Humans are presumed to be within a recurring cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. The body in which one is reincarnated is dictated by the karma from one’s previous life. Karma is the sum of a person’s actions in a previous life (or lives). Good karma assists one in receiving a body conducive to attaining enlightenment and liberation from the cycle of reincarnation, which bad karma can result in a person being reincarnated into a lower form of existence. Escape from the cycle of reincarnation can be achieved by taking the steps on the Eightfold Path: 1) Right views, belief in the Four Noble Truths and rejection of false views concerning one’s person and destiny; 2) Right resolve, ridding oneself of improper thoughts; 3) Right speech, speaking clearly and truthfully; 4) Right conduct, performing proper actions; 5) Right livelihood, living simply; 6) Right effort, working to achieve detachment from the world; 7) Right awareness, understanding the nature of oneself and reality; 8) Right concentration, putting aside all distractions and focusing one’s thoughts totally on enlightenment.

Taken from Charts of World Religions by H. WAYNE HOUSE. Copyright © 2006 by H. Wayne House. Used by permission of The Zondervan Corporation.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

W H AT D O E S I T M E A N T O B E G O O D ?

HERE COMES THE JUDGE P

erhaps I was simply too young to appreciate the absurdist humor of “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” the popular television comedy (1968–1973). I never quite understood why the laugh track kicked in whenever Sammy Davis, Jr. shuffled across the screen to the sing-song catchphrase “Here comes the judge.” I still don’t.

But the “Laugh-In” writers must have been on to something, because long after that show went off the air the judgeas-entertainer remains a pop-culture staple. The humor may no longer be explicit, but the entertainment value—as well as the absurdity—remains.

Maybe you’ve met Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, Judge Mills Lane, Judge Joe Brown, and Judge Hatchett. They’re all there in your TV Guide. Even the venerable Judge Wapner came out of retirement (again), no longer to host “People’s Court,” but to preside over “Animal Court.” Really. As Dave Barry so often says, I’m not making this up.

The entertainer-judge is now standard, as reliable a revenue generator as hospital dramas and celebrity chat shows.

And just as one’s view of an earthly father might color the picture of our heavenly father, it’s a fair guess that our idea of the heavenly judge might be influenced by our perception of earthly adjudicators. Do any of those present on our screens encourage us to take the law, the court, or the judicial office seriously? Consider one recent review: “Judge Wapner’s ‘Animal Court’ is as real as Miss Cleo’s tarot card readings are. It sounds pathetic, but this show is extremely funny and entertaining.”

BY 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

KOREY MAAS

H E R E

C O M E S

T H E

J U D G E

In such an environment, is it any longer possible to take seriously the law, the judge, or the judgments? Is it possible in an irony-soaked postmodern world even to conceive of such things as objective guilt pronounced by an objective judge on the basis of objective evidence of the transgression of objective laws? If not, then we—both the church and the world—are in a very sorry way. If not, then the program of the atheistic and nihilistic philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has come to fruition. That influential nineteenth-century thinker, who was not ashamed to describe himself as Antichrist, was quite up front about his own intentions: “[W]e immoralists are trying with all our strength to take the concept of guilt and the concept of punishment out of the world again.” Increasingly, it seems like he’s succeeded. Less than a hundred years after Nietzsche, for instance, the pop-music prophets of Jane’s Addiction could confidently sing, “Ain’t no wrong now, ain’t no right; only pleasure and pain.”

But is that really the case? Does contemporary man really believe that? And how do such modern and postmodern prophets compare to those of Holy Scripture and their pronouncements concerning the divine law, the ultimate judge, and his just judgments? The Apostle Paul is frighteningly clear when he announces that the divine law—whether inscribed on stone tablets or imprinted on men’s hearts—does not exist to bring us amusement.

Instead it “brings wrath” (Rom. 4:15). Isaiah is equally clear that God himself “is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver” (Isa. 33:22). And Ezekiel makes plain that the Lord’s judgments will not be influenced by bribery, blackmail, or even

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

wrongdoing, of sin. And sin is a capital offence in the court of the almighty judge; Christianity and Liberalism, “The fundamental fault of its wages are death (Rom. 6:23). the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an When the trumpets of heavenly court blow, that absolutely impossible task—she is busily engaged in and when it’s an angelic host singing “Here comes calling the righteous to repentance.” the judge!” you can, in the words of Rowan and Martin television ratings; but he will “judge you according to themselves, “bet your sweet bippy” that the laugh track your conduct and repay you for all your detestable won’t kick in. A hanging judge is not one to inspire practices” (Ezek. 7:3). laughs but to induce fear and respect. That, at least, was The biblical authors certainly have no concept of an the pointed conclusion of the second-century apologist adjudicator who exists for our entertainment; instead Theophilus of Antioch. After expounding upon God’s they present us with a holy and just judge who is to be holy and universal law, his terrible yet righteous wrath taken with absolute seriousness. And while we may not against those who transgress it, and the deserved eternal be surprised that the world refuses to take our Lord punishment of those condemned by it, he left his seriously, we should be dismayed when the church also audience with these sobering words: “You asked me to refuses. We should be scandalized when the Christ who show you my God—this is my God. I advise you to fear came into the world for judgment (John 9:39) is recast and trust him.” as an indulgent and nonjudgmental Mr. Nice Guy. We Salutary advice indeed. But to whom does it apply? need not even turn here to the usual suspects: syrupy Is it simply for “sinners,” for the blatantly immoral or the praise songs and self-affirming sermons. It is not quick-to-hand caricatures of evil such as Hitler, Stalin, uncommon in evangelical circles, for example, to hear and Mao? Not at all. To be sure, the apologist spoke in that the problem with the pre-Reformation church was a particular time and place, to a particular audience; but its portrayal of God as too stern and unyielding. As his words have universal relevance—because sin itself is evidence of this we are invariably pointed to the universal. This was precisely the point made by Calvin iconography of Jesus as pantokrator, the almighty judge when he noted that “the whole of the third chapter of who sits, unsmiling, atop a rainbow. But it was hardly Romans is nothing but a description of original sin.” And this image of God for which the reformers criticized the since original sin—sin inherited from our original medieval church. In fact, it was quite the opposite. God, parents—is nothing less than universal sin, he could according to men like Martin Luther and John Calvin, continue by saying that God “inveighs not against had not been proclaimed as too stern a judge by some particular men but against the whole race of Adam’s medieval theologians, but too soft a judge. He was one children.” That is the terrifying yet eminently logical who could be appeased and whose wrath could be nature of sin, a logic made clear by the orthodox averted by such things as pilgrimages, alms, and Lutheran father David Hollaz. “Everything follows the indulgences. He could, in short, be bought off. Against seeds of its own nature,” he wrote. “No black crow ever this idea of a judge who could be bribed with offerings produces a white dove, no ferocious lion a gentle lamb; from an arbitrary list of good deeds, the reformers and no man polluted with inborn sin ever begets a holy responded with Isaiah that “all our righteous acts are child.” like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). They insisted that we cannot But this pessimistic conclusion—that all men are deal with God on our terms; he deals with us on his. sinners who stand under God’s judgment—was hardly Contrary to much popular belief, the first evangelicals original with the reformers. Indeed, it would be difficult were not at all concerned to grind the rough edges off a to read the argument of Romans 3 and reach any other harsh medieval deity; they were concerned simply to conclusion. What’s more, Paul takes pains to assure his proclaim the Lord as he had revealed himself in readers that these thoughts are not original even with Scripture. And though we may sometimes forget it, him. He simply presents the evidence of God’s Old what they found there was not only a judge, but Testament revelation. He quotes from Ecclesiastes, someone more akin to that staple of old westerns—the “there is no one righteous, not even one,” and from the “hanging judge.” As the son of a Lutheran pastor, even Psalms, “there is no one who does good, not even one” the apostate Nietzsche understood this; and he wasn’t (Rom. 3:10, 12). entirely wrong when he described Christianity as “a Even more telling, Paul had prefaced his discussion in metaphysics of the hangman.” That, logically enough, is Romans 3 with the argument that universal human precisely why he wanted to banish guilt from men’s sinfulness is known even to those without a knowledge consciences. Guilt is produced by an awareness of of the Scriptures. In the previous chapter he had

J. Gresham Machen observed in his classic book

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

H E R E

declared that even those ignorant of God’s written word “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,” and that their consciences therefore accuse them (Rom. 2:15). And while he does not do so, Paul could have quoted pagan authorities just as readily as he did those of ancient Israel. He could have cited the Stoic philosopher Seneca, who admitted that “all vices exist in all men.” He might have called upon the testimony of the classical poet Horace, who wrote that “no one is born without faults.” Or he could have quoted the Roman statesman Cicero, who confessed that “as soon as we are born, we are immediately taken up with all depravity.” Had Paul lived in our own day, he might even have referenced Clint Eastwood’s memorable line in the Oscar-winning movie Unforgiven. Asked if the “bad guy” just shot dead really deserved to die, if he really had it coming, Eastwood’s cowboy character offers the deadpan reply, “We all got it comin’.”

If it’s true that we all got it comin’—and it certainly is—then the church has no business pretending it isn’t.

That pretense was what the reformers deemed so problematic in medieval theology. And what was prominent in the medieval church hasn’t at all disappeared in the modern, as the Princeton theologian J. Gresham Machen observed in his classic book Christianity and Liberalism. “The fundamental fault of the modern Church,” he argued, “is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task—she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance.” That is, too often the church shirks its responsibility to faithfully proclaim the law, to announce to all men without exception that they have transgressed the just laws of a just God and that they will one day stand in the court of that divine judge. That’s simply not the polite, esteembuilding thing to say. We are afraid to sound accusatory, but, as the reformers never tired of noting, “the law always accuses.” A God of acceptance is so much more appealing than a God of wrath, but, as Paul insisted, “the law brings wrath.” A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; and knowing only that the law accuses and condemns can tempt us to soft peddle or even sidestep its proclamation, naively hoping that the gospel will remain meaningful without it. We can be tempted to announce the good news of a Savior while at the same time assuring people that, really, they’re not so awfully bad as actually to need saving. Common sense tells us that this is absurd. Machen wryly reminds us, “Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.” It’s true, preaching serious law and serious judgment in the world of “Night Court,” “The People’s Court,” and “Animal Court” might also promise little success. But God will hardly be impressed with that sort of excuse from his church. We are called, as was Paul, to preach “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Faithful Christians will announce with the apostle that “by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men” (Rom.

C O M E S

T H E

J U D G E

5:18), that we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), and that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10). Faithful heirs of the Reformation will proclaim with Luther that, in Adam, “all men were made sinners and became subject to death and the devil,” and with Calvin that the sin of Adam “enkindled God’s fearful vengeance against the whole of mankind.”

It is news no one wants to hear; it is news that, by itself, will endear the preacher to none. And yet, even today, there remains faint evidence that Nietzsche’s program has not and cannot come to fruition. Clint Eastwood offers some small evidence that our age still gets it. Horace, Seneca, and Cicero offer some small evidence that anyone who seriously reflects upon man and his condition will get it. And the Apostle Paul offers inspired evidence that all men, whether they are willing to admit it or not, do in fact get it. None can deny that there are, woven into the universe itself, laws to be obeyed. None can deny that they have nevertheless broken those laws and therefore deserve judgment.

“These two facts,” wrote the Oxford apologist C. S. Lewis, “are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”

These facts are indeed the foundation, the beginning of true knowledge of ourselves, our world, and the God who stands as judge over both. They are, so to speak, the first word. But they are by no means the last word.

This also Lewis noted with the warning that the vaguely discernible god implied by one’s natural knowledge of the law “is not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology.” Even the revelation of the God of Scripture as a “hanging judge” remains only a partial revelation. And while it is unconscionable to downplay the proclamation of God’s judgment, it is an even more egregious error to preach only this. The American Lutheran theologian C. F. W. Walther was absolutely correct in his insistence that “God’s Word is not rightly divided when the law is preached to those who are already terrified because of their sins.”

The proclamation of the law, which reveals God’s wrath against sin, is meant to terrify. Those who recognize the existence of an objective judge who holds them accountable to his objective laws and finds them objectively guilty cannot escape terror. This is why that “first word” of condemnation is meant to be followed by the “last word” of justification. The bad news of the law is to be followed up with the good news of the gospel.

But we must be absolutely clear: The gospel is not the announcement that God will simply suspend judgment or commute the sinner’s due sentence. He does not, after a lengthy intoning of the account of our sin and deserved punishment, say from the bench: “Just kidding!” He remains a just judge and justice demands judgment; crime demands punishment.

And it is nothing less than this terrible yet just judgment—not in the least bit stilted or softened—that M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

The proclamation of the law, which reveals God’s wrath against sin, is meant to terrify. Those who recognize the existence of an objective judge who holds them accountable to his objective laws and finds them objectively guilty cannot escape terror. This is why that

probably the living, fullbellied laughter of joy and thanksgiving expressed by those who even now confess with St. Paul, “there is in store for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day” (2 Tim. 4:8). ■

“first word” of condemnation is meant to be followed by the “last word” of justification. The bad news of the law

Korey Maas is assistant professor of theology and is to be followed up with the good news of the gospel. church history at Concordia University (Irvine, California) we see where we would least expect it: poured out upon and co-author of Called to Believe, Teach, and Confess: An the Son of God himself. In the crucifixion of Jesus is Introduction to Doctrinal Theology (Wipf & Stock, 2005). revealed just how serious our Lord is about human sin and divine judgment, so serious that he would not spare even his own son, the sinless Christ who would Sources Cited nevertheless “be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21), who (in order of appearance) condescended to bear “our sins in his body” (1 Pet. In the preceding article, Prof. Maas has cited the 2:24), and have “laid upon him the iniquity of us all” following sources: Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the (Isa. 53:6). Here on Calvary is God himself, the judge Idols, in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann himself, “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed (Viking, 1968), p. 500; Theophilus of Antioch, To for our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5).

Autolycus, 1.14, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. A. We may have a hard time swallowing the fact that all Roberts and J. Donaldson (Eerdmans, 1956), p. 93; John men are sinners and thereby deserve condemnation.

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ed. J. T. But the facts of God incarnate and God himself suffering McNeill (Westminster, 1960), 2.1.9 (p. 253), 2.3.2 (p. that condemnation? These are beyond astonishing. The 291), 2.1.4 (pp. 244–5); David Hollaz is quoted from great British novelist Dorothy Sayers was right on target Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical when commenting upon them: “For whatever reason Lutheran Church (Augsburg, 1961), p. 239; Seneca is God chose to make man as he is—limited and suffering quoted from F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans and subject to sorrows and death—He had the honesty (Eerdmans, 2000), p. 82; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, and the courage to take his own medicine,” she wrote; 3.1; Horace, Satires, 1.3.68; J. Gresham Machen, “When He was a man, He played the man. He was born Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1977), p. 68; in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well Martin Luther, Smalcald Articles, 3.1, in The Book of worthwhile.”

Concord, ed. T. G. Tappert (Fortress, 1959); C. S. Lewis, He thought it well worthwhile because in that Mere Christianity (HarperCollins, 2001), pp. 8, 25; C. F. W. sacrificial act, that atonement, the necessary judgment Walther, Law and Gospel (Concordia, 1981), thesis 8, p. upon sin was enacted. Divine justice was satisfied. He 64; Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos? (Harcourt Brace, thought it well worthwhile because in the judgment of 1949), p. 4. one, many were pardoned. Because God’s wrath was poured out upon the sins of man in the Son of Man, he is no longer “counting men’s sins against them” (2 Cor. 5:19). Yes, the words of St. Paul are still true: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. But on account of that same Christ’s intercession on the cross, his being judged in our stead, the Christian can appear in the heavenly court with the full confidence that “God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God” (2 Thess. 1:5).

In light of this sure promise, maybe the Day of Judgment will be accompanied by a laugh track after all.

Definitely not a reel of canned studio laughter, but quite 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

APPEARING BEFORE GOD WITHOUT A LAWYER

by Craig Parton

W

e the People is one of those do-it-yourself legal service operations. Marketers advertise it with sayings such as “Divorces for only $19.95.” Their motto is “No lawyers—save money.” The owners recently sold this business for more than 10 million dollars. I am sure they simply relied on their $19.95 business sale package forms to handle that transaction.

We the People is hugely popular because of a widespread mentality in our culture that emphasizes good old American self-reliance. Doctors? Really, who needs them? Diagnose and treat yourself.

Medical schools are elitist anyway.

Certified securities brokers? Master the intricacies of Wall Street by accessing the resources of the Internet. Buy and sell stocks yourself and save money. Lawyers?

