this blog has moved

I’m blogging again after a brief hiatus. You can find everything from Scum of the Earth and more over at IcoNick_last.

Jesus thy blood IS righteousness

John Thomson has been producing some excellent articles on the biblical basis and historical pedigree of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in justification. His latest offering is particularly good. Since taking some time out of blogging, my mind on the matter has solidified somewhat.

Here are some conclusions:

• The imputation of Christ’s active obedience is a text-less doctrine. Find me a text which clearly states that Christ’s law keeping is credited to sinners in justification and I’ll happily retract this assertion. I believe that this doctrine is borne of systematics rather than exegesis. Now someone may object that it is a “good and necessary consequence” of exegetical study. But I find it hard to stomach that such an essential element of the “standing or falling of the church” doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Scripture. Surely if Paul had meant “the righteousness of Christ’s life” imputed to us he’d have at least said it somewhere? The problem with insisting upon adherence to such a formulation, given it’s scant biblical testimony, is to open the door to those who actually engage the text of Scripture yet teach a muddled or heretical view of justification. Norman Shepherd springs to mind.
• Justification is by imputation. The essential element of justification in the reformation was that it denoted a righteousness located outside of ourselves (i.e. extra nos). It was not infused righteousness or imparted righteousness but an alien righteousness located in Christ. Despite texts of Scripture teaching that “faith is credited as righteousness” the reformers were unanimous that, if other Scriptures were to be done any justice, faith had to be instrumental in receiving an alien righteousness. Indeed WCF XI.1 says that God justifies the ungodly ”not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness”. I must confess that, in the past,  I have been duped by biblicist arguments for seeing faith itself as righteousness. The problem with this view, not least because it rails against the collective wisdom of the reformers, is that it makes justification by grace, through faith, on the basis of faith. Christ’s work is not what is definitive. I repent of ever thinking along these lines.
• Justification is by the imputation of Christ’s cross work. Justification is forgiveness. Justification is pardon. The banking metaphor which contends that our sins create a negative equity before God (which the cross makes up for and brings our account back to zero) and Christ’s life puts us back in the black is a concept foreign to the biblical categories. In Romans 4 to be counted righteous is to have sins pardoned. There is no mention of an active/passive obedience distinction in the work of Christ credited to us. Just as Adam’s sin in the garden (and not his subsequent life) is imputed or covenantally reckoned to us, so Christ’s work on the cross is imputed and covenantally reckoned. It is the “one act” of each man which has eternal consequences for their posterity. Why is only the cross work of Christ needed as our righteousness? Why does pardon equal righteousness and forgiveness equal holiness? The reason lies in the fact that we are cleansed from all sin by Christ’s blood. In other words: sins of commission and omission are forgiven. We are reckoned blameless, which means that not only are our evil deeds forgotten, but so are all of our failures to do good. The offenses to God caused by our lack of perfection are forgotten. So to have these offenses expiated is to be viewed as if we’d lived a perfect life (even the life of Christ!) This perspective explains the biblical texts a lot better, e.g. by one sacrifice he has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified, etc.

niv 2011 – brief further thoughts

I’ve only been able to briefly peruse the NIV 2011 over the past day. Some other texts that jumped out at me:

