The Logic of Faith and the Sovereignty of God

I love the kind of logic that flows from great faith in the Omnipotent, Sovereign God. It’s a kind of logic that seems irrational and foolish by human standards; but, to those who know and trust in the power of God, it’s the only kind of rational thinking. It’s an amazing thing to behold, and we ought to marvel at it, meditate on it, and pray that our faith might become as great. And there is no better or more powerful example of this “logic of faith” in the Bible than the case of Abraham and his response to God’s promises to him. In particular, what I want to focus on here is Abraham’s trusting God’s promise to provide him an offspring through Sarah.

In Genesis (15:1–6; 17:16–19; and 18:10–15), God promises Abraham, who is then about 100 years old (and whose wife Sarah is 90) but is without a natural son, that he will give Abraham a natural son to be his heir—a son that “will come out of your own loins,” as the Hebrew literally says. And, despite the fact that this was naturally impossible, since “Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years,” and “the way of women had ceased to be with Sarah” (18:11), Abraham believes and trusts God, that He will indeed provide a Son for him through Sarah. And so, one year later, “the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as he had promised” (21:1), and Sarah thus gave birth to a son, whom they named Isaac.

But, although the event is recorded in Genesis, what I want to focus on here is what Paul says about Abraham and his great faith, in Romans 4:18–21. Paul says:

18 In hope he [Abraham] believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. (ESV)

We see the logic of faith beginning in verse 19. Abraham “considered” his situation. But what was there to evaluate? Ninety-year-old women can’t have babies! They’re barren—infertile! Yet Abraham, although fully cognizant of this impossibility, remained “fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.” In fact, his faith actually grew stronger as the situation became more obviously impossible. In the reasoning of the natural (i.e., non-Christian) man, who does not know the character of God, conception for Sarah is an absolute impossibility. The logic of faith, however, always holds as an unshakeable and overriding premise the omnipotence and faithfulness of God, so that no amount of apparent evidence to the contrary matters. If God has promised something, he will never fail.

The object of Abraham’s faith, moreover, was God himself. Abraham believed the promise because he recognized the ability and the trustworthiness of the promisor. And, by trusting in God, Abraham was glorifying God (v. 20). This is not because Abraham was making God glorious or adding to God’s glory (blasphemy!), but because Abraham was showing God to be what he really is. He was acknowledging the reality of God’s character and the reality of the situation. Abraham acknowledged the truth that he himself was totally unable to produce a son and heir and that only God—“who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (v. 17)—was able to do it and would do it.

Oh, that we might live according to the logic of faith as Abraham did! May God grant us such a faith.

How New Is the "New Perspective on Paul"?

The advent of the "new perspective" on Paul (NPP) marked a major shift in the study of the apostle Paul and his theology. In general theologians and biblical scholars associated with the NPP hold that, contra Luther and the entire Reformation tradition, first-century Judaism was not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness, but one that called for obedient action—to borrow a phrase from Paul—"in view of God's mercies" (that is, in response to God's grace in making the Jews his chosen people and establishing a covenant with them). Consequently, the NPP contends (again, contra the Lutheran and Reformed views) that justification by faith is not the center of Paul's theology but only a pragmatic tactic to facilitate the Gentile mission. For, if Judaism is not a religion of works-righteousness, then Jews hardly need to hear the message of justification by faith, whereas that message makes perfect sense if it was directed solely to the Gentiles.