Now there is a rip-off profession if ever there was one! File your own lawsuit and argue your own case to the court. Just read the forms, pay the filing fees, and follow the rules.

People who do not retain legal counsel and who act as their own lawyer in court are what the law calls in propria persona litigants (meaning to appear before the court “on your own behalf” or to “stand in your own stead”).

Interestingly, there is also a phrase forged out of centuries of common law experience: “He who represents himself has an idiot for a client.” This is most certainly true in this world and, I contend, even more true in an infinitely more sobering proceeding which awaits all of us in the next.

Modern man’s view on approaching God (and, sad to say, much of the view of modern American evangelical Christianity) is parallel to that of litigants who come before the court “in their own stead” and with no clear recognition of their condition or standing with the court. They assume they can and should meet God “naked”—on their own terms— since God the Father surely must be their friend. He is, as some say here in California, a cool dude.

Indeed the Christian Scriptures do clearly speak of God as Friend in the context of the atoning and mediating work of Jesus Christ his Son as our

counselor at law and advocate before the Father.

Talk of God the Father as Judge or as the God of Wrath and Condemnation has been removed from the lexicon of modern Christianity.

“Wrath,” “anger,” and “condemnation” are not words normally chosen to adorn the marquee in front of the spanking new Starbuck’s Community Fellowship of Pure Joy church (Today’s sermon topic: “How the Lost Suffer in Hell for Eternity”—Day care provided). Nor are they words highlighted in effective evangelism seminars. They are, however, terms used repeatedly in the canonical Scriptures.

They flow from a deep legal or forensic structure set forth repeatedly in those same Scriptures. The Law as found in Scripture, said the reformers, indeed always accuses (Lex semper accusat). It never makes one righteous and is designed primarily to create fear and terror and to harass the conscience.

This is true in terms of what the reformers called the “theological” use of the law. As a trial lawyer, I can vouch that it is also true in another sense that the law was used by the reformers—the so-called political or civil use of the law. Judges, law courts, and the legal system are pointers, on an earthly level, to a coming Tribunal of Terror for those without a lawyer who choose to stand in propria persona and in their own merit and goodness.

Christian theology speaks of this as the “Great Assize,” or Great Gathering or Judgment Day at the end of time when Christ will return to “judge the living and the dead” (as said so majestically in the Nicene Creed and described so vividly by Jesus himself in Matt. 25:31–46). This biblical idea of a need for a mediator and advocate between the Law Giver and his wrath, anger, judgment, and condemnation is reflected particularly clearly in our legal system and especially in how a trial operates under the western common law system.

At the outset, we note that the Eastern Orthodox argue that any imposition of legal categories or courtroom terminology on Scripture is simply an artificial lamination of the Latin West onto Scripture’s Greek worldview. However, the concepts of law,

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

forensic or legal justification, a courtroom motif, and the sinner’s position before God as analogous to that of the guilty before the judge in a court of law come directly from Paul more than they come from Augustine or the Scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages. Paul’s letters give us this vocabulary explicitly (see, for starters, Rom. 3:19; 4:2; 5:10; 10:3 and also 1 Cor. 4:3–4 and Gal. 4:4–5). We are told later in St. John’s letter that Christ is our advocate before God the Father and that “He intercedes for us”—the obvious implication being that we are ill-equipped to appear in our own stead when it comes to approaching the Father and need this advocate functioning fully in that unique office and in our behalf both now and in the future. There is, therefore, the clear picture in Scripture itself that a human law court is a pointer to the Great Assize at the end of time, and that an otherwise certain-to-be defendant should retain counsel now for that court appearance while counsel can be obtained.

Consider the following to be some free legal advice in preparation for the Great Assize of God’s Judgment Seat in that final day.

1. We all should know our place and keep our mouths firmly shut at the Great Assize.

Courtrooms (like cathedrals) inspire decorum, reverence, and a bit of fear. They are designed to put you in your place and to keep distance between you and the judge. An armed bailiff also reminds you not to mess with the judge. You are not in charge of the proceeding.

You are called to order by the bailiff, you rise at the procession and recession of the judge (as well as rising each time you address the judge), and wait while the judge takes the bench. There, high and lifted up on the altar of human reason, is the judge robed in black, symbolic of dispassionate and sober judgment and reason grounded only on raw fact and black-and-white law and not on whim or prejudice or bias. Litigants and lawyers remain silent until spoken to by the judge.

Counsel are professionally dressed. Wise counsel have their clients in appropriate and respectful attire suited for being in the presence of the court.

There is sacred and unapproachable architectural space in the courtroom between the litigants and the court (called “the well”), analogous to altar space in the great cathedrals of Europe. Those who wander uninvited into the well are risking trouble for violating that sacred separation between litigants and the court. They have dared to stare in the face of the judge and are standing on holy ground without removing their shoes. Similarly, one must ask the court for permission to approach a witness in the witness box, since the witness box is within the judge’s domain and is part of that unapproachable space that may not be entered without permission.

1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

The point of this rigorous formality and reverence is to provide a constant reminder that the judge is not our buddy or pal or even our friend who can be approached in whatever way makes us comfortable. Human judges are to be feared and respected. All must act in a certain way before the court (just as every knee will bow on that Great Day). If one doubts this, try strolling into federal court with a baseball hat on backwards.

Know how to behave at the Great Assize. We all should keep our collective mouths shut. Understand what reverence and decorum and respect and honor are all about. In fact, it is not a bad idea to find a theology of worship that “gets” those concepts now in this life.

2. We should all lose the idea of being our own lawyer at the Great Assize.

Laymen are adrift when appearing in their own stead in a courtroom and before a judge. They have told the judge, in so many words, that they think they have the ability to handle this proceeding without an advocate or mediator. Those who appear without counsel often get horrific results and can endure the wrath of the court. In propria persona litigants have been jailed because they offended the court by their conduct. Knowledge of how to approach the court and how to act in the court’s presence is something a good trial lawyer or advocate understands. It comes from multiple appearances before a court and knowledge of the court’s procedures.

Retaining experienced and professional counsel is a way of saying to the court, “I respect you enough not to show up and try to argue my own case and make a total idiot of myself and endure your wrath. I have someone who I know has appeared before you successfully, who I understand you trust, and who understands my condition and my case more objectively than I even do.”

You need someone who knows your predicament and the facts intimately and knows what the judge requires.

We all will need a unique advocate when we appear at that Great Assize because our condition is so fundamentally defective that we have no idea whose presence we are in or how flawed our condition really is before the Law Giver. Our offenses reek to high heaven and our supposed good works done in reliance on our good natures are pure noxious fumes (Rom. 1 and 2). That is the case from the most pious nun who prays 18 hours a day to the virulent atheistic university professor who has never darkened a church door.

3. The professional standard for who may act as an advocate and counselor at law at the Great Assize is totally exclusive.

About the worst that can happen to one as a result of an earthly legal proceeding is either financial ruin or time spent in prison. The consequences of an adverse judgment against one at the Great Assize,

however, is infinitely more dreadful. Jesus Christ himself argued of a coming day when the consequences of imperfect obedience to the Law in thought, word, and deed will result in eternal punishment where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and where the flame does not go out.

As importantly, the picture in Scripture is that our chances of prevailing at the Great Assize without a very particular advocate with very particular qualifications are not just “poor”—they are zero. The evidentiary record is absolutely ironclad and every verdict predictable. We are worthy, when standing in our own stead, of a totally adverse judgment on every level. The qualifications for an advocate in this proceeding is that they be completely and totally righteous. In a word—sinless. Last time I checked, that eliminates most of my profession.

Under these circumstances, immediate retention of the right advocate is vital, especially since our appearance at that proceeding could be heralded at any time, for “no man knows that hour.” The Great Assize is not the time to test out our own advocacy skills nor to rely on legal arguments. “I did my best under the circumstances and was generally more decent than the other slobs on the planet” is a well-tried but impermissible defense that the court will strike on its own motion. The judgment on our sins is and will be completely just and warranted. The judge at that time is not likely to be interested in our ability to argue for the exclusion of prejudicial evidence, especially since the sum and total of our entire lives is one gigantic mountain of prejudicial evidence. We will get precisely what we deserve without retention of the only advocate who has legal standing before the Father.

Conclusion: Don’t end up in the same position as the “good” residents of Dogville, U.S.A. at their Great Assize.

In Lars von Trier’s 2003 film Dogville, the residents of that nice middle-American town are visited by a strange and mysterious outsider—Grace, played brilliantly by Nicole Kidman. Grace is just that—pure Good News to the “good” cookie-baking people of Dogville.

Ultimately, though, the residents of Dogville choose to abuse Grace. For their “goodness,” they get what they deserve—a meeting standing in propria persona with Grace’s father at a Great Assize, no longer protected by the intercessory work of his daughter as advocate for Dogville before her father.

We all need an advocate on that day, One who knows every minute detail of our case (that is, our manifold and daily sins and wickedness and the depth of their total depravity) so as to marshal the only defense that can prevail—the defense of the perfect life and all-sufficient shed blood of the advocate himself that gives him unique and complete authority and power to pronounce that we

are both forgiven and made righteous by his supremely meritorious work.

Fortunately, in the canonical Scriptures we have just that unique advocate with the Father. His death and resurrection—easily provable beyond a reasonable doubt in any court of law based on the sheer force of the evidential record found in the written eyewitness accounts—have fully secured an eternal “weight of glory” for all who believe. St. John puts it nicely in his first letter: “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” ■

Craig Parton is a trial lawyer and a partner in the oldest law firm in the western United States, Price, Postel and Parma LLP of Santa Barbara, California. He is also the U.S. Director of the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. His most recent book on law and the defense of the faith is The Defense Never Rests (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2003).

Mr. Parton suggests that any reader interested in a thorough review of both Old and New Testament passages dealing with the legal and forensic nature of the term “justification” as the word is repeatedly used in the Scriptures, should see the standard treatment of the topic

by Martin Chemnitz, Justification: The Chief Article of Christian Doctrine as Expounded in Loci Theologici, trans. by J. A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), esp. pp. 61–77. Additionally, readers who may wish to pursue the long and distinguished history of trial lawyers who have examined in detail the factual record for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and found it legally compelling should consult Simon Greenleaf (Dean of the Harvard Law School in the nineteenth century), Lord Hailsham (former Lord High Chancellor of England), Hugo Grotius (known as the “Father of International Law”), and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (eleven earned degrees, greatest living legal apologist). For further study, see Craig Parton, The Defense Never Rests (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2003); Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence (New York: J.C. & Co., 1874); Lord Hailsham, The Door Wherein I Went (London: Collins, 1975); Hugo Grotius, On the Truth of the Christian Religion, trans. John Clarke (London: William Baynes, 1825); John Warwick Montgomery, “The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, ed. J. W. Montgomery (Dallas: Probe Books, 1991).

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 1

The Last Word and A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and

by Brian D. McLaren Wiley, John & Sons, Inc., 2005 256 pages (hardcover), $21.95 With his new book The Last Word and the Word After That, Brian McLaren brings to an end the saga of Pastor Dan Poole. Those who have followed the story through the first two books will be glad to know Dan’s tale comes to a happy ending, though not without conflict.

This time, the good pastor’s thoughts center on the traditional doctrine of hell, and through the characters and narrative of The Last Word, McLaren sets out to deconstruct the idea that those who reject Jesus Christ will suffer eternally in hell for their sins.

Before turning to a critique of McLaren’s book, it is worth saying that some of the ideas he presents are fairly compelling, and perhaps even worth some extra thought by many evangelical Christians. McLaren’s emphasis on the place of structural and systemic justice in Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God, for example, should be a welcome contribution to Christian conversation. McLaren is wrong to give the impression that conservative Christians have (almost) entirely neglected such matters, but he is probably right to say that many evangelicals could stand to give a bit more attention to that part of Jesus’ teaching. The vision he casts of churches ministering in inner cities is frankly wonderful, especially if one imagines those churches preaching the true and full Gospel of salvation.

Yet there also lies the problem with what McLaren has written. In trying to rescue the Gospel from irrelevance, he finally ends up with a theology that confuses more than it clarifies. In fact, by the time The Last Word comes to a close, McLaren’s thinking about hell has descended into utter confusion, and he has presented a Gospel that falls far short of what the Bible actually teaches.

The organizing issue of McLaren’s book is the doctrine of hell, and his treatment of it finally proves wholly unsatisfying. Essentially, he wants to argue that the idea of hell is “constructed, as all human ideas are” (71). The question of whether hell really exists is therefore not all that important. What finally matters is how the concept 1 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

of hell is used, to what purpose this “power language” of hell is finally put. The Pharisees, McLaren argues, used the concept of hell to frighten sinners into living rightly, and perhaps thereby to convince God to rescue the Israelite nation from Roman oppression (63). When Jesus entered the scene, he appropriated the Pharisees’ language about hell, but the point was never to endorse the idea. The point was that Jesus used the concept of hell in a different way. If the Pharisees used it to threaten sinners, Jesus turned it back on them, declaring that they were the ones truly in danger of hell—for turning God’s loving and compassionate justice into a “cold, exacting, heartless, merciless” righteousness (63).

Of course, McLaren realizes pretty quickly that this “rhetorical hermeneutic” for dealing with hell is insufficient. After all, there are evil people in the world, and those evil people ought to be punished. The Nazis, for example, should not be allowed to avoid God’s wrath (85). McLaren tries to deal with this problem in two ways, one of which does nothing to alleviate his discomfort with hell, and the other of which lands him in confusion. First, McLaren proposes that the biblical descriptions of hell, including the fire and worms, are “mere metaphors” for conveying the horror of standing under God’s judgment (80). In other words, God’s judgment of evil people will actually be worse than the traditional idea of hell, even if there are no actual, physical flames and worms. Now that may be true, but it is also nothing new—many Christians have made that very point. But even if so, how does this position even begin to alleviate the discomfort McLaren feels with the traditional doctrine of hell? How exactly is God’s judgment made more palatable if you say the fire and worms Jesus talked about are really pointing to something infinitely worse? If anything, this move ought to make McLaren’s discomfort even more acute.

Second, when McLaren does briefly consider what God’s judgment might actually be (if not hell), he offers up an almost incomprehensible tangle of annihilationism and universalism. Every human being will stand before a loving, reconciling, compassionate God, he says (through the wise and kindly pastor, Markus), and that’s good news. Good news, that is, “unless you’re a bad dude,” because “if God judges, forgives, and eliminates all the bad stuff, there might not be much left of you—maybe not enough to enjoy heaven, maybe not enough to feel too much in hell either” (137). How exactly is one to understand a sentence like that? Is McLaren saying that evil people will be in heaven, but with a diminished capacity to enjoy it? Or is he saying they will they be in hell, but

the Word After That: a New Kind of Christianity with a lower capacity to feel its horrors? Or perhaps he’s suggesting they will be “eliminated” if they are really, really bad enough. Unfortunately, McLaren doesn’t give any clearer answer.

As it turns out, McLaren is fine with the confusion he creates here.

“Clarity is good,” he says in his introduction to the book, “but sometimes intrigue may be even more precious; clarity tends to put an end to further thinking, whereas intrigue makes one think more intensely, broadly, and deeply” (xv). Maybe, but if God had intended us to remain in very much “intrigue” (or confusion, depending on how you read it) He would not have given us a comprehensible Scripture. Besides, it’s not that Scripture is all that unclear about the reality or the nature of hell; it’s just that McLaren doesn’t particularly like what it says—and he doesn’t particularly like any of the alternatives, either. So rather than take the Bible’s clear and distinct meaning at face value, he punts, taking refuge in “intrigue” and simply declaring that he really does like it that way. When it comes right down to it, McLaren trades in a clarity he doesn’t like for a confusion he can be comfortable with.

Beyond all that, McLaren also entirely re-conceives the Christian gospel, accusing evangelicals of placing too much emphasis on the eternal salvation of individual souls. Conservative Christians, he argues, have been fixated on getting into heaven after they die when they should have been concerned with justice and righteousness here on earth. After all, he says, that is what Jesus meant by his “gospel of the kingdom,” and it is what John meant when he talked about “eternal life” (77). In fact, McLaren argues that evangelicals have even misinterpreted Paul, taking faith to be “what gets us into heaven after we die” instead of “what brings Jews and Gentiles together on equal footing, equally justified, in God’s kingdom here and now” (149-150).