• Romans 7:18 reads: “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.” Then in verse 25 it reads: “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” I find the choice of rendering sarx (in both instances) here as sinful nature quite peculiar, particularly so when you read on into chapter 8 and it is consistently rendered flesh. Perhaps fleshy nature or just plain flesh would be more consistent? Furthermore, to say that there is nothing good in my sinful nature is a redundant statement, somewhat reminiscent of the silly question in today’s PC version of Baa Baa Black Sheep (i.e. “Baa Baa woolly sheep, have you any wool?” Of course woolly sheep have wool! I suppose the ovine quadriped could respond “No sir, no sir, the wool like substance adorning my torso is actually a synthetic fibre.”)
• Romans 8:36 reads: “For your sake we face death all day long”. The ESV has, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long”. In my opinion, and it is merely an opinion, I think the NIV softens the statement somewhat.
• 1 Samuel 15:33 reads in the ESV: “Samuel hacked Agag to pieces” whereas the NIV blandly reads “Samuel put Agag to death”. The brutality of Samuel’s act is missing in the NIV.
• 1 Kings 18:27 reads, where Elijah is taunting the Prophets of Baal, “Either he is musing, or relieving himself”. The NIV reads “Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy”. I just love the ESV here.
• Hosea 2:20 reads: “and you will acknowledge the LORD.” I’ve yet to read a commentator who approves of that rendering; it seems somewhat idiosyncratic. After the LORD promises to allure his unfaithful wife a literal rendering would be “and you will know the LORD”. Surely the idea of sexual intimacy within a marriage context is hinted at here? I rather hoped this one would have been dealt with.

Anyway, these are personal bug bears and I’m sure there are good reasons for the texts being rendered as they are. All in all, I’m delighted with the hard work of the CBT.

niv 2011 – initial thoughts

Well, I know I said that this blog was over for a while, but I just had to post some of my thoughts on the updated text from the NIV, which appeared on the Biblica website here today. I know that it’s early to say, but I am bowled over by my first impressions and can’t wait for the print edition to hit the shelves in March. Anyway, as for the meat and potatoes, some changes of note:

GOSPELS

• Matthew 1:18 reads “pregnant through the Holy Spirit”  instead of “with child” thus retaining the TNIV’s change.
• Mark 1:1 retains the phrase “the Son of God” which was demoted to a footnote in the TNIV.
• Mark 1:23 reads “impure spirit” instead of “evil spirit”. I suspect this change will be consistent across the board in the gospels. This is a positive move, although I’m unsure as to why “unclean spirit” was overlooked.
• John 1:18 retains the TNIV’s “in closest relationship with the Father” instead of “at the Father’s side”.
• John 11:6 has changed from “yet” to “So”. Read the passage to see why that completely changes the meaning.
• John 15 has the archaic term normally translated “abide” in the ESV consistently rendered as “remain”.

EPISTLES

• Romans 1:3 has changed from “regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God” to the TNIV’s “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed Son of God in power”.
• Romans 1:5 “obedience that comes from faith” is retained in favour of the TNIV’s “faith and obedience”. Phew.
• Romans 1:7 “saints” is now “holy people”.
• Romans 1:17 has retained the TNIV’s “righteousness of God” instead of “righteousness from God”. This change is consistent throughout the NT.
• Romans 3:20 “observing the law” now reads “works of the law”. Hurrah! This change is consistent throughout the NT.
• Romans 8 is a shocker (in a good way). Sarx has now been consistently rendered as flesh! Hurrah again. This change is consistent throughout the NT except when flesh doesn’t make sense.
• Romans 9:22 rather annoyingly to this Calvinist, inserts “although”.
• Romans 12:1 “spritual act of worship” now reads “true and proper worship”.
• 1 Corinthians 7:1 “It is good for a man not to marry” now reads “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

GENDER

The NIV has largely stuck with the gender inclusive/accurate language of the TNIV, although it seems to have adopted a slightly more sane approach.

• Genesis 1:26 reads “Let us make mankind” instead of “Let us make man”.
• Psalm 1:1 reads “Blessed is the one” instead of “Blessed is the man” and thus avoids the pluralized text of the TNIV here.
• Mark 1:27,28 reads “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” The temptation to translate “man” as “human beings” thus obscuring the link between “man” and “the Son of Man” is avoided.
• Adelphos is consistently rendered brothers and sisters throughout the bible.
• Gender specific pronouns like “he”, “him”, “his”, etc have thankfully been dropped in favour of plural pronouns. This is the way people speak after all. I want a koine translation, not an elitist/archaic one.