One of the most important corollary contentions of NPP advocates is their understanding of the general concept of the law and specifically Paul's crucial phrase "works of the law" (Gal 2:16; Rom 3:20, 28; etc.). "We know," Paul says in Galatians 2:16, "that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (ESV). Here, and in other places, NPP advocates have limited Paul’s usage of “works of the law” to only “ceremonial observance” or “works done in a legalistic spirit” or “Jewish identity markers.” Such limits would mean that Paul is not denying that justification comes through works done in obedience to the law, but only certain kinds of works or works done in the wrong spirit. But almost five centuries before the NPP, sixteenth-century reformer Martin Luther wrote against the same sort of view of the meaning of "works of the law" as the one held by modern NPP advocates. And, against those who hold such a view, Luther has strong and stinging words:

But they are in the habit of trying to get round Paul here, by making out that what he calls works of the law are the ceremonial works, which since the death of Christ are deadly. I reply that this is the ignorant error of Jerome, which in spite of Augustine’s strenuous resistance—God having withdrawn and let Satan prevail—has spread out into the world and persisted to the present day. It has consequently become impossible to understand Paul, and the knowledge of Christ has been inevitably obscured. Even if there had never been any other error in the Church, this one alone was pestilent and potent enough to make havoc of the gospel, and unless a special sort of grace has intervened, Jerome has merited hell rather than heaven for it—so little would I dare to canonize him or call him a saint. It is, then, not true that Paul is speaking only about ceremonial laws; otherwise, how can the argument be sustained by which he concludes that all men are wicked and in need of grace? For someone could say: Granted we are not justified by ceremonial works, yet a person might be justified by the moral works of the Decalogue, so you have not proved by your syllogism that grace is necessary for these. Besides, what is the use of a grace that liberates us only from ceremonial works, which are the easiest of all, and which can at the lowest be extorted from us by fear or self-love? It is, of course, also untrue that ceremonial works are deadly and unlawful since the death of Christ; Paul never said that, but he says they do not justify and are of no advantage to a man in the sight of God as regards setting him free from ungodliness. Once this is accepted, anyone may do them without doing anything unlawful—just as eating and drinking are works that do not justify or commend us to God [I Cor. 8:8], yet a man does nothing unlawful when he eats and drinks.

They are also wrong in that the ceremonial works were as much commanded and required in the old law as was the Decalogue, so that the latter was neither more nor less important than the former. And as Paul is speaking primarily to Jews, as he says in Romans 1[:16], no one need doubt that by works of the law he means all the works of the entire law. For it would be meaningless to call them works of the law if the law were abrogated and deadly, since an abrogated law is no longer a law, as Paul very well knew. He is therefore not speaking of an abrogated law when he speaks of the works of the law, but of the law that is valid and authoritative. Otherwise, how easy it would have been for him to say: 'The law itself is now abrogated!'—then we should have had a clear and unambiguous declaration.

But let us appeal to Paul himself as his own best interpreter, where he says in Galatians 3[:10]: 'All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."' You see here, where Paul is making the same point in the same words as in the epistle to the Romans, that every time he mentions the works of the law he is speaking of all the laws written in the Book of the Law. And what is more remarkable, he actually quotes Moses, who curses those who do not abide by the law [Deut. 27:26], although he himself preaches that those are accursed who rely on the works of the law. He thus makes two contrary statements, the one being negative, the other affirmative. He can do this, however, because the fact is that in the sight of God those who are most devoted to the works of the law are farthest from fulfilling the law, because they lack the Spirit that is the true fulfiller of the law, and while they may attempt it by their own powers, they achieve nothing. So both statements are true and both types are accursed—those who do not abide by the law, as Moses puts it, and those who rely on works of the law, as Paul puts it; for they each lack the Spirit, without whom the works of the law, no matter how much they are done, do not justify, as Paul says [Rom. 3:20], and therefore they do not abide in all the things that are written, as Moses says [Deut. 27:26].

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It can be taken as settled, then, that by works of the law Paul means not simply ceremonial works, but all the works of the law in its entirety. With this it will also be settled that everything connected with the works of the law is condemned if it is without the Spirit.

This passage is striking in its addressing almost the same views now generally held by NPP advocates. Indeed, if I didn't already know that Martin Luther wrote it, I might think that it was written by some modern writer familiar with the work of E. P. Sanders or James Dunn. It's as if Luther had read Sanders and Dunn themselves.