That understanding, though, far underemphasizes the place Scripture gives to eternity. Yes, there are implications of the gospel in the here and now, but McLaren seems to think the here and now is all there is to the gospel—or at least that eternity matters much less than the here and now. But that’s not at all how the Bible presents the gospel. When Paul reminds the Corinthians of “the gospel I preached to you,” he talks about the death and resurrection of Christ and then turns immediately to the resurrection of the dead in eternity (1 Cor. 15). When he sings a hymn of praise to God for the gospel, he tells the Ephesians they have been sealed by the Holy Spirit “who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it” (Eph. 1:14). A chapter later, he says God has saved us “so that

in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7). Jesus himself warns that “an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out,” and he tells his disciples at the Last Supper, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Jn. 5:28-29; Matt. 26:29). Clearly, Jesus and his apostles were looking forward to something, and it is a lessening of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to de-emphasize that hope of eternity.

Finally, it should be noted that The Last Word is conspicuously lacking in any emphasis on, or practically any mention of, the cross of Christ. Perhaps that is unintentional, but whatever the case, it is at least strange that a book which focuses so intently on hell should so assiduously avoid discussion of the means God has given for avoiding it. Maybe the explanation for all this lies in the fact that McLaren’s gospel is so socially oriented, so focused on the present, that it has no obvious place for concepts like atonement, substitution, propitiation, or eschatological salvation. Yet those are the ideas which lie at the very heart of the cross’s meaning. It is therefore not surprising that a gospel which downplays those concepts will also wind up downplaying the cross. Ultimately, McLaren is so careful to avoid the uncomfortable “legal” language of evangelical Christianity, and so intent on making the gospel a matter of the here-and-now rather than the there-and-then, that he ends up leaving the cross itself with nothing better than a tenuous foothold in the Christian gospel.

McLaren set out with his “New Kind of Christian” trilogy to rescue the Gospel from irrelevance. By approaching Scripture from a decidedly this-worldly perspective, by revisiting the teachings of Jesus with postmodern sensibilities, and by stating the gospel in terms of social justice, he hoped to make the Christian faith attractive to a new generation. In the process, however, what McLaren has finally presented is a gospel so nearly emptied of eternity, so tethered to the hereand-now, that it really has no ability at all to offer a full and lasting hope. After all, as Paul wrote, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”

Greg Gilbert Student Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 3

W H AT D O E S I T M E A N T O B E G O O D ?

CONSEQUENCES BY

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

ROBERT A. PETERSON

H

ow many movies have you watched recently in which hell was considered a possible destiny for the departed? Probably not many. And when was the last time you heard a radio or TV preacher say that on the cross Christ endured the wrath of God? Probably a long time ago.

Although a majority of Americans believe in hell, they don’t like to think of people actually going there. And preachers don’t talk about hell or Christ suffering its penalty as they used to. This article will explore two themes in Romans that cut across the grain of popular thinking: hell, and Christ’s death turning away God’s wrath. And it will suggest ways that God intended for these neglected themes to impact our thinking and lives today.

Hell and the “Wrath of God” Being “Revealed” (Rom. 1:18) “That doesn’t make any sense!” This first reaction to Paul’s words in Romans 1:18 is understandable. After all, the two preceding verses announce that the theme of his letter will be the gospel, the good news of salvation. But the next verse does not bring good news: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18). Why does the apostle proceed as he does? He is beginning a long section of his letter (1:18–3:20) in which he brings the world to its knees before a God who is completely free from sin. To use Martin Luther’s expression, Paul begins in Romans 1:18 to preach “the bad news” in order to show sinners their need for God’s good news.

God’s truth challenges current cultural norms. Isn’t God too nice to be angry with human beings? Isn’t he a Santa Claus in the sky who winks when his bad children displease him? Many have made a god in their image, a domesticated god who will not disturb or punish them.

There is only one problem with such a view—it is unbiblical! There is a God in heaven who has revealed himself to us in a book, of which Paul’s letter to the Romans is a vital part. God’s wisdom tells us to adjust our minds, emotions, and wills to his message in Romans instead of making our own designer religion. Such a religion is comfortable, but it also is idolatrous, and idolatry is the very reason why God is so angry at humankind (Rom. 1:22–25).

God is angry? Although it disturbs modern and postmodern sensibilities, it is God’s truth. Paul has not driven the train off of the track in Romans 1:18. Rather, his declaration of the bad news in 1:18–3:20 reflects his fatherly compassion for both Jews and Gentiles. He tells the bad news so that people might understand and believe the good news. Until we see our sins for what they are in the sight of a holy God—filthy, stinking, revolting—we will not see the need to ask him for mercy.

And his grace shines brightly, because before and after the bad news he announces the good news. He declares the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” in Romans 1:16 and in 3:21–22 returns to

C O N S E Q U E N C E S

that theme: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”

A good way of contrasting current thoughts concerning the Last Judgment with God’s thoughts is to consider the beginning of Romans 3. Enemies maligned Paul’s gospel of grace: “Why not do evil that good may come?” (3:8). They claimed that Paul taught, “If our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us?” (v. 5). Remarkably the apostle simply replies, “By no means! For then how could God judge the world?” (v. 6). Paul assumes that a holy God will call sinners to account for their sins. How contrary to our culture which bombards us with the idea that a loving God must accept uncritically all human beings and never condemn anyone.

Such thinking never entered Paul’s mind because it was steeped in the Old Testament, which repeatedly affirms that God will judge the world in righteousness. I will select one text each from the Law, Writings, and Prophets as illustrative of many other passages: For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deut. 4:24; cf. Gen. 18:25; Exod. 24:17) The LORD… comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity. (Ps. 98:9; cf. Ps. 9:7–8; 58:11; 82:8; 96:13; Ecc. 3:17) For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh. (Isa. 66:15–16; 2:10–21; Joel 3:12–15) Other New Testament authors echo Paul’s words: there will be a Last Judgment where God will grant his people everlasting joy and condemn the wicked to everlasting hell (Matt. 25:31–46; Mark 9:42–48; Luke 16:19–31; John 5:28–29; Acts 17:31; Heb. 6:1–2; Jude 7, 13; Rev. 20:14–15; 21:8; 22:15). The Bible’s emphasis on hell prompts a question: What is the most important purpose of the Last Judgment? The most common answer is to assign eternal destinies to human beings.

While that is an important purpose of the Last Judgment, it is not the most important purpose. What could be more important than God’s sending his creatures to eternal life or eternal punishment? The glory of God. The most important purpose of the Last Judgment, and of everything else, is that God would be glorified. At the Last Judgment, God’s glory will be revealed to all human beings and angels. Although our age misleads by downplaying hell and God’s wrath, these themes loom large in Scripture. Why? Because God looms large in Scripture. He is the beginning, the middle, and the end; M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 5

What Does It Mean to be Good?

by Shane Rosenthal

O

ne of the most important tools essential for proper biblical interpretation, or indeed for the interpretation of any book at all, is to recognize that not all words are used exactly the same way in every instance. This principle is not difficult to master, because it is regularly and intuitively understood. When, for example, someone says “you can reach me on my cell,” we automatically choose the proper definition of the word “cell” from a list of various interpretive options.

Since the context above is communication, not biology, or criminal justice, the reference to the word “cell” is correctly perceived to refer to a cell phone, rather than to a living biological cell, or to a prison cell.

This is certainly the case with the biblical use of the word “good.” For example, take a look at the different uses of this word from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

First, in his discussion of our relationship to the governing authorities found in chapter 13, the apostle writes that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval...” Conversely, Paul writes that if you do what is wrong, “be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.” This is all fairly straightforward, and can be directly applied to our lives today.

There is a problem, however, if we are not flexible with our understanding of the word “good” because earlier in this same epistle, Paul wrote that there is “no one who does good, not even one” (3:12). Misapplied, this could be interpreted to mean that no one is capable of obeying the ruling authorities at any point. It might also be presented as a contradiction of sorts. First Paul tells us that “no one does good,” then later in chapter 13 he commands us to do exactly that which we are incapable of doing. How is this possible?

The solution to this apparent contradiction is to recognize the two different contexts that the apostle has in view. In Romans 3, the perspective is of God’s infinite holiness, and from this view even the good things we do are seen as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). This is why God’s holy prophet Isaiah cried out “I am a man of unclean lips” when confronted with the terrifying vision of God’s holiness and majesty (Isa. 6:6). But in Romans 13 the context is civic righteousness. It is the goodness that can be observed by the governing authorities, by one’s employer or neighbor. From the divine perspective, we cannot do good because the stain of original sin clings to everything we do. But from the human perspective, there is much good that we can do. For example, it is a good thing to obey the speed limit, to help someone in need, to perform well 1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

the Creator, sustainer, and consummator (Rom. 11:36).

And Scripture, especially the Book of Revelation, declares that God will be glorified in various aspects of his character in his judgments: His justice, holiness, and wrath: “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!” (Rev. 16:5–6).

His power and wrath: “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth” (Rev. 11:17–18).

His glory and power: At the preparation for the pouring out of “seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God … the sanctuary was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power” (Rev. 15:7–8).

His majesty: “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne” (Rev. 20:11–12).

It is precisely within this framework of God’s character revealed in his judgments that he announces to hypocrites in Romans 2:5: “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” A day is coming, the Last Judgment, when God’s wrath and just judgment will be made known to the universe. On that day we will see how little God-centered our thinking really has been, for we will see him as he is, God Almighty, the great Redeemer and Judge, the One worthy of eternal praise for his character, words, and deeds.

When our thinking becomes as God-centered as that of Scripture’s, we reject as wrongheaded the common question, How can a loving God condemn anyone? We need read only three chapters of the Bible or three chapters of Romans to understand that a loving and holy God could justly condemn all of us. Instead, we ask a better question: How can a loving and holy God save any sinful persons without compromising his moral integrity?

The answer to that question is found in Romans 3:25–26 and its teaching concerning Christ’s propitiation.

Christ’s Propitiation Turns Away God’s Wrath (Rom. 3:25–26) Scriptural teaching on Christ’s saving work is massive and magnificent. To attempt to explain it exhaustively, therefore, is overwhelming. To do so would require examining the following (and more): • The biblical words for Christ’s saving accom-

C O N S E Q U E N C E S

• •

•

•

plishment, such as redemption, reconciliation, blood, and atonement.

Christ’s threefold office of prophet, priest, and king.

Christ’s saving events, including his incarnation, sinless life, death, resurrection, ascension, sitting at God’s right hand, intercession, and return.

Biblical pictures of Christ’s saving work, such as victory, legal substitution, recreation, and sacrifice.

The different directions to which the cross points.

We will employ the last category and look at Christ’s saving work in directional terms. The cross is directed toward us—to redeem us (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 2:16), toward our enemies—to vanquish them (Col. 2:14; Heb. 2:15), and toward God himself. This idea of the cross being directed toward God was powerfully set forth by the medieval theologian Anselm (around 1033–1109), who portrayed Christ’s death in feudal imagery. God was the Lord of the manor whose honor was offended

by Adam’s primal sin. This posed a dilemma for God who chose to save sinners: either punishment or satisfaction. Either God would punish sinners for Adam’s insult of the divine majesty or God’s honor would have to be remedied. God chose the latter course—satisfaction. It was necessary for God to become a human being to remedy the situation. By dying as the God-man he appeased God’s offended honor and earned a surplus of merit that is applied to believing sinners.

The reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin gave the classic expression of Christ’s death as a satisfaction.

There are not several ways to reconcile God, but one way alone. His majesty is much too high to be reconciled by the blood of all the men on earth and the merit of all the angels. The body of Christ is given and his blood poured out, and thereby God is reconciled, for it was given and poured out for you … so that he may avert from us the wrath of God which we by our sins have deserved. And if the wrath is gone then the sins are forgiven.

(Luther’s Works 36, p. 177) As no one can succeed in his accusation when the judge absolves, so there remains no condemnation, when the laws have been satisfied and the penalty already paid. Christ is the One who suffered the punishment due to us, and thereby professed that He took our place in order to deliver us. Anyone, therefore, who desires to condemn us after this must kill Christ Himself again. (Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 8:34) Luther’s and Calvin’s understanding diverged from that of Anselm in two important ways. First, they did not think in terms of Anselm’s dilemma: either

on a test, etc. (see Paul’s comments to this effect in Rom. 5:7, 12:21, 14:21). Though these are good in an outward and visible sense, this type of goodness is not meritorious in the eyes of God. The heavenly perspective on goodness is quite clear from the teachings of Jesus himself. When, for example, the rich young ruler asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” one of the things Jesus said in response was, “No one is good except God alone” (18:18-19). So in Jesus’ view, Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama simply do not measure up to his standards. But more importantly, neither do the holy patriarchs, prophets, and apostles of the church. In fact Jesus’ statement is a classic assertion of his own divinity, for unless Jesus himself is understood as God in the flesh, then according to his own words, he himself should not even be considered good.

Elsewhere Jesus also says, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him” (Matt. 7:11).

Typically we think of a man who provides for his children as “a good father,” and we are not wrong for doing so if by “good” we are thinking of civic righteousness. But, again, there is another perspective at work here. God with his inscrutable judgment sees not only our actions, but our motives.

He sees our inmost thoughts and knows us better than we know ourselves. This is the perspective at work when he characterizes those who provide good gifts for their children as basically “evil.”

So at the end of the day we must be careful to evaluate which standard of goodness is in view.

From the perspective of the city of man, one does not even have to be a Christian to be considered a good person. All that is required is outward conformity to the particular standards of a given culture. From the perspective of the city of God, however, not even Christians themselves qualify to be called good. But those who do trust in Christ, though they are personally and inherently unworthy, are granted a totally free pardon by the “Good” Shepherd who laid his life down for the sheep (John 10:11). And before he sacrificed himself, this good shepherd also sanctified himself for our benefit (John 17:19). In this way, those of us who are evil may be presented as if we were perfectly holy and righteous (1 Cor. 1:30), and those of us who are wicked may be declared just in his sight (Rom. 4:5). So in the end, Christians need to turn away from their good works as well as from their evil deeds in order to trust in Christ alone who presents us holy and acceptable in God’s sight, both by his holy life and sacrificial death.

Shane Rosenthal is executive producer of the White Horse Inn radio broadcast.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 7

satisfaction or punishment. Rather, they combined the two: satisfaction through punishment. Second, instead of holding that Christ’s death satisfied God’s offended honor, as Anselm taught, they said that Christ’s death satisfied God’s justice.

The reformers appealed to various biblical texts to teach that Christ’s death satisfied God’s justice, especially those four that present Christ as a propitiation, a sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath: Romans 3:25–26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; and 1 John 4:10. The most important is Romans 3:25–26: Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In 1935, C. H. Dodd, a New Testament scholar, attacked the traditional idea of Christ’s death as propitiating God’s wrath as a pagan notion unworthy of God. He is not a bloodthirsty deity demanding his pound of flesh. Instead, Dodd insisted, Romans 3:25–26 teaches that Christ’s death accomplished expiation, a putting away of sin. Although Dodd’s idea has exerted great influence, Leon Morris and Roger Nicole have shown it to be erroneous.

There are two reasons to hold that Romans 3:25–26 present Christ’s atonement as a propitiation and not merely an expiation. The first is the remote context of the passage.

From Romans 1:18–3:20, Paul condemns everyone before a holy God. But, amazingly, he writes in Romans 5:1: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Where did God’s wrath go? Did he simply wink at sin? Because God is morally perfect he cannot wink at sin. Only Christ’s death satisfying God’s justice (Rom. 3:25–26) explains how sinners are at peace with God in Romans 5:1.

The second and most important reason for holding that Romans 3:25–26 presents Christ’s atonement as a propitiation is its immediate context. Paul returns to the theme of his letter (Rom. 1:16–17) in Romans 3:21: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.” God’s saving righteousness has been proclaimed in the apostles’ preaching.

This righteousness is “apart from law,” that is, it has nothing to do with human law-keeping. But it fulfills the Old Testament—“the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it.” What Paul stated so clearly in his purpose statement, he now restates: this saving “righteousness of God” is “through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”

Salvation is not received by deeds, but by faith.

Moreover, all need salvation “for there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (vv.

22–23). After the Fall, human beings stand on level 1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

ground in the presence of a holy God; they “all have sinned” in Adam and personally fall short of deserving God’s praise on the last day. All are undone.

How does Paul express Christ’s saving accomplishment here? In two ways—as a redemption (v. 24) and a propitiation (v. 25). Paul uses shorthand for redemption, just mentioning the word without developing the idea. If we put together the full New Testament teaching, we learn that redemption has three aspects: 1) a state of bondage to sin, 2) the payment of a ransom—the redemption price, the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:9), and 3) the resulting state of liberty.