QUIBBLES

Minor quibbles I have (and these are down to personal taste):

• I’d have liked to have seen a change from “sacrifice of atonement” (e.g. Romans 3:25) to the superior “propitiation.”
• I’d have liked a “For” at the beginning of Romans 1:18. There must be a good reason for this being the only translation in the English-speaking world to omit it, but I’m unaware of it!
• I’d like to have seen the term rendered “remain” in John 15 consistently translated in John’s letters.
• Romans 9:22 (see above).
• I’d have liked “I have revealed you” in John 17:6 to be rendered “I have revealed your name” cf. v26. Rendering it this way unnecessarily obscures the link to the revelation of the Lord’s name in Exodus 34.

Quibbles aside, I am over the moon at the update. The translation reflects the broad range of influences on the board of translators. It has managed to become more literal while becoming more linguistically relevant at the same time; a truly astonishing feat. Has the huge popularity of the ESV encouraged the translators to move the NIV down this path? Has Doug Moo’s oversight and the more conservative translators (e.g. Mounce) ensured that the gender changes are more felicitous than those of the, at times eccentric, TNIV? Who knows.

What is certain is that the ESV now has a major competitor and I am seriously considering switching this coming March.

sola scriptura, rome and pentecostals

Scott Clark is taking no prisoners:

I am not saying that God is absent from the universe or that he is not active constantly and wonderfully. Not at all. The Biblical doctrine of providence says that God exercises the same power manifested in creation to uphold and govern and sustain and work through his creation today. He has promised to work wonders through the preaching of the holy gospel to bring his elect to faith and to sustain and confirm that faith through the use of the holy sacraments. I am not saying that God never wonderfully and unexpectedly heals anyone. I’m sure he does but I am as unsure that he has done so either through the intercession of dead cardinals and popes as I am that he does so through the imprecations and invocations of jet-setting, white-suited charlatans.

It is striking how, on examination, the cardinal, the pope, and the pentecostalist all begin to look the same but ironically none of them sees himself in the other.

unaccompanied singing in the FC

Apparently moves are afoot to end the practice of exclusive acapella psalmody in the Free Church of Scotland. Donald MacLeod seems to be one of those pushing for change. He says:

Those of us in favour of change argue, first of all, that it is no small thing to be out of step with the rest of Christendom. Is it we alone who have the Holy Spirit? We argue, secondly, that the New Testament requires us to sing, not only psalms, but “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”. And we argue, above all, that, magnificent though the psalms are, they belong to the Old Testament, and we are now living in the age of the New.

Check out Mike Bird’s thoughts on the matter here.

lutheran medicine for a sick prayer life

If you don’t find prayer a struggle it’s either because you’re dead or because you’ve given up praying. Lutheran pastor Paul McCain has some helpful tips for fellow strugglers:

Keep it simple. Using devotional guides can be of great benefit, but don’t allow the process of meditation and prayer become more important than actually meditating on His Word and praying. If that means something very simple, like Portals of Prayer, great! If that means using something a little more extended like To Live with Christ or The Treasury of Daily Prayer, then that’s fine too. It is more important to develop the regular habit of praying than to have just the right system.

Connect prayer to God’s Word. For Lutherans, when we pray it is in connection with hearing God in His Word. While I may pray alone, I am never really alone. Christ prays with me. It is always a holy conversation.

Make a list. Maybe this is obvious, but don’t allow prayer to become so spiritual that you actually forget your own personality! I am a list guy. I am always writing lists. So if I’m going to remember to pray, and to pray for specific people or things, I am going to write it down. It’s that simple. If I don’t write it down, my own natural inclination toward busyness and distractions will drive the whole thing right out of my head.

Remember that Christ prays for you even when you don’t pray. If you forget to pray for a day, be at peace! Christ prays for you even when you forget. Jesus is loving and forgiving, and longs to be in your presence. He will pray for you even if you don’t.