Although Sanders may have gone further than anyone before him in analyzing and characterizing first-century Judaism, his—and, subsequently, James Dunn's and N. T. Wright's—subsequent conclusions about Paul's theology are neither unprecedented nor world-shaking. Indeed, it seems that the "new perspective" on Paul is not a fundamentally new platform but an elaboration on and adaptation of an old one.

The Authority of Scripture

In this excerpt (taken from here) from a sermon of his on Ephesians 6:14 ("Stand therefore having your loins girt about with truth"), Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981), a great English, Reformed preacher, indicts the church for having gotten away from the doctrine of the authority of the Bible. He challenges the church and individual Christians to return to this fundamentally-important doctrine.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that all the troubles in the Church to-day, and most of the troubles in the world, are due to a departure from the authority of the Bible. And, alas, it was the Church herself that led in the so-called Higher Criticism that came from Germany just over a hundred years ago. Human philosophy took the place of revelation, man's opinions were exalted and Church leaders talked about 'the advance of knowledge and science', and 'the assured results' of such knowledge. The Bible then became a book just like any other book, out-of-date in certain respects, wrong in other respects, and so on. It was no longer a book on which you could rely implicitly.

There is no question at all that the falling away, even in Church attendance, in this country is the direct consequence of the Higher Criticism. The man in the street says, 'What do these Christians know? It is only their opinion, they are just perpetrating something that the real thinkers and scientists have long since seen through and have stopped considering'. Such is the attitude of the man in the street! He does not listen any longer, he has lost all interest. The whole situation is one of drift; and very largely, I say, it is the direct and immediate outcome of the doubt that has been cast by the Church herself upon her only real authority. Men's opinions have taken the place of God's truth, and the people in their need are turning to the cults, and are listening to any false authority that offers itself to them.

We all therefore have to face this ultimate and final question: Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not? Is the whole of my thinking governed by Scripture, or do I come with my reason and pick and choose out of Scripture and sit in judgment upon it, putting myself and modern knowledge forward as the ultimate standard and authority? The issue is crystal clear. Do I accept Scripture as a revelation from God, or do I trust to speculation, human knowledge, human learning, human understanding and human reasons Or, putting it still more simply, Do I pin my faith to, and subject all my thinking to, what I read in the Bible? Or do I defer to modern knowledge, to modern learning, to what people think today, to what we know at this present time which was not known in the past? It is inevitable that we occupy one or the other of those two positions.

The Protestant position, as was the position of the early Church in the first centuries, is that the Bible is the Word of God. Not that it 'contains' it, but that it is the Word of God, uniquely inspired and inerrant. The Protestant Reformers believed not only that the Bible contained the revelation of God's truth to men, but that God safeguarded the truth by controlling the men who wrote it by the Holy Spirit, and that He kept them from error and from blemishes and from anything that was wrong. That is the traditional Protestant position, and the moment we abandon it we have already started on the road that leads back to one of the false authorities, and probably ultimately to Rome itself. In the last analysis it is the only alternative.

People will have authority; and they are right in so thinking. They need authority because they are bewildered; and if they do not find it in the right way they will take it in the wrong way. They can be persuaded even though they do not know the source of the authority; in their utter bewilderment they are ready to be persuaded by any authoritative statement. So that it comes to this, that we are back exactly where Christians were 400 years ago. The world talks about its advance in knowledge, its science, and so on, but actually we are going round in cycles, and we are back exactly where Christians were 400 years ago. We are having to fight once more the whole battle of the Protestant Reformation. It is either this Book, or else it is ultimately the authority of the Church of Rome and her 'tradition'! That was the great issue at the Protestant Reformation. It was because of what they found in the Bible that those men stood up against, and queried and questioned and finally condemned the Church of Rome. It was that alone that enabled Luther to stand, just one man, defying all those twelve centuries of tradition. 'I can do no other' he says, because of what he had found in the Bible. He could see that Rome was wrong. It did not matter that he was alone, and that all the big battalions were against him. He had the authority of the Word of God, and he judged the Church and her tradition and all else by this external authority.