The idea that Paul does develop, more fully than anywhere in Scripture, is that of propitiation. D.A. Carson correctly states, “There is fairly widespread recognition that the OT background is the ‘mercy seat,’ the cover of the ark of the covenant over which Yahweh appeared on the Day of Atonement and on which sacrificial blood was poured.” How does Paul use the word “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 against its Old Testament background? The answer is as a sacrifice directed toward God that turns away his wrath.

This is best grasped in light of Paul’s distinction between a “former” time (v. 25) and “the present time” (v. 26). He says that “God put forward” Jesus “as a propitiation … to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” (v. 25). Paul means that in Old Testament times, God with great patience forgave the sins of believing Israelites on the basis of animal sacrifices, while writing moral IOU notes to himself. This is because the blood of those sacrifices did not make atonement for sin in and of themselves. Rather, God forgave Old Testament saints based upon the future work of Christ. But God still had to settle accounts and actually punish sin. This he did in the cross of his beloved Son by putting him “forward as a propitiation by his blood.”

The key to the passage is the relation between Christ’s death and God’s justice or righteousness. Paul says “God put forward” Christ “as a propitiation by his blood … to show God’s righteousness” (v. 25). He repeats: “It was to show his righteousness at the present time” (v. 26).

God had a problem (I speak reverently) and it is not what people today assume—how could a loving God condemn anyone? Instead, God’s problem was how to save sinners without compromising his moral integrity.

The solution lies in God’s setting forth Christ as a propitiation. The Son endured the wrath of God in order to maintain God’s justice in forgiving sinners. In this way he was “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (v. 26).

Far from projecting the idea of a bloodthirsty God, Paul depicts a loving and holy God, bearing the brunt of his own wrath in order to save his people. Furthermore, C. H. Dodd made a false dichotomy because Christ’s death both propitiates God’s wrath and expiates sins. (continued on page 30)

Resources for Responding to The Da Vinci Code Movie (May 19 release date) Interview with Peter Jones, co-author of Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts.

WHI: We’re talking with Peter Jones, adjunct professor at Westminster Seminary California and also the co-author of Cracking Da Vinci’s Code. Peter, it’s great, as always, to be able to talk about these things.

PJ: Good to be with you.

WHI: The question that I think a lot of people are wondering right now is why six or seven million copies of The Da Vinci Code have been sold. Why do you think it’s so popular?

PJ: It may even be 9 million at this point, plus the movie that will come out next year, so, I mean, it is an incredible phenomenon. It seems to me that it is popular because of the fascination in our time of an ultimate form of Christianity that is fitting very much with the nature of our modern culture.

WHI: But what do you say to the critic who says: “This is fiction. This is just a novel. People are just enjoying it…”?

PJ: No, that’s a fair enough critique and it’s for that reason that when I was asked to write the book and there were sort of forces that were saying, we need to take this on historically and so on, I said, listen: this is a fictional book… But all of fiction, it seems to me – Lord of the Rings, Lewis’s fiction, and what-not – has a message. There is an ideology. And it was that that I wanted to write about. I mean,

there were some historical enormities that one needed to point out, but I didn’t want to become a Dan Brown groupie, become an expert on Leonardo da Vinci, and the Knights Templar, and the Holy Grail and all that stuff, though it is absolutely fascinating. I mean, he’s putting his finger into stuff that really did exist. There is such a thing as Western paganism. And that’s part of the big issue, by the way.

That’s, I think, the approach you have to take with this book. I don’t think you can simply take some kind of irate approach and say it’s all historical bunk and so on and so forth – it is a fictional book. Does that make it less dangerous in terms of the ultimate message? Not at all.

It’s even more powerful.

WHI: And that is actually how it’s been taken, isn’t it? A lot of people are treating it as a debunking of Christianity, and there are rather straightforward historical claims that don’t sound all that fiction-like.

PJ: No, and they’re easy to show, and it’s interesting that the radical left of New Testament studies has quickly wanted to point that out, and so create a little island where they can stand where they are not lumped with Dan Brown, even though, I have to say, his approach certainly builds upon that radical left’s affirmation of all kinds of things about early Christianity. But they, too, have debunked some of his story, his historical statements.

WHI: Of course, you’re referring to especially the Jesus Seminar: John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pegels, and others who have talked about this suppressed tradition of Gnosticism. What is Gnosticism and did the early church suppress this?

How did we get the canon that we have, that is, the number of biblical books that we have? Was it imperial power that kept these gnostic luminaries from being able to get their books in the Bible?

PJ: All in five minutes? It’s probably the most difficult question I’ve ever been asked in my life. No – it’s just a very broad question, obviously: What is Gnosticism? It is the reinterpretation of Christianity in terms of essentially pagan notions about the world. It is the attempt to reinterpret Christian orthodoxy on the basis of a view of the spirituality of the world that I can only call pagan. And that is to say, it is a rejection of God the Creator and therefore a rejection of the whole structure of biblical faith, which is, to use a technical term, theistic, that God is indeed separate from his creation and has his own existence, and acts first of all to create the world and then to redeem it. That whole structure is eliminated by socalled Christian Gnostics. You see, the approach of Gnosticism is absolutely radical. It’s not a heresy; it’s a profound apostasy.

WHI: And it trades on Christianity doesn’t it? It’s sort of an antiChristianity in terms of telling, of radically taking the same symbols

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 1 9

of Christianity and radically interpreting them.

PJ: And so it is very subtle for a lot of people, and especially since the discovery of the Gnostic texts in 1945 in Egypt. And the decision by a group of radical New Testament scholars to promote this stuff, first of all for the good of mankind generally just to get the information out, and that wasn’t bad, but it has since turned into a whole ideology of proposing that the “Gospel of Thomas” is the earliest gospel, along with Q, that we have, predating the New Testament. And that is why, it seems to me, this “Da Vinci Code” rewrites how we do evangelism in our day, how we witness to the Christian faith, because it doesn’t end around what we’ve so often done in our witness, which is to say, “But the Bible says…” And now people can say, “Yes, the Bible says that, but of course the Bible isn’t the ultimate source for Christianity.”

And so Christian witness becomes a lot more subtle in that sense; you have to know how to be able to show how the Bible really is the ultimate source for Christianity, and that this Gnosticism is a latecomer.

WHI: That’s being increasingly shown, isn’t it? That the “Gospel of Thomas,” for instance, isn’t anywhere close to the dating of Paul’s epistles, for instance.

PJ: Well it depends who you read, of course. The radical left is still quite convinced...

WHI: So is part of this to shape the idea, “We don’t like the New Testament canon that we have.”

Sort of the impulse of the Gnostics and Marcion who said, “Let’s just create our own canon and get rid of the checks and balances of an ultimate authority.”

PJ: You mentioned Marcion. I’ve recently done some thinking on him, so you have a hot scope here.

You know, this claim that the 2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

church suppressed the Gospel of Thomas and all these Gnostic texts when it finally created a canon much later, and that the church was forced into this by Marcion who was most interested in canons. Marcion wanted a non-orthodox canon. All the liberals have said this for years.

If Marcion is interested in canon, and he is in Rome around 150 when he is ex-communicated, if he is establishing a canon, why does he not suggest to put in his canon the Gospel of Thomas? Marcion makes no mention of the Gospel of Thomas. He makes no mention of the gospel of truth which was known in Rome around that period, and would have been to his perfect advantage. He is obliged to deform the Gospel of Luke and keep that as the only gospel, by getting rid of all references to the Old Testament.

That’s his only source for a kind of a Gnosticism that he can produce. If the Gospel of Thomas was so early, why on earth did Marcion not use the Gospel of Thomas? It’s a question that demands an answer from the liberal wing and I don’t think they give one.

WHI: Now how about the theology of Gnosticism?

PJ: Well the theology of Gnosticism is sort of a Christianized form of, as I said, this pagan view of the world which is that nature is divine. The Apostle Paul gives the best definition: it’s the worship of the creation rather than the Creator.

You have beautifully juxtaposed theism and paganism. So if the world is divine, and is an emanation of the divine spirit, then we’re all partakers of the divine and sharing in the spirit. And so to know redemption, we really need to simply discover who we actually are, and we do that through mystical experiences, spiritual technologies… You can find in paganism all over the world and all kinds of cults and groups these various techniques for establishing a kind of out-of-body experience,

where one rediscovers the self as divine, in contact with all things.

Gnosticism, then, is this sophisticated, Christianized form of that, and it does give to people the same kind of an experience.

WHI: To use God, not worship him?

PJ: Actually, there is no God. One is god. And so the whole notion of worship becomes self-worship; the notion of praise becomes self-praise, the notion of prayer becomes meditation…

WHI: So what’s “salvation” in the Gnostic view?

PJ: Salvation is simply coming to understand who one is.

Enlightenment. It’s knowledge – gnosis. You actually have to wonder in the end, why even bother, because if everything is divine anyway, why we even worry about that, but be that as it may, there is this experience of gnosis, of knowing the self is divine, which does transform people, there’s no doubt about it.

WHI: Sounds a lot like popular American religion. B. Dalton, Waldenbooks…

PJ: Absolutely. It sounds a lot like Eastern religions, too. It’s certainly like spiritualities that depend upon drugs and all kinds of techniques.

WHI: SO is this new gnosticism directly dependent on the gnostic texts and the discovery of the Gnostic texts in 1945, or is it a sort of “Beatles generation” now in control of the various institutions they once despised, and they have this sort of eastern religious, eastern philosophical orientation that Gnosticism sort of is handy for?

PJ: You have this explosion and fascination of eastern mysticism, at the same time as the discovery of the Gnostic texts, and so the first movement, of course, is to go east,

and so the hippies are off to Katmandu, and they’re taking drugs and so on, they go east and they discover a sort of enlightenment that doesn’t do damage to their bodies, and now all of a sudden, they didn’t need to go east at all, because we have a form of Christianity that justifies all this inner search for enlightenment, and so you have this serendipitous coming together of a whole lot of things, but it’s interesting that this spiritual enlightenment preceded the discovery and rehabilitation of the Gnostic texts in the west.

WHI: How about the “Gospel of Philip?” The Gospel of Thomas we hear a lot about, but the Gospel of Philip figures prominently in The Da Vinci Code. Tell us about that gospel and how it’s used by Brown.

PJ: Well, it’s the most interesting gospel in a certain sense. The “Gospel of Philip” is the gospel where Jesus is supposed to kiss Mary Magdalene on the lips, and so you have this whole interest in sexuality as spirituality coming out of the Gospel of Philip. Now, Brown bases pretty much everything on the Gospel of Philip. The sad thing for his thesis, if he wants to say that this was the original spirituality and the original Jesus, is that the editor of the Nag-Hammadi text of the Gospel of Philip himself dates the Gospel of Philip to, at the earliest, 250 A.D. – a little late for original Christianity. I have seen no example anywhere of anyone succeeding in dating Philip earlier than that. So, if you like, The Da Vinci Code in its essence is being based on a third century document.

WHI: Remarkable. Well, he also says, doesn’t he, that early Judaism had both the Father God in the temple, but also the shekinah – female – glory as a feminine concept. And, in actual fact, correct me if I’m wrong, that comes from Kabbalahism, Jewish

Kabbalahism, which is an medieval Jewish movement.

BOOKS

PJ: Absolutely. We don’t really know how old Kabbalahism is, of course; it came into prominence in the Middle Ages, and there are all kind of books being written these days on all kinds of stuff.

The Da Vinci Code: From Dan Brown’s Fiction to Mary Magdalene’s Faith

WHI: Well, if Madonna becomes it, there are always going to be books written about it!

This booklet outlines and counters seven historical claims that Brown makes about the Bible and Jesus Christ, offers a brief account of the reliability of the Gospels, and explains that Jesus Christ is Saviour and Lord through the eyes of Mary Magdalene as a witness of the cross and resurrection. It is written to help Christians who have questions, but especially for Christians to give to non-Christian friends who have read the book and are interested. It is designed to be shorter and more accessible than the longer responses, but more substantial than a magazine article or a web posting.

PJ: Well, I am reading weird stuff now on freemasonry that finds its way back to the temple of Solomon, and even further back to Isis and Osiris, and so on, and Kabbalah’s mixed into all that. We’re really living in a time of great speculation about these spiritual things, but to nail down this particular issue of the Gospel of Philip, you know, there is no evidence of that kind of spirituality in the Christian church prior to that.

WHI: So it’s not a matter of historical record.

PJ: Not in that case, I would say. He has a long way to go to defend the historicity of Jesus in a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, which is what he really affirms.

People say that Jesus was married. I don’t think that’s what Brown is saying. Brown is saying that it’s essential for Christianity – though he doesn’t use that term as such – that we understand the spirituality of the sex act. He’s not at all defending marriage.

WHI: Thank you for being with us.

PJ: You’re welcome. Thank you.

by Garry Williams Christian Focus Press, 2006 62 pages (booklet), $3.99

Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts

by James Garlow and Peter Jones Victor, April 2004 (reprint) 256 pages (paperback), $14.99 (also available in audio formats) Was Jesus merely human and not divine? Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry and have children? Is there a Holy Grail? If so, what is it and where can it be found? Cracking Da Vinci’s Code provides the answers to these and other questions that may have troubled you or readers you know.

Authors James L. Garlow and Peter Jones present compelling evidence that Brown’s assertions are not only historically inaccurate, but may also contain a hidden agenda.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 1

Cracking Da Vinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts

by James Garlow and Peter Jones Victor, November 2005 108 pages (booklet), $3.99

Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone’s Asking

by Darrell L. Bock Nelson Books, April 2004 208 pages (hardback), $19.99 Many who have read the New York Times bestseller The Da Vinci Code have questions that arise from seven codes—expressed or implied—in Dan Brown’s book. In Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone’s Asking, Darrell Bock, Ph.D., responds to the novelist’s claims using central ancient texts and answers the following questions: • Who was Mary Magdalene?

• Was Jesus married?

• Would Jesus being single be unJewish?

• Do the so-called secret Gnostic Gospels help us understand Jesus?

• What is the remaining relevance of The Da Vinci Code?

Darrell Bock’s research uncovers the origins of these codes by focusing on the 325 years immediately following the birth of Christ, for the claims of The Da Vinci Code rise or fall on the basis of things emerging from this period. Breaking the Da Vinci Code, now available in trade paper, distinguishes fictitious entertainment from historical elements of the Christian faith. For by seeing these differences, one can break the Da Vinci Code.

Featuring an interview with Paul Maier, co-author of The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction • “Christianity: A Faith Founded on Fact” Original air date: April 16, 2006 Featuring an interview with John Warwick Montgomery, author of History and Christianity. In addition to discussing the historical reliability of the gospels, this program also evaluates the Da Vinci Code thesis as well as the Gnostic Gospels.

The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction

by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul L. Maier Tyndale House Publishers, May 2004 96 pages (paperback), $4.99 People are talking. The Da Vinci Code has been on the New York Times bestseller list for almost a year and is raising a variety of responses from Christians and non-Christians alike.

Some are outraged and upset by the claims of Dan Brown, while others are left utterly confused and don’t know what to believe. The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? explodes the myths of the book and shows the reliability of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, as well as the historical facts for the Priory of Zion and the Knights Templar. This is the only hands-on accessible reference guide.

The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction? helps you turn debate about the book into an evangelistic opportunity.

Deciphering the Da Vinci Code

White Horse Inn radio broadcasts

An episode of “Speaking of Faith” with Krista Tippett (aired on NPR stations), public radio’s weekly conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas.

This program is available online at: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.or g/programs/2004/08/05_davinci/

• “Faith, History, and The Da Vinci Code” Original air date: March 20, 2005

The New Testament has entered the American imagination with a

2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

tantalizing spin. The best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, has invigorated popular curiosity but also suspicion about the biblical anthology by reimagining it, in part, as a cover-up. As more Americans read the book, they have been turning to their churches for explanation. For if the novel’s premises are true, much of what they learned in Sunday School was deception. Host Krista Tippett focuses on gathering a basic picture of what really happened in the fluid early years of Christianity. Why were some of the books early Christians read included in the Bible while others were left out? How did it happen that modern Christians inherited an erroneous view of women in the early church, including Mary Magdalene?

Unlocking Da Vinci’s Code— The Full Story The National Geographic Channel (ABC News Productions), written and hosted by Elizabeth Vargas.

Original air date: December 19, 2004.

Check out future airings of this well-produced documentary at: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com /channel/davinci/ Featured interviews include Dan Brown; Ellen McBreen, Ph.D.; Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D.; Father Richard P. McBrien; Paul L Maier, Ph.D.; Professor Elaine Pagels, Ph.D.; Jeffrey Bingham, Ph.D.; Professor Karen King, Ph.D.; Margaret Starbird; Rev Robin Griffith-Jones; Jack Wasserman, Ph.D.; Carlo Pedretti, Ph.D.; Henry Lincoln; Umberto Eco; Helen Nicholson; Dr. Niven Sinclair; Andrew Sinclair.

W H AT D O E S I T M E A N T O B E G O O D ?

Good News for Bad People

W

hat comes to mind when you hear that phrase, “the righteousness of God”—or when you hear it declared that God is righteous? A natural reaction, I think, is to affirm it, but sort of the way one affirms that a triangle has three sides or that all unmarried men are bachelors. It is just one of those eternally true statements that is true by definition.

A Jewish person, on the other hand, at least in biblical times, would have heard such phrases differently. God’s righteousness was understood in covenantal terms, which is to also say, historical terms. It was by no means a foregone conclusion that Israel’s God, YAHWEH, was righteous, in view of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions and subsequent captivity. It was hardly enough that God remained true to himself: given the covenant, he could not be “righteous” without being true to Israel. So the Bible is not a collection of timeless truths. Even if God himself transcends time, he condescends to have his character tested on the field.

The Bible often reads like a courtroom drama, with pleas and counter-pleas, examination and cross-examination, and appeals to the witnesses and evidences of nature and history. In these court scenes, God is not only the judge, but sometimes the one Israel presumes to put on trial. And what is really amazing is that God stoops to allow this indignity, just to prove to everyone that he has been faithful and Israel has been the faithless partner.

So what does it mean for God to be righteous? Among other things, it means that God is faithful to his covenant word. In the Old Testament, the noun form of the word typically refers to someone (whether God or human) who is personally righteous or in a right covenantal relationship with God and the community.

The verb form usually refers to God’s salvation and vindication of his people, which exonerates him from any possible charge of negligence or powerlessness.

When God acts “in righteousness,” it is the same as saying that he acts for the salvation of his people and the judgment of the wicked. In the New Testament, especially in the Pauline epistles, “righteous” and “righteousness,” as well as the verb, “to justify” (since English does not have a word meaning “to righteousize”

BY

MICHAEL HORTON

in its vocabulary), take on slightly different meanings in addition to their traditional ones. As God’s courtroom drama unfolds, it becomes clearer that the Messiah has come not merely to fix Israel and get it back on the right track while clobbering its enemies, but to do something far greater. He has come not only to forgive, but to justify—and not only to justify those who are actually M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

themselves holy, but to justify the wicked. All of this was prophesied and now in Christ it is being fulfilled.

Among the believers in Rome, then, the Jewish Christians particularly would have had an acute sensitivity to this question about the righteousness of God. It would not have referred simply to an abstract attribute that was perhaps true but irrelevant; it would have triggered the big question of Jews ever since the Babylonian captivity: How long, O Lord? When will you restore the kingdom? Will you hide your face from us forever? Even more to the point: Will you keep the covenant? That, after all, is what it meant for God to be righteous.

Romans 1 to 3 belongs to this cosmic trial, and the courtroom intrigue is all over it. Paul is not ashamed of the gospel because it is God’s answer to our covenantbreaking (1:16–17). That covenant-breaking, in fact, has provoked “the wrath of God” which “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Like his righteousness, God’s wrath is not an abstract attribute that we can affirm but never really encounter in history; it is God’s own personal outrage at the violation of his covenant. Here “revealed” does not mean merely disclosed—as if it were merely new information. Rather, it means that God’s wrath has now actually entered human history and the world that he had pronounced “good” in the beginning.

The trial date has been set, and subpoenas have been issued.

Those who fancied that they were in the jury box rather than among the accused are themselves arraigned. They are judges, says Paul, but they are now to be judged by the one who really is righteous (2:1–11).

In fact, in verses 1 to 3 alone, the noun “verdict” / “lawsuit” (krima, krimatos) and verb “judge” / “condemn” (katakrin) appear seven times, and the passage (vv. 1–11) is attended by similar courtroom language. The warning is clearest in 2:5: “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” It is not because of some vague and general pall of evil hanging over the world or because of the viciousness of the nations that God’s wrath is being dammed up, waiting to burst, but because of the impenitent hearts of Jews and Gentiles.

“He will render to each one according to his works,” whether Jew or Greek (2:6–11).

After establishing the terms of God’s righteous judgment and verdict (namely, faithfulness to the stipulations of the covenant), Paul, like the prophets in their role as covenant attorneys, then prosecutes the trial. That God judges righteously and rewards every person according to his or her deeds is not good news, Paul says, to those who are in fact lawless. “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be 2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

judged by the law” (2:12). “Great,” Paul could hear his fellow Jews saying. “Just let God judge us according to his law and covenant, and we will be vindicated.” But Paul reminds them, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (v. 13). If a Gentile happens to help a neighbor buy some groceries, then he or she has obeyed the law even if it is written on his or her conscience rather than on tablets of stone. And if a Jew fails to do so, being “hearer” who does not “do” the law is actually more reprehensible than one who does not even know God’s commands.

The bottom line is that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. The Jews are not better off in this sense than the Gentiles. Although Paul does not quote Hosea 6:7, the idea is clearly present throughout this letter: “Like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Those who rely on the law are under a curse not because the law is sinful, but because they are sinful and the law righteously condemns all such people.

So is God faithful to Israel? Is he really “righteous”?

Can he legitimately pour out his wrath on Jews as well as Gentiles, on the circumcised as well as the uncircumcised?

Absolutely, says Paul.

“For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” (2:25). In other words, the external sign and seal of covenantal protection from God’s wrath becomes null and void if it is not accompanied by true faith, repentance, and obedience to all of the commands at Sinai. Like all children of Adam, those of Israel who are “uncircumcised of heart,” stand condemned before God’s tribunal.

Yes, God is faithful, then, Paul insists in chapter 3.

God has been faithful, but Israel has been unfaithful.

Yet even Israel’s unfaithfulness has been God’s opportunity to be merciful to the world. Jews were in a better position, to be sure (3:1–2), but are not now any better off in God’s courtroom (vv. 9–10). Not a single living person is righteous, understands, or seeks God, does good, or fears God (vv. 11–16). When the defense rests its case and we no longer hear the chatter of the accused trying to exonerate themselves, the law has done its work. “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (vv. 19–20).

Sometimes when we talk about the “three uses of the law,” we can make it sound as if it is somehow the essence of the law to condemn—as if that is what it was designed to do. However, this “first use” of the law is accidental, not essential to the law’s character. In other words, if Adam had fulfilled it, the law would have justly pronounced him righteous, and us with him. The law is

A R T I C L E

simply God’s calling them as he sees them. Yet after the fall, given the fact that we are not righteous, the law does not bring about a knowledge of God’s favor and goodness but of his righteousness and wrath. This is why no one will be justified in God’s courtroom according to the law. Those who appeal to the law or to their own works in any way, shape, or form, are simply digging their own graves. According to Paul, the problem is not simply the ceremonial and dietary laws that separate Jew from Gentile, but the entire condition of idolatry, impenitence, hypocrisy, and selfrighteousness that he has described thus far. There simply is no way out. It is not hearers but doers who will be justified, he said in 2:13. But there are no doers, he argued in 3:9–18. Therefore, no one will be justified: the more clearly we recognize God’s claims in the law, the more sinful we recognize ourselves to be, and the more aware we become that we are those who are storing up wrath for ourselves for that day when the final verdict is rendered.

Only with this bleak backdrop, with the courtroom completely silenced and unable to “spin” things in favor of the accused, are we astonished by the announcement that rends the heavens as the Judge himself acts in covenantal righteousness: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:21–22). The law proclaims the righteousness of God that leads inexorably to our condemnation. Thus far, Paul’s answer to the question as to whether God is righteous,that is, faithful to his covenant, is identical to that of the prophets: reversing the charges. Israel puts God on trial and by the end of it all, Israel realizes that it is her own sins that have justified the curse. Basically, Paul is saying, “Do you really want to talk about God’s righteousness? You? Are you sure about that?” If God were to execute his covenantal righteousness, no one would have been saved after the fall; no one would have been left alive after the Babylonian captivity; no one would be saved on the last day.

The statement, “God is righteous,” then, becomes for those aware of their sinful condition about the worst possible news. It is not a joyful exclamation of praise, but a dreary expectation of judgment. That indeed is what it means for many believers to say that God is righteous, and they spend their lives trying to measure up.

But Paul says that God’s righteousness, that is, his covenantal faithfulness, is exhibited not only in the just condemnation of all people as law breakers. That would be enough to silence every objection against the righteousness of God’s reign, but God’s mercy led him beyond this, to reveal a righteousness that leads to salvation rather than wrath. It is not by suspending his righteousness or by ignoring his justice, but by sending his Son to fulfill the law and bear its just sentence in our

T E X T

place. In this way, we are justified or vindicated not on the basis of our righteousness, but “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3:24–25). Thus, the wrath that we were storing up finally burst like a dam at the cross, sweeping Christ away to the very bowels of hell itself, from which he returned not only safely but victoriously. The wrath of God is not set aside. It is not something that God finally “got over.” Rather, it was propitiated—a word that “atonement” does not match.

After all, “to atone” means to cover over; “to propitiate” means to exhaust until there is nothing left. Because Christ’s death is propitiatory, God’s wrath is not merely pushed aside or somehow overcome by God’s love. It is entirely spent.

Therefore, God’s mercy is not a counterweight to his justice; his love does not overrule his righteousness.

God upholds his righteousness without having to condemn everyone to his eternal wrath! See, the question had begun with the assumption that if Israel, like the nations, is under God’s wrath, then God is unrighteous, that is, unfaithful to his promises. Paul has reminded us that the promise to Israel as a nation (not to individual Jews, for whom salvation was by grace alone through faith alone, just as it is for us) was conditional. Under the law, Israel stood condemned—as Gentiles do without the law, and all Jews do who seek to be personally acquitted by it. In effect, Paul has turned the tables: If God were to simply be righteous (i.e., faithful to the covenant) by means of the law, this would not lead to Israel’s vindication but the condemnation of everyone. The good news is that God has found a way to “be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (v. 26). He remains righteous while “righteousizing” those who are in their own persons the unrighteous people described from 1:18 to 3:18. In this way, the Jews and the Gentiles are both equally condemned by the law and equally justified through faith in Christ. “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (3:31).

Those who try to smooth the rough edges of biblical teaching on human sinfulness and God’s righteousness and wrath necessarily miss the wonderful good news that Paul is announcing. In Christ, God’s righteousness that would otherwise condemn us has now saved us.

Having fulfilled the law in our place and absorbed its righteous sentence in his own body, Christ has now endowed us with his right covenantal standing that we would never have attained by our own obedience. ■

Michael Horton is professor of apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California).

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

HOW DO WE BECOME GOOD?

by Kim Riddlebarger

F

or some time theologians and commentators have debated the central theme of the Book of Romans. Is Paul primarily concerned with the big picture of redemptive history and how the appearance of Jesus at the critical moment in the story alters the way in which the people of God enter the covenant–through faith and not by works? Or is Paul primarily concerned about Jew-Gentile relations and how the Jewish people had unfortunately erected ethnic and cultural obstacles in the new churches, making it extremely difficult for Gentiles to embrace the very Jewish Jesus as their own Messiah (“covenantal nomism”)? Or is Paul concerned with how individual sinners are reconciled to a holy God? The latter concern–how individual sinners are reckoned righteous before God–has been the hallmark of Protestant interpretation of the Book of Romans since the time of the Reformation. Although some scholars have rather lamely argued that Martin Luther’s own guilt-ridden conscience caused him to read the rather bald semi-Pelagianism of the medieval Roman church back into Paul’s treatment of the selfrighteousness of many first century Jews, Luther’s view has been capably defended and vindicated, albeit with a bit of minor tweaking. And while the trend even among conservative and confessional Protestants seems to be moving in the direction of acknowledging that the central theme of Romans is not just how the individual sinner is made right before God, but that God’s justification of sinners must be understood against the broader panorama of redemptive history, the fact of the matter is you cannot deal with the latter without understanding the former.

From the way in which Paul structures his letter to the church in Rome (“plight to solution,” as certain Pauline scholars like to put it), it is clear that Paul’s concern in the opening chapters is to demonstrate beyond all doubt to his readers that human sin had decimated both Jew and Gentile to the point that neither the Old Testament people of God (the Jews), nor those who were formerly strangers and foreigners to the covenant (the Gentiles), could dare appear before God on the Day of Judgment and expect to withstand his holy scrutiny.

Paul makes a sobering case that the human plight (our condition) is very serious. In Romans 2:6, Paul reminds his readers of the frightening truth that “God will give to each person according to what he has done.” While this may assure us of God’s justice, this

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

is not a declaration of good news! If God deals with us according to his justice, this means that God will not overlook our infractions of his law. God will treat us exactly as we deserve. And who among Paul’s readers could withstand such an examination according to the standards of divine justice? Which one of us can say that our good works outweigh our sins?

As Paul points out, all have turned away and become worthless (Rom. 3:12), therefore, all men and women will receive God’s just condemnation if they dare appeal to anything they have done; whether that be good works, a life of commitment and devotion to the things of God, and especially if they claim a reliance upon ethnic identity and God’s love for his people Israel as a sufficient reason as to why God should overlook their sins. Indeed, citing from Psalm 14:1-3, Paul is certain that there is no one who does good (Jew or Gentile), not even one (Rom. 3:12).

The sad fact is that because all are sinners there are none who are righteous (Rom. 3:10). Since God has made his will perfectly clear to all in his law, the whole world is now held accountable to God (Rom. 3:19).

Thus for Paul, sin is the most fundamental human problem with grave and universal consequences. This can be seen as Paul’s overall argument unfolds in chapters 1-3. In Romans 1:1832, Paul describes the ever-downward spiral of Gentile sin. The Gentiles have exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25) and as a result have been given over to the consequences of their sin. In Romans 2:1-3:8, Paul moves on to expose Jewish self-righteousness and legalism, something quite inexcusable since God had given his people so much (the Law and the Prophets) and had repeatedly demonstrated his kindness to Israel when his people fell into sin (Rom. 2:4). And then, as if to ram his point home one more time, in Romans 3:9-20, Paul cites a litany of passages from the Old Testament, all demonstrating that sin has impacted each person from head to toe, from mind to heart. There is no part of human nature which is untainted or unaffected by sin, whether you be Jew or Gentile.

Paul is also clear that the source of this human sinfulness runs deep, so much so that the solution cannot be simplistic nor superficial. Our debt cannot be overlooked nor can we be forgiven, unless and until our infinite debt is paid and God’s holy justice is satisfied. Thus in Romans 5:12-19, Paul argues that Adam, the first man, fell into sin, and as a result, so did

the entire human race. This is because Adam acted as both the biological and federal head of the human race. Not only are we all his biological descendants and therefore we inherit from him our corrupt nature, but in Eden Adam acted as our federal representative under the terms of the covenant of works. In other words, Adam acted for us and in our place, just as if we had been there in Eden ourselves undergoing the same temptation as did Adam. Through his act of disobedience, Paul says, we have been rendered unrighteous (Rom. 5:12, 18). Not only is Adam’s guilt imputed to us, but the poison of sin running through our veins was passed down to us from him as well. Therefore, we are sinners by imputation (Adam’s guilt), by nature (our sinful nature) and by choice (we sin freely and willfully, which is nothing but a fancy way of saying we sin because we want to).

The result of his act of rebellion is that we came under the curse and now face certain death.

Therefore, the answer to the question, “Can I be good enough to stand before God and gain entrance into heaven?” is a resounding “No.” The answer to the closely related question, “What can I do to become good enough?” is an equally resounding, “Nothing.” It is too late to improve or to try harder next time. Having earned our wage according to divine justice (Rom. 6:23), we are dead in sin and in need of something far more than a self-improvement plan, a list of things to do, a religious ceremony to perform (circumcision), a new diet (kosher), or new ethnicity (Jewish).

And so after setting out the thesis of his letter in Romans 1:16-17 – that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe in Jesus, first for the Jew and then for the Gentile, because in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed that is by faith (or from faith, or even of faith) from first to last – Paul moves on to discuss the fact of human sin (plight).

Indeed, that glorious declaration that in the gospel God freely gives what he demands of us under the law (the solution), can only make sense against the backdrop of the human predicament. Why is it that performance of certain religious ceremonies and observance of particular days, even those given by God (circumcision and the feasts) cannot overcome the deficit of human sin? Why is it that performance of good works do not erase nor cannot undo the debt of human sin? The answer is because our debt is already so great that we can never be good enough to stand before the Lord on the Day of Judgment and not be swept away in the flood of divine wrath.