We are back again in that exact position, and I am concerned about the matter, not only from the standpoint of the Church in general, but also from the standpoint of our own individual experiences. How can we fight the devil? How can we know how we are to live? How can we answer the things we hear, the things we read, and all the subtle suggestions of the devil? Where can I find this truth that I must gird on, as I put on all this armour of God? Where can I find it if I cannot find it in the Bible? Either my foundation is one of sand that gives way beneath my feet, and I do not know where I am, or else I stand on what W. E. Gladstone called 'The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture'.

J. I. Packer, in his essay Hermeneutics and Biblical Authority, emphasizes the (divine) authority of the Bible over the beliefs and practices of the individual believer.

Evangelicals hold that the obedience of both the Christian individually, and the Church corporately, consists precisely in conscious submission, both intellectual and ethical, to the teaching of Holy Scripture, as interpreted by itself and applied by the Spirit . . . . Subjection to the rule of Christ involves - indeed, from one standpoint, consists in subjection to the rule of Scripture. His authority is its, and its is His.

Similarly, he says,

It is hardly possible to deny that what God says is true, any more than it is possible to deny that what He commands is binding. Scripture is thus authoritative as a standard of belief no less than of behaviour, and its authority in both realms, that of fact as well as that of obligation, is divine. By virtue of its inspiration the authority of Scripture resolves into, not the historical, ethical, or religious expertise of its human authors, however great this may be thought to have been, but the truthfulness and the moral claim of the speaking, preaching, teaching God Himself.

"Just and the Justifier", Part 2

Yeah, so my first "Just and the Justifier" post never actually discussed "just and the justifier." And so, consider this:

God's judicial righteousness is demonstrated in the gospel. Under the Mosaic sacrificial system, forgiveness was offered through (but not on the basis of) animal sacrifice. As the New Testament recognizes (Heb 9:11–15; 10:1–4), such sacrifices cannot substitute for the sins of humans. The real significance of the Old Testament sacrifices lay in the way they pointed forward to Christ, through whom God would deal with human sin in an appropriate and final way. In view of what He would later do, God could righteously pass over "former sins" (v. 25). The work of Christ reveals both the justice of God (He does punish sin in the person of His own Son, 8:32) and the righteousness of God's way of salvation by "faith in Jesus" (v. 26). In dealing with Christ as sin-bearer and the human person as sinner, God does not compromise His own holiness or the necessity of sin's bieng atoned for. Yet He graciously provides a salvation that mankind was incapable of obtaining. In this respect, Paul sees the Cross as the manifestation of the glorious wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23, 24).

The Jesus Seminar

Remember the Jesus Seminar? Ever heard of it? Occurring in the early 1990s, it was a highly-publicized collaboration and project by a group of uber-liberal Bible scholars and theologians to determine "what Jesus really said from what the gospel writers reported." The fruit of the Seminar was a book, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. Below is an excerpt from a review of the book by Richard B. Hays, a first-rate New Testament scholar and theologian teaching at Duke Divinity School. Read the entire review here.

Indeed, a new book called The Five Gospels-the fruit of the labors of the much-publicized "Jesus Seminar"-claims to provide definitive new answers to the question, "What did Jesus really say?" A panel of New Testament scholars, meeting over a period of several years, has given us a new red-letter edition of the four canonical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas, with the words adjudged by a poll of these scholars actually to have been spoken by Jesus printed in red type. Other colors reflect their shadings of judgment about the historical reliability of the other sayings attributed to Jesus: pink for possibly authentic, gray for probably inauthentic, and black for certainly inauthentic. The introduction to the book suggests breezily that an "unofficial but helpful interpretation of the colors" would be as follows:

Red: That's Jesus! Pink: Sure sounds like Jesus. Gray: Well, maybe. Black: There's been some mistake.

The results are offered up in a fresh translation-dubbed the "Scholars Version"-that seeks to "produce in the American reader an experience comparable to that of the first readers" by approximating "the common street language of the original."