Thus it is the apostle Paul, not the guilt-ridden Luther, who must raise and answer the question of how sinful people can be declared “righteous” before God. If none were found it would be time

for Paul to close up shop and go back to a life of tentmaking in Tarsus (Paul’s home town). But, there is a solution to the human plight, although it will not be found in us. It will be found in Jesus Christ, who, Paul argues, is the second Adam and who undoes what the first Adam brought down upon all of us. If Adam’s act of disobedience rendered us sinners and brought death upon Adam’s race, it was Christ’s act of obedience which brings righteousness (Rom. 5:19). If the sin of Adam brought death, then the obedience of Christ brings life (Rom. 5:18).

While we can never be good enough to be justified, Jesus was good enough to fulfill all righteousness. In fact, he was perfectly obedient to all of God’s commandments! This is why Paul can go on to set forth the good news after making sure his readers heard the bad news, which amounts to Paul’s honest assessment of the human condition. Paul says that while we were God’s enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Christ’s death reconciles God to us and us to God, by removing the ground of offence (our sin) which renders us recipients of God’s justice and wrath (Rom. 5:9-10). Because Jesus died as a payment for our sins (Rom. 4:24), was punished for us (Rom. 3:25), was raised from the dead for our justification (Rom. 4:25), we have “peace with God.” When Paul speaks of peace with God, he’s not speaking so much of the sense of inner peace we feel knowing that because of Christ’s work for us, God is no longer angry with us. Rather, Paul is speaking of the cessation of hostilities between God and sinners. Once God has been reconciled to us, and us to God, the war is over, and as a result, we will feel a certain sense of peace.

Indeed, as Paul puts it in Romans 4:1-8, there is a wonderful blessedness ascribed to those who place their faith in Christ. Blessed are those who do not work, but trust God who justifies the wicked!

Therefore Paul’s answer to the question, “How do I become good enough?” is that you can’t. This is our plight. But Paul’s solution to the human plight is that while we cannot become good enough, Jesus Christ was good enough (in fact, he was perfectly righteous) and when we place our trust in him (faith), God imputes the guilt of our sin to Christ (Rom. 3:22-24; 5:6-8), so that we are forgiven of our sins and reconciled to our heavenly Father. Furthermore, through that same act of faith, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law of God is reckoned to us (Rom. 4:21-25; 5:19) so that just as Christ was good enough to stand before the father, so, too, are we.

Kim Riddlebarger is pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California and co-host of the White Horse Inn weekly radio broadcast.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

BY THE NUMBERS

D

o American Christians know what it means to be good? Are their concepts of sin and grace biblical?

Generally, “no” is the answer according to our own White Horse Inn polls at the 1996 and 2006 Christian Booksellers Association conventions. Our own findings are supported by evangelical pollster George Barna’s research. Here are a few of the most important questions we asked. You can see for yourself how American Christians stack up:

“Are people born basically good?”

50% Yes 50% No (WHI Poll, 2006 CBA convention)

“God knows that no one is perfect, but He looks on the heart to see who truly loves and seeks Him” 100% agreed (WHI Poll, 2006 CBA convention)

“A good person can earn his/her way into heaven” 31% agreed (Barna Poll, 2000)

“The way to get to heaven is by trying to live a life that pleases God” 21% agreed 75% disagreed 4% unsure (WHI Poll, 2006 CBA convention)

“Putting into practice the principles of Jesus is how one becomes right with God” 42% agreed 55% disagreed 3% unsure (WHI Poll, 1996 CBA convention)

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

“Justification is the process by which I am made holy by God’s Spirit” (a summary of the Roman Catholic understanding of the doctrine of Justification) 71% agreed 26% disagreed 3% unsure (WHI Poll, 1996 CBA convention)

“Salvation is for those who do absolutely nothing to help save themselves, but simply trust in a God who justifies sinful people” (a summary of Romans 4:5) 54% agreed 44% disagreed 2% unsure (WHI Poll, 1996 CBA convention)

“Christians go to heaven because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus as their Savior” 53% of men agreed 58% of women agreed (Barna Poll, 2005)

PREACHING FROM THE CHOIR perspectives

on

music

and

th e

ch u r c h

The Right Blend in Worship Music

T

hings are moving fast in the world of worship music, as we would expect in the

ination’s seminary and college. day of globalization. Until the mid-twentieth century, innovations in worship Perhaps the first question a church must ask in occurred rather slowly, with major hymnals produced only every twenty years choosing its worship style and its music is, what kind or so. Since then, new ideas and new sounds have emerged of environment does it want to represent? Elements from much faster. A veritable cottage industry of books, magaboth models ought to be present in a Reformed view of zines, web pages, conferences and seminars is devoted to worship. On the one hand, we want to concede due defpromoting innovative ideas about worship, and with that erence to leaders. When we read the pastoral epistles, we comes lots of new hymns and liturgical songs. Is this good? see the Apostle Paul training his successors, Timothy and Is it a sign of revival? Or is it one more example of informaTitus, to carry on the right teaching with integrity. Sound tion overload and innovative promiscuity? As I study the doctrine included elements of worship. On the other hand, situation, my answer would have to be … yes! we find in the New Testament something like an authority Much is positive, but there are danger signs as well. of the base being recognized. “When you come together, How do we begin to grasp all that is happening? And, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction” is Paul’s more importantly, what, if anything, can we apply to our description of Corinthian worship. While he will hone his churches, in order to be faithful to the Lord’s requirements thoughts and center these contributions on mutual edificain worship and music? tion, he does not want to stifle a proper spontaneity. So First, a look at the sources. Presbyterian both the top-down and the grassroots minister Robb Redman, in his fascinating book approach are legitimate. Indeed, the one canThe Great Worship Awakening, suggests two basic not exist without the other. environments for developing new ways to God is honored The next decision, though, is about the kind think about worship. The first he calls the of blending to practice. To some extent, every in a number cathedral, and the second the bazaar. The service of worship is blended, because elements cathedral represents a center of liturgical and of styles where from tradition are incorporated with more musical excellence, using gifted leaders and recent practice. The problem, though, is that people are schools, all of which constitute a laboratory for today the word has come to mean throwing in creating good worship material. While the a bit of everything: It is the ultimate postmodsincerely cathedral is conservative and slower to innoern sampling. In this sense, blended worship is thanking him vate, the product is tested well and makes the adding a few older hymns to a framework of best available environment to its congregants. more contemporary songs, or the other way for his grace.

One could think of some of the larger churcharound. This can be done, and even has some es in urban centers which exhibit this capabiliadvantages. In some ways, when a church is ty, such as Tenth Presbyterian Church in poised for admixture, change is resisted a good Philadelphia with its splendid music program. Or, one could deal less. And there is nothing like change to bring out peothink of institutions, agencies, and publishers dedicated to ple’s true feelings. Sampling also has the advantage of recthis purpose, such as the Yale School of Sacred Music. ognizing the worldwide church. With joy, in a larger enviThe bazaar model (I don’t like the word much, but I also ronment where many nations are present, do we learn to can’t think of a better term) is a more grassroots, multifaceted sing some of the marvelous African songs or the great environment for innovation. Like the Middle Eastern market, Hispanic hymns. it is a meeting place where people exchange ideas and create Yet, in general, blending-as-sampling is not a good networks where good thoughts may be shared. Redman has approach. Although it appears ecumenical, in fact, it often a penchant for this approach. He cites the Christian Reformed avoids the hard work of “singing a new song before the Church (CRC) as an example. Rather than a top-down Lord.” “New,” here, is not necessarily an original creation, approach, the CRC has tried to stimulate reflection across the though that is often a marvelous answer to the problem of board, using tools such as the journal Reformed Worship and the music in the church. But it is a fresh response to the expeCalvin Institute for Christian Worship, centered in the denomrience of God’s grace.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

We can learn a great lesson from the way music became a major vehicle for the praise of Israel as they returned from captivity, back to the land of Canaan, though not in full possession of it: When the LORD restored the fortunes of Zion, We were like those who dream.

Then our mouth was filled with laughter, And our tongue with shouts of joy; Then they said among the nations, ‘The LORD has done great things for them.’

The LORD has done great things for us; We are glad. (Ps. 126:1–3) The pattern here, repeated over and over in the Bible, is that a people newly conscious of the power of God’s grace responds in music. In this case, it is with “shouts of joy.” Here, in the restoration, the Psalter is being given its final shape, and the temple is being rebuilt. Of course, the exile itself had been deeply painful, eliciting quite different music, the sounds of lamentation. At times the experience was so humiliating, being taunted to sing by their enemies, that Israel literally and figuratively hung up their lyres and could not sing (Ps. 137:2–4). But now there is full joy.

David and Asaph are recalled as patrons of music (the link with tradition). And yet new songs are needed for a new epoch in redemptive history (see Ps. 92:1–4; Rom. 15:9–11; see Rev. 15:2–4—where the song of Moses is used in response to God’s current deliverance). Supremely in Christ is the new song appropriate.

Do we not have here a model for successfully guiding our worship and music into the right merger of old and new, lasting and innovative, of the ages and contemporary? Is this not a blending of history and freshness which translates into music? Is it not a healthy blending of high standards with spontaneity? So often, those who espouse traditional music justify it by appealing to God’s honor, as though the Lord were only pleased with a particular style of music. And so often, those who justify contemporary music claim to be responsive to people’s tastes as though their preferences were equivalent to necessary aesthetic choices. But the truth is, God is honored in a number of styles where people are sincerely thanking him for his grace. At the same time, there are aesthetic standards which transcend taste, by which taste can be educated, whatever the style. The different churches will certainly not all have a uniform style. But those who know the freshness of grace will blend the best from tradition with the most authentic from local culture, all of it producing a new song.

Resources When thinking about proper blending for today’s church music, here are two helpful resources on the Internet. Robert McIntyre has put together a useful website, Music: Resources for Blended and Contemporary Music and Worship (www.gbod.org/worship/blended.html), connected with the United Methodist Church. A bit eclectic, the 3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

site links to resource centers such as Cokebury in Nashville, as well as to books and periodicals of all kinds, various electronic resources, national and ethnic hymnals in abundance, charts and videos, and also to information about copyrights and legal issues.

Another rich resource from the Roman Catholic perspective is Gia Sacred Music. Their “about us” page (www.giamusic.com/about.html) explains the goal of making quality music and music education resources available to many different kinds of churches and music ministers.

The site features the Taizé community in central France, which has music and liturgical resources that come out of this remarkable center (www.giamusic.com/scstore/P4956.html). Mainly composed by the late Jacques Berthier, these simple and beautiful songs have been translated into English as “Songs for Prayer.”

In this article, Dr. Edgar cites Robb Redman’s book The Great Worship Awakening (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), pp. 194ff. For more information on the Calvin Institute for Christian Worship, see this column in the September/October 2004 and January/February 2005 issues of Modern Reformation.

Consequences (continued from page 18) Although believing in eternal hell and that Christ’s death satisfied God’s wrath are not popular today, they are the plain teaching of Holy Scripture. Belief in the former moves us to pray for lost persons. And by God’s grace our concern for their deliverance from hell can outweigh our reluctance to share the (bad and) good news with them. Belief in the latter fills us with gratitude towards the One who loved us and gave himself for us, enduring God’s wrath to save us from eternal loss. And it gives us confidence because if Christ suffered condemnation for us, then we will not have to suffer it ourselves. Praise his holy name! ■

Robert A. Peterson is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He has written Calvin & the Atonement (Christian Focus, 1999), Hell on Trial (P&R, 1995), Two Views of Hell, with Edward Fudge (IVP, 2000), and has co-edited, with Christopher Morgan, the Gold Medallion Award finalist, Hell Under Fire (Zondervan, 2004).

In the preceding article, Prof. Peterson’s quotation from C. H. Dodd is taken from Dodd’s The Bible and the Greeks (1935), pp. 82–95. Prof. Peterson also quotes Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pp.

136–156; Roger Nicole, “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” Westminster Theological Journal 17 (1954–55), pp. 117–157; and Donald A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans 3:21–26,” in The Glory of The Atonement, eds. C. E. Hill and F. A. James, III, p. 129.

INTERVIEW for

d ialogue

in

and

out

of

ou r

c ircles

An Interview with Edward Fudge

Hell: The “Minority” View Editor’s Note: Edward Fudge is an author and practicing lawyer. He advocates the “conditionalist” perspective of hell—that after a period of suffering, the unfaithful will experience a complete extinguishing, or annihilation of existence. For a more comprehensive explanation of the conditionalist view of hell, as contrasted with the traditional view, see Fudge’s book, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue co-authored with Robert A. Peterson (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000). This interview originally appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Modern Reformation.

MR: For those unfamiliar with your teaching on hell or eternal punishment, would you please summarize it briefly? Is it fair to call your view “conditional”?

EF: I do not believe that the Bible teaches that the lost will be made immortal, or that they will suffer torments without end. Instead, I believe Scripture teaches that God will “destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28), and that “eternal punishment” means being “punished” with “eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9). Our God is a “consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29). Because hell’s fire cannot be extinguished (“unquenchable”), it will eventually “burn up” those sentenced to it (Matt. 3:12). In the end, the wages of sin really is “death”—to which the contrast is “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23; Rev. 21:8).

This view is neither eccentric nor cultish, having being advocated, held, or allowed by such faithful luminaries as F. F. Bruce, Michael Green, W. Graham Scroggie, Dale Moody, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, E. Earle Ellis, Philip E. Hughes, Homer Hailey, and John Stott. That it is a minority view, which contradicts several ecclesiastical creeds, should not matter, since we all agree that truth is learned from Scripture and not from polls or human creeds.

(It is entirely consistent, by the way, with the truly universal Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed.)

This understanding of Scripture is sometimes called “conditional immortality” and those who hold it are sometimes called “conditionalists.” These labels point to the truths that God alone is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and that any human who finally enjoys immortality will do so as God’s gift, conditional on receiving his grace in Jesus Christ.

This position rests on hundreds of Scriptures from throughout the entire Bible. I have summarized that scriptural teaching in Two Views Of Hell, which I co-authored with Robert A. Peterson (IVP, 2000), and set it out in detail in the much larger book, The Fire That Consumes.

This scriptural base includes messianic texts from the Old Testament, which picture the wicked’s final destiny as perishing and being shattered like earthenware (Ps. 2:9, 12), as corpses (Ps. 110:5–6), as slain (Isa. 11:4), as corpses devoured by maggots and by fire (Isa. 66:24), and as chaff that burns until nothing is left—ashes under the feet of the righteous (Mal. 4:1, 3). It includes the entire recorded teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, who warns that God can destroy soul as well as body, and who compares the wicked’s end to that of a house destroyed by a hurricane or typhoon (Matt. 7:27). It includes all that Jesus said about “hell” or Gehenna (an eschatological name borrowed from the Jerusalem garbage dump, a disgusting place of perpetually smoldering fire and

stomach-turning putrefaction).

Such a scenario completely satisfies Jesus’ statement that some will go away into “eternal punishment.”

The word punishment says that there will be penal consequences for wrongdoing, which are imposed by judicial authority. It does not say anything about the nature of that punishment itself, however. Paul explains what Jesus left vague, when he says that Jesus will “punish” the wicked with “eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9). This punishment of eternal destruction is eternal punishment in two senses. Qualitatively, it is eternal because it pertains to the age to come. Quantitatively, it is eternal because it lasts forever. The wicked, once destroyed, are gone forever.

This destruction is fully as long-lasting as the eternal life and blessing of the saved.

MR: How different is your objection to the doctrine of eternal punishment from someone like Clark Pinnock’s?

EF: First of all, neither Clark nor I object to the doctrine of eternal punishment, a teaching which comes from the mouth of Jesus himself. We do, however, object to the traditional interpretation of that doctrine. Those who argue for unending conscious torment often call their interpretation “the doctrine of eternal punishment.”

Whether intentionally or unwittingly, they equate a particular

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 1

human understanding with scriptural doctrine—assuming what they need to prove.

That said, I believe that Clark and I share the same understanding of Scripture on this subject, as well as the same critique of the traditional doctrine’s evolution through the course of Church history.

(probably volcanic) fire and burning sulfur, “serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” What does eternal fire do? It destroys forever, and Sodom is an example of that. Of course, in the Matthew passage in particular, “eternal” probably also has connotations of the age to come.

MR: What is your chief criticism of the doctrine of eternal punishment? Is it mainly a question of what the Bible teaches? Or are your concerns apologetic, such as does hell keep nonbelievers from accepting the truth of the gospel?

MR: What do you make of Mark 9:48, which says of hell that it is a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”

EF: See, you did it again! I have no criticism of “the doctrine of eternal punishment.” I teach the doctrine of eternal punishment. What I criticize (and totally reject) is the interpretation of eternal punishment, which says that God will make the wicked immortal in order to torment them forever and ever without end.

The reason, and the only reason, that I reject that interpretation of eternal punishment is that I do not find it taught anywhere in the Bible. Instead, I find the Bible to teach—from Genesis to Revelation—that the wicked will finally die, perish, and be destroyed. That fate stands in sharp contrast to the destiny of the saved, to whom God will give immortality (deathlessness) to enjoy eternal life with him forever.

After I had reached these conclusions, during a year of intensive exegetical study of pertinent passages throughout the whole Bible, I began to discover several of their implications. One of those implications involved both apologetics and missions.

There are many people, I came to realize, for whom the traditional doctrine of unending conscious torment seems to contradict (if not to blaspheme) the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. For many individuals, learning that eternal punishment means conscious suffering according to precise divine justice, then ceasing to exist forever removes an offense to the gospel. I have always insisted, however, that such implications must follow exegesis. We cannot start with our conception of what we think ought to be (as people holding both these views sometimes do).

We must begin by asking what the Bible actually teaches, then let the implications follow however they might.

MR: How do you explain Christ’s teaching in Matthew 25: 31–46, especially verse 41, where he says of the King that he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels”?

EF: I have briefly discussed eternal punishment in this passage. As for “eternal fire,” Jude tells us, in verse 7 of his epistle, that Sodom and Gomorrah “are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (NASB). The NIV says that those cities, which were totally and irreversibly destroyed by 3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

EF: Jesus quotes this language from Isaiah 66:24, where the prophet portrays the age to come (“the new heavens and the new earth,” v. 22). Borrowing imagery from the literal Gehenna, ancient Jerusalem’s garbage dump, God portrays the saved as they observe the destruction of the lost: “They shall go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind” (NASB).

This is not a picture of living beings suffering torment, but of dead people (“corpses”) being consumed by maggots and by fire. The worm keeps eating and the fire keeps burning until nothing is left to eat or to burn. In this scene, the lost are already dead. They have been “slain” by God (Isa. 66:16). They have “come to an end altogether” (Isa. 66:17). They are nothing but “corpses”—corpses already being consumed (Isa. 66:24).

This picture elicits stomach-turning disgust and revulsion (“abhorrence,” v. 24; the same Hebrew word used of the lost in Dan. 12:2). By the time of the scene portrayed in Isaiah 66:24, only the saved are still alive. “All mankind” worships God (Isa. 66:23). Those who are not saved are dead in the second death.

Jesus certainly could have changed this imagery or its meaning if he wished to do so. However, he merely quoted it and did not change it at all. In fact, Jesus confirmed Isaiah’s meaning when he warned that God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Only later did certain Christian commentators interpret this standard biblical picture of destruction to mean a life in torment that never ends. The traditional view of everlasting torture in hell contradicts this passage in Isaiah which Jesus quotes but does not change.

MR: How about the parable of the rich man in Luke 16, which suggests a person undergoing ongoing punishment?

EF: Hell’s destructive process (which culminates in the second death) will involve whatever conscious torment God determines to be necessary in each individual case.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus does not teach us anything about that torment, however. Its whole story occurs while the rich man’s brothers are still living on earth, during an era when Moses and the prophets represent God’s final authority. If the parable’s context

and its “punch line” mean anything, they suggest that Jesus’ point involves the importance of making right choices while one is living, because afterward will be too late. Even if this story were taken literally, which practically no one does, it says nothing about the events that will follow Christ’s return and the final judgment.

The Bible does teach ongoing punishment following the judgment. That is the punishment of everlasting destruction, the second death. The person who suffers this fate will truly “die,” “perish,” and be “destroyed”— forever and ever without end. That destiny—not eternal conscious torment—is the eternal punishment of which Jesus solemnly warned.

MR: You have said that the doctrine of hell as involving eternal torment is inconsistent with the character of God revealed in Scripture. If so, what does Christ’s suffering and descent into hell reveal about the character of God? Wouldn’t his death indicate that in addition to being a God of love, he is also a God of righteous anger?

EF: The doctrine of hell is not inconsistent with the character of God, but I believe that the traditional interpretation of that doctrine is wholly inconsistent with God’s character as revealed in Jesus Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that God is also a God of righteous anger. The New Testament contains many references to the wrath of God. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” I would never minimize God’s wrath, and I would chide anyone who does. At the same time, we cannot use our own imagination or sense of propriety to define what the outworking of divine wrath against the wicked will be. For that, we must be bound by, and limited to, Holy Scripture.

As you know, scholars are not of one opinion about the meaning of the creedal phrase concerning Christ’s descent into hell. It is possible that the original meaning was that he truly died. Whatever the creed means, the Bible makes it absolutely plain that Jesus Christ did die on the cross as a substitute for all his people, vicariously bearing the punishment of all who finally will be saved.

That is entirely consistent with my understanding of eternal punishment, since the wages of sin is “death” and the wicked finally experience the “second death.”

MR: What happens to the souls of those who experience punishment and do not go to heaven? Is it possible for souls to be destroyed? If so, does this involve a denial of the immortality of the soul?

EF: Jesus warned that God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28). The clear implication is that he intends to do just that. I am glad that you asked this question, however, because it goes to the origins of the notion of unending conscious torment within Christian doctrine. During the second century, several notable Greek philosophers became Christians. They brought with them into the Church the pagan Greek

teaching that every person has a mortal (dying) body and an immortal (deathless) soul.

These apologists, as they came to be known, admitted that the Bible teaches that only God has immortality in himself. They argued that God created the human soul immortal, but admitted that, as its creator, God could even destroy an immortal soul if he wished to do so. But when they talked about hell, they forgot their earlier admissions. The soul is immortal, they reasoned, and it cannot be destroyed. When Jesus warned that God can destroy the soul in hell, for example, Tertulllian explained that the soul is incapable of destruction because it is immortal. He then concluded that “destroy” must really mean to keep alive in perpetual torment forever. I document all this in both of my books on this subject.

Whenever the Bible uses the words immortal or immortality of human beings, it always does so in terms of the resurrection (never of creation); always in terms of the body (never of a disembodied soul or spirit); and always of the saved (never of the lost). Most Bible scholars today, evangelical and nonevangelical alike, acknowledge that the Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul in the sense Tertullian spoke of it.

The traditional interpretation of unending conscious torment originated from the notion that souls cannot die, perish, or be destroyed. Now that we know that notion to be false, we are free to accept at face value the multitude of Scripture verses that use those very terms to describe the final destiny of the lost. The Bible teaches eternal punishment; it is the punishment of everlasting destruction.

MR: Since it was possible for Adam after he sinned to die and still be alive, isn’t it also conceivable that perishing or being destroyed could also involve continuing existence for those in hell?

EF: In Genesis 2:17, God prohibits Adam from partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, warning that “in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.” Our modern idiom would say: “the moment you eat from it, you are a dead man!” Adam actually died at age 930 (Gen. 5:5), but he came under death’s sentence on the day he ate the forbidden fruit.

Adam was not immortal by nature, and neither are we, for only God possesses immortality. However, Adam could have received immortality if he had obeyed the Creator (symbolized by eating from the tree of life).

Instead, Adam sinned and came under penalty of death (mortality)—a state shared by all persons whom Adam represented (everyone except Jesus Christ, the “last Adam” and representative head of a new humanity).

When Christ returns, God will give immortality to all who belong to Christ, either by resurrection (if dead) or instantaneous transformation (if still living). As noted earlier, the Bible speaks of immortality only in terms of the saved, never of the lost. Although God will raise the wicked dead, they (continued on page 39) M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 3

REVIEWS wh at ’s

b e i n g

r ead

The Joy of Sex for Christians

I

was sitting in their living room. (We will call them Mr. and Mrs. Smith.) Mrs.

activity as it addresses the virtues of intimacy, the curse of forsaking Smith was proudly declaring to me that she had just completed her thirty-sec- God-given boundaries, and the joy of Christian sex. ond reading of the whole Bible. Well, almost the whole Bible.

Justin Taylor’s introduction, as well as later chapters on “Sex and “You see,” she said, History” by Justin Taylor and Mark Dever, give the reader “I don’t read that one the kind of cultural and historical setting they need to disbook in the Old cuss our modern sexual customs in relation to biblical Testament.” command. John Piper, in the opening chapters, demon“Leviticus?” I asked, strates that sex, correctly understood, is a means by which citing the Pentateuchal we deepen our relationship with God. Ben Patterson tome many find diffishows us how “good” sex can be when experienced in cult to traverse. appropriate context and with godly motivations. David “No, not that one.

Powlison and Al Mohler address the negative side of sex: The one written by the the shame and perversion, counseling us not to be man with all the deceived by the world, but to find our hope in God. The wives.” remaining two sections complete the book by addressing “Song of Solomon.” those struggles particular to men as men and women as “Yes, that one. women.

Pornography.

That Not forgetting the unmarried, these final sections also book doesn’t even include chapters devoted to a proper consideration of sex belong in the Bible,” in a single person’s situation. Mark Dever puts it this way: she concluded. there should be none. However, the same chapter goes on In Sex and the to demonstrate that a theology of sex is something every Sex and the Supremacy of Supremacy of Christ, man should have. One need not be a warrior to compreChrist edited by John Piper hend spiritual battle, nor married to know God’s intention

by John Piper and Justin and Justin Taylor and for romance and intimacy. Sex is not to be held back from Taylor, editors drawn from the the single person. It is offered freely to them in the conCrossway Books, 2005 288 pages (paperback), $15.99 Desiring God National text of marital bliss.

Conference of the Throughout Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, the marriage same name, we learn bed is lifted up and presented as holy and undefiled. that sex is not something to be feared, dismissed, or conMarital union is shown to be a vibrant picture of God’s sidered shameful. Sex, rather, plays an active role in the love toward us in Christ, endowing our sexuality with God-glorifying life. gospel purpose. Paul’s concern that the Ephesians see husThere are many reasons to write a book such as this band and wife as typifying “Christ and the church” is reitone. We live in what has been termed a pornographic erated throughout. As marriage reflects God’s desires, the society. Blatant and perverse sexual activity can barely be Good News is proclaimed. As marriage strays from God’s avoided. As a result, even Christian thinking on sex has command, the message grows ever more silent. For this become warped. Sexual immorality is as likely inside the reason, we need this kind of book to call us back to a church as it is outside. Yet, Mrs. Smith’s embarrassment is Christ-centered perspective on sexuality. no less sinful than other distorted views. It is crucial that Song of Solomon, as C. J. Mahaney writes in chapter 7, those who would hold to a decidedly Christian worldview “is an entire book of the Bible devoted to the promotion of understand the God-given place of sex within creation. sexual intimacy within the covenant of marriage.” Our Sex, like everything else, must be brought under the Mrs. Smith saw no purpose to the Song of Solomon in her Lordship of Christ.

Bible because she did not see Christ in it. She missed the Sex and the Supremacy of Christ seeks to characterize the beautiful image that her own marriage could be of Christ difference between cultural acceptability and Christ-like as loving husband and she as faithful helpmate. She failed

3 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

to see her own reflection in the pages of holy writ. As Calvin rightly enjoined us, the knowledge of self and knowledge of God cannot be separated. We “know” God better when we truly appreciate what it means to “know” intimately. This is one way that God has written his Word on the Christian’s heart.

The true Christian, then, must walk the path of understanding sex in God’s design. Sex and the Supremacy of Christ offers us a faithful signpost. In my reading of it, I found it to be thorough, reverent, and enlightening. I know of no other book that approaches the subject of sex so fully with such an inherent commitment to biblical authority. I offer it to the reader wholeheartedly.

Shaun Nolan View Crest PCA Eighty Four, Pennsylvania

Talking the Walk

by Marva Dawn Baker Book House, 2005 224 pages (hardback), $22.99 “When we speak bad theology, we live badly theologically.” In seventy-two pithy, very personal essays, Marva Dawn provides ample proof for that assertion. The latest offering from this theologian and teacher targets the contemporary bent towards the corruption of words and their meanings. But not just any words. Rather, the essential words of traditional Christianity, words that are so key to the Christian faith that “churches (and individual Christians) cannot flourish if the names are corrupted.”

The goal of her writing is to “rectify the names.” The phrase came from Confucius originally, but was used years ago by a Pennsylvania congressman who was contending against a misleading title assigned to a bill before Congress.

The bill was called the Tax Reform Act, but it was not at all about reforming the tax code. When asked about what difference it made what the bill was called, the congressman responded, “A great man named Confucius taught that government cannot operate honestly if the names are dishonest. This amendment to the title of the bill is an attempt at a fundamental goal of good government: the rectification of the names.’”

Similarly, Dawn says a fundamental goal of good church teaching must be the “rectification of the names,” that is, right teaching of the words central to Christianity

SHORT NOTICES Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community

by David Powlison VantagePoint, 2005 203 pages (paperback), $17.99 Most of us struggle to incorporate the truth of the Bible regarding relationships. Counselor and Professor David Powlison’s follow-up to Seeing with New Eyes instructs how to lovingly weave such truth into personal interactions by demonstrating the person of Christ to those we seek to help.

By wisely connecting Scripture with practical living, he teaches how to ask questions that communicate care, how to examine our listening, and how best to be prepared to help others in need. Though written for counselors, anyone interested in applying biblical truth to relationships will benefit from this book.

—Nick Darrell

The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture

by N. T. Wright HarperCollins Publishers, 2005 160 pages (hardcover), $19.95 Few scholars explore the diverse terrain of contemporary thought and its significance for the church as deftly as N. T. Wright. Unfortunately, despite numerous dead-on critiques of modern and postmodern positions, The Last Word fails to keep the subtitle’s promise of moving “beyond the Bible wars.”

Emphasizing the narrative flow, or story, of Scripture, Wright addresses shortcomings prevalent in both conservative and liberal approaches to the Bible. The Last Word highlights several ways that the richness of God’s redemptive activity in Jesus Christ can be lost.

Disappointingly, Wright fails to demonstrate how the reiteration of his five-act approach to scriptural authority provides a unique path through any specific challenge currently facing the church. Instead, prescriptive suggestions fall largely upon “Left Behind” fundamentalism or the liberal “Christianity” of John Shelby Spong. If you fall in the (continued on page 37)

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 5

and a corresponding willingness to correct the wrongheaded ideas that circulate in our churches. Dawn is concerned about guarding the definitions of our essential Christian words so that we stay true to our Christian identity when our words become subject to inevitable cultural shifts.

Like a lot of Christians, Dawn is dismayed that biblical faith is being replaced by “something less than faithfulness because of distortions in language,” what she calls elsewhere, “theological jargon” that appears in Christian lyrics, liturgy, and publications. She longs for a movement in Christian circles—across all denominational lines—that would fight for the “essential words [that] should be retained in all their customary truth and eternal mystery.”

She contends that it is in those words that we preserve what is the source of “truly meaningful life, of genuinely loving mission, of infinitely deep delight.” In other words, the meaning of our Christian words matter, and because they matter, the authenticity and veracity of the Christian faith is at stake when they are misused, abused, overused, rendered obsolete, or unfashionable.

In the Diary of a Country Priest, the unhappy protagonist notes, “It is one of the most mysterious penalties of men that they should be forced to confide the most precious of their possessions to things so unstable and ever changing, alas, as words.” Dawn acknowledges the instability of words and definitions in the introduction to the book. Yet, she says that it is critical that the church agree that “even in the midst of change, the traditional (in the best sense of that word), orthodox, catholic faith is intellectually credible” and that “the faith always needs to be rethought in each age and modified in some particulars, but not in essence.” Dawn is not denying that our Christian words periodically need to be freshly nuanced, but she is pleading for Christians to insist that they preserve their essential meanings (their consistent and honest Christian meanings) from generation to generation.

For Dawn the pathway for the “rectification of names” is for Christians to stay in touch with the Triune God as revealed in the Bible. Her essays are preeminently about reverence and worship of God, and secondarily about God-glorifying interpretation and discipleship. We best resist corruptions of our faith and practice through the reading of the Word of God and worship. On postmodernism and its need to situate the definition of Christian words in personal context, she says, “Maybe our modernist need to control everything by scientific explanation and our postmodern need to deconstruct dogma need to be exchanged for a more awed beholding, a more humble bowing before, and a more ardent and radiant knitting of our lives to, the God-Man Jesus the Christ, our Lord.”

Many people will resonate with the “corruptions” discussed in Dawn’s essays. She honestly writes about her own tendencies to corrupt, misuse, and distort some of the more difficult Christian truths into more comfortable, less daunting definitions. She reflects on the spiritual quagmire they create in the believer and talks out loud about the theological conundrums. Then she offers an answer.

3 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Not a final answer, but a right path for further inquiry, for refining one’s thinking, for coming to know more deeply the traditional, orthodox, catholic response to our corruption of the words. On God’s wrath, for example, she says, “The wrath of God is too terrible and too mysterious for us, so we’d rather just ignore it. On the other side of the theological spectrum, some people like to emphasize the wrath of God … , as if scaring the hell out of people will make good disciples out of them. What is missing in both of these opposite corruptions is serious reading of the texts.” Then after a brief discussion of biblical texts, she says, “The reason that I want to reclaim the wrath of God is that without it we don’t properly handle the injustices and cruelties of our world.”

She discusses words that you would expect, like sin, guilt, judgment, and hell. She also includes the unexpected, such as misuses of brokenness, behold, victim, and opinion. On opinion she says, “The value of ‘Opinion’ in our society has been so corrupted as to have taken on sinful proportions. Opinions have become our personal gods or, more accurately, the proof that we are our own gods.

They signify our autonomy, a massive leveling of all convictions, the abandonment of all standards, the elimination of truth. It drives me nuts! I have tried to talk with certain pastors about the historic faith, about doctrines upon which the Church has agreed for centuries, and the response is always, ‘Well, that’s your opinion; we’re entitled to our own.’”

Talking the Walk could successfully be used in the church as a text for a Sunday school class or small group that wanted to introduce right theological thinking with discussions about mistaken ideas and common theological errors. The book is organized in a way that models how Christians come to attain the kind of sound theology that leads to right living. Calvin wrote in his Institutes, “[N]early all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”

Talking the Walk is in three parts: the first and third parts contain words that provide sound knowledge of God and his actions. The second part is about human beings and our plight, entitled “Why Do Human Beings and the World Need God?” Her essays make the case that to mis-know in the first part is to mis-know in the other part, and hence to mis-worship the Triune God and to misunderstand his actions and ourselves.

G. K. Chesterton said, “But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out.” Marva Dawn says we should insist on the former and fight for it, for the glory of God and for the preservation of the truth for the next generation.

Susan Disston Regional Trainer C E & P, Presbyterian Church in America

Lies That Go Unchallenged: In Media and Government

by Charles Colson and James Stuart Bell Tyndale House Publishers, 2005 392 pages (paperback), $12.99 Lies That Go Unchallenged, by its own description, is about the culture war between the cultural implications of Christianity and the cultural implications of secularism. Christians trying to wage a culture war often confuse politics for culture and moralism for the gospel.

True, Christians believe in morality (while understanding that fallen human beings cannot keep the Law and so need the gospel of Christ).

And, true, Christians, in their vocation as citizens, can indeed be politically active (while not confusing the kingdom of God with earthly kingdoms).

Often Christians think they are fighting a cultural war when they are really fighting a political war. Electing officials and passing laws are much easier, but do hardly any good.

To change the culture requires cultural means—creating works of art, persuading people to change their ideas, forming communities in church and family that model what a culture should be. Ironically, for all of the rhetoric, most Christians today are far more interested in imitating the culture—in their worship styles, music, and lifestyles— rather than waging any kind of war against it. But Christians who can keep these distinctions in mind can find insights in this book, a collection of scripts from Breakpoint, the popular four-minute radio commentaries from Charles Colson and his able staff.

The chapters consist of around 16 two-page Breakpoint commentaries each, sorted according to five “lies” that are commonplace in the media and government:

Short Notices (continued from page 35) rather large section of the spectrum between such poles, you should thoughtfully read and enjoy Wright’s insights.

However, the doctrinal and ethical challenges facing the contemporary church, both liberal and evangelical, require a more rigorous understanding of authority.

—Matthew Harmon

Paul: Fresh Perspectives

by N. T. Wright Augsburg/Fortress Press, 2005 176 pages (hardcover), $25.00 As one of today’s most influential Christian writers and scholars, N. T. Wright stirs controversy on all sides.

In Paul: Fresh Perspectives, Wright challenges many common scholarly and popular misreadings of Paul, emphasizing the importance of creation, covenant, the Messiah, apocalypticism, and eschatology. While self-consciously adopting a “new perspective” approach, Wright nevertheless highlights both his own points of departure from other leading “new perspective” scholars such as E. P. Sanders and J. D. G. Dunn, as well as his affinity with narrative readings of Paul exemplified by Richard Hays.

In Reformed circles, Wright has been met alternately with both warmth and ire, particularly with reference to Paul and the doctrine of justification. Helpfully, Wright knows and highlights his points of opposition to Reformed formulations. While in no way wishing to diminish Wright’s many helpful insights into under-appreciated aspects of Paul’s teaching, this reviewer finds the redefinition and limiting of justification unhelpful. As ever, Wright’s masterful volume is worth a careful, critical read.

—Matthew Harmon

1. Judges should use their power to interpret laws.

2. Each person has the right to make decisions about life, death, and relationships without outside interference.

3. Religion should remain in the church and the private lives of individuals.

4. Government should play a greater role in granting unrestricted freedoms.

5. Our personal problems stem from others who are exploiting us for their own ends.

The book is in the form of a study guide with “Truths to Consider” abstracted from each commentary and study questions geared for “Personal Transformation,”

(continued on page 39) M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 7

“Renewing the Church,” and “Influencing the Culture.”

When a Breakpoint comes on the radio, it is nearly always worth listening to. Typically it begins with some outrage, anecdote, or interesting factoid from the news.

An analysis follows that tends to be more sophisticated than the typical fulminations from the Christian right.

Breakpoint breaks news, but by the time the scripts are published into a book, the newsy-ness has worn off. What is up-to-date quickly goes out-of-date. Some of the Breakpoints collected here go back a few years—we read about Elian Gonzalez, misdeeds of the Clinton administration, controversy over the 2000 election, and judicial decisions from the 1990s—and later developments have put some of these issues in a different light. This collection is edited in such a way as to try to extract the permanent themes from these fleeting events, which is certainly worth doing.

Colson’s approach draws on Kuyperian “worldview” analysis, Roman Catholic ethicists, and conservative political thinkers. That is not always a stable mixture, but it is always worth hearing.

Gene Edward Veith Executive Director of the Cranach Institute Concordia Theological Seminary

The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose

by John R. Franke Baker Academic, 2005 206 pages (paperback), $17.99 Shades of gray are the new black. For evangelicals who wonder why, if the church is one body with one spirit, we are divided by so many ideas, comes a new book by John Franke. You can label The Character of Theology; you can disagree with it; but if you are concerned about communicating the gospel in a postmodern world, you cannot legitimately ignore this book.

Franke, Associate Professor of Theology and Chair of the Faculty at Biblical Theological Seminary, begins his volume by surveying the theological landscape: liberals, postliberals and revisionists, conservatives, traditionalists, reformists, and postconservatives are among a few of the many shaded distinctions he makes. Calling himself postconservative, Franke also sees himself as postmodern (while rejecting relativism), arguing that the postmodern 3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

approach to knowledge “comports far better with Christian faith than does the modern” (8).

Modernity, explains Franke, was on a “quest for certain, objective, and universal knowledge” (21). In reaction to this, postmodernity maintains that “humans do not view the world from an objective or neutral vantage point, but instead structure their world through the concepts they bring to it, particularly language” (23). Since language is a social convention, “a sentence has as many meanings as contexts in which it is used” (25).

Postmodernity is also “nonfoundational.” “Foundationalists,” says Franke, “are convinced that the only way to solve this problem is to find some universal and indubitable means of grounding the entire edifice of human knowledge” (26). The postmodernist questions whether this approach is “possible,” since humans are finite and limited by the constrictions of this world, or “desirable,” since humans are selfish and use knowledge to selfish ends (27).

For the evangelical foundationalist used to proof-texting Scripture, this may feel anticlimactic. Where does one hang one’s hat at the end of the day? With knowledge subject to so many fluctuating factors, how does one approach the concept of authority? Is Scripture, or is it not, the unchanging truth?

Here he appeals to relational Trinitarianism. Early Christian Trinitarianism focused largely on the essence or being of the Trinity, depicting an “isolated” God, a “solitary individual” (65). While complementary to a foundationalist approach to theology, a relational Trinity offers a better understanding of the nature of revelation, says Franke.

Relationality means there is a community of love internal to the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but it is also external, or “missional,” through the church: “The love of God lived out and expressed in the context of the eternal community of love gives rise to the missional character of God, who seeks to extend the love shared by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the created order” (68).

This ongoing work of the Spirit in communicating the mission of God plays an important role in understanding the nature of theology. While Scripture is the “norming norm” of theology (131), says Franke, and the Spirit speaks through it, the two are “bound up” together (132).

The Spirit, not limited to the original intention of Scripture, “appropriates” the biblical text (133). Therefore, “reading the culture can assist us in reading the biblical text so as to hear more clearly the voice of the Spirit in a particular circumstance” (140).

Theology looks to the text, but the “final authority in the church is not the theology based on the text but the Spirit speaking through it” (137). In “one unified speaking” the Spirit speaks through both Scripture and culture (142).

Our historical and cultural contexts act as veils, he says, but our faith, through the Holy Spirit (the highest authority) gives us understanding (avoiding relativism). Theology, then, is not the “concordance model”—the systematization and arrangement of facts—but rather, it is “second-order discipline,” meaning it is “ongoing” and subject to the voice

of the Spirit (88, 104). Moving eschatologically, “the Spirit is at work completing the divine program and bringing the people of God as a community into a fuller comprehension of the implications of the gospel” (112).

Franke’s controversial volume offers far more food for thought than can be discussed in a short review. Some of his resolutions are puzzling. While Franke says Scripture is the “norming norm” for theology, and “a nonfoundationalist conception envisions theology as an ongoing conversation between Scripture, tradition, and culture,” one gets the impression that the first in this trivium is of little consequence to the overall discussion (79); his use of the biblical text is sparse at best. Furthermore, culture, which can also be affected by sinfulness and must be transformed, is invested with too much authority.

Historically speaking, Franke’s panoramic of the development of Trinitarianism is helpful but incomplete, perhaps even too neat, leaving out key doctrinal concepts, such as perichoresis, which served as a basis for both trinitarian unity and community in Eastern theology.

Similarly, his approach portrays diversity as far too quaint and easy and less messy than it usually is. “Diversity in the Christian tradition is by divine design,” says Franke, and not necessarily “a problem to be overcome” (191).

This book refrains from an antagonistic tone and offers valuable insight into the theology of the growing post-conservative movement. My primary question as I read was, why is this movement gaining such momentum? The rising acceptance of the post-conservative proposal indicates a perceived failure on the part of Reformed theology.

Reformed Christians must continue to proclaim the redemptive historical message, with its transformed epistemology, that offers hope to this dying world. It is only here, with our trust firmly planted in the timeless gospel of Christ, that our theology finds character.

Brandon G. Withrow Westminster Theological Seminary (Ph.D. candidate) Glenside, Pennsylvania

Short Notices (continued from page 37)

Peril and Peace: Chronicles of the Ancient Church

by Mindy and Brandon Withrow Christian Focus, 2005 207 pages (paperback), $8.99 With the publication of the first two volumes in their History Lives series (volume two, Monks and Mystics: Chronicles of the Medieval Church, was co-released) the Withrows have given a great gift to the young people of the church. Peril and Peace takes the reader on a whirlwind tour through the history of the early church in the form of short, dramatic narratives of the lives of many of the leaders of the early church.

Though the authors bring these tales to life through imagined details, they remain true to their meticulous historical research. The result provides stories that not only inform about the struggles and victories of the earliest believers, but also inspire faithful living in our own day. Though written for a young audience (the publisher suggests ages nine to fourteen), Peril and Peace is also an enjoyable and informative read for adults who feel a little weak on their early church history. As a wonderful bonus, the book includes several chapters that fill in the background to its stories on such topics as creeds, councils, and how we got our Bible.

For all readers, this book is an important reminder of the “great cloud of witnesses” calling us to endurance in the “race that is set before us” (Heb. 12:1).

—Mark Traphagen

Interview (continued from page 33) are raised to be judged and, finally, to experience the second death. The saved are raised immortal, for eternal life.

In closing, thank you for this opportunity to dialogue with your readers. I encourage each one to study the Bible afresh on this topic, and to allow Scripture (rather than any human creed or statement of faith) to have the final word. That is all anyone has the right to ask. As evangelical Christians, however, it is also our duty which we have no right to avoid.

Edward W. Fudge is the author of The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment now reprinted by iUniverse.com and available online or through bookstores. More information from Edward Fudge can be found at www.EdwardFudge.com.

M AY / J U N E 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3 9

FAMILY MATTERS r e sou rces

fo r

homes

Teaching Children the Concept of “Covenant” also grow to understand the responsibilities the covenant hat subjects are your children studying thiscarries year?with Study it, involves and to appreciate hard God’s faithful provision for meeting them. The children in the Discovering Jesus work, perseverance, consistency—all with books a view have to mastery the same of the kinds sub-of experiences our own children have. They struggle with the same sins and learn ject. Are your children studying Scripture? how Not to just relate picking what up they Bible read in the Bible to their everyday lives. Co-authored by mother and son Susan and stories in Sunday school and gleaning what they can from Ritchie Hunt, these books aim at four to eight-year-olds. the pastor’s sermons, but are they mastering the contents Questions for discussion and memory work accompany of Scripture? Are they learning its central themes, undereach chapter. standing why it was written, grasping what holds it all The two series discussed above do the valuable work of together? If you would appreciate help moving your chilhelping children study details of Scripture and doctrine. dren in that direction, here are three resources to get you Another approach to take in examining Scripture with started. children is the “big picture” approach. Children could easNancy Ganz has written Herein Is Love (Shepherd Press, ily perceive the Bible as a collection of many random sto2002), a three-volume set of commentaries (yes, commenries, about a host of human heroes. Children need an overview of redemptive history. This overview should taries!) for children. Wishing to show children that the help them see that the Bible’s story is all one story and that God of the Old Testament is just as much a God of love as its main character is God. That was my goal in writing the God of the New, Ganz guides children through each of Grandpa’s Box, a recent release from P&R Publishing. A the first three books of the Bible. Volume 1, Genesis, is grandfather responds to his grandson’s question “Have you divided into 68 chapters. Volumes 2 and 3, Exodus and ever been in a war?” by relating the story of the conflict Leviticus (yes, Leviticus!), are much more concise, yet still between God and Satan over whether or not God would cover both books. In spite of the weightiness of the subhave a people for himself. Grandpa begins in the Garden ject matter, Mrs. Ganz never forgets that she writes for of Eden and ends on the isle of Patmos, telling forty-plus children of elementary age and keeps the text clear and Bible stories in chronological order. In each story, Grandpa simple. As the author progresses through each book, she draws attention to what God has done to accomplish his continually takes readers to other parts of the Bible as well. goal of having a people with a special relationship to him.

This is the best thing about the series. Each passage is examined in the light of all of Scripture. The author conBig-picture survey or examination of detail—both prostantly pulls in New Covenant passages, showing how vide crucial perspectives for understanding the contents of Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament text being studied.

Scripture. Help your children use both to develop lifelong Parents desiring thorough, substantive Bible study materihabits of studying God’s Word. als for their children will treasure this series. Herein Is Love could also serve as the springboard for children’s classes at church or in a Christian school. To this end, review quesStarr Meade is the author of Training Hearts, Teaching tions and additional activities have been included in a Minds: Family Devotions Based on the Shorter Catechism teacher’s guide at the back of each book.

(P&R Publishing).

Crossway Books offers two books, Discovering Jesus in Genesis and Discovering Jesus in Exodus, designed to help children understand the concept of covenant. The books follow the adventures of modern-day children who are studying the covenant God has made with his people. The families in the books read stories from Genesis and Exodus, especially those emphasizing God’s covenant.

Through them, the child characters discover God’s covenant promises and Jesus’ fulfillment of them. They

W

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Know What You Believe and Why You Believe It. Tune into the White Horse Inn

FUTURE BROADCASTS: ■ ■ ■ ■

May May May May

7: Understanding Imputation 14: The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?

21: Did Jesus Teach Paul’s Gospel?

28: What Shall We Then Preach

Now airing on over fifty stations nationwide, go to www.whitehorseinn.org to find a station near you or to listen anytime online!

FEATURING

Michael Horton | Kim Riddlebarger | Ken Jones | Rod Rosenbladt www.whitehorseinn.org