Paul Makes me Groan: A Sermon

Don't be deceived by the photo, this guy is seriously interesting

Thanks to Ben Myers for pointing out this brilliant sermon from Luke Powery which is the most confusing and yet wonderful pot-pourri of african american preaching, theological jargon, wise cracks and pop cultural references all of which somehows form a marvelously compelling meditation on Romans 8. It is the sort of sermon you'll want to listen to again, even if you are as cynical and hard bitten as me!

Adam and Paul

This post on Jesus Creed is mind blowing, although it is really just a summary discussion of some of Peter Enns book, The Evolution of Adam.

The basic points are:

1. Nothing in the OT gives Adam the importance protestant theology does
2. Nothing in the OT suggests that Adam's sin is imparted to his offspring
3. Paul's emphasis on Adam is an innovation in terms of the OT resulting from his encounter with Christ

I would add to those points that Adam is mentioned in only 3 of Paul's letter (Rom, 1 Cor, 1 Tim) and only twice in the NT outside of Paul.  Both those occurences are in terms of genealogy rather than assertions of hereditary sin (Luke 3:38, Jude 14) . He gets a total of 9 mentions in the NT. By contrast Abraham is mentioned over 70 times in the NT, in all four gospels and across both Pauline and catholic epistles.

Now I think those points are more or less irrefutable, but of course the implications are not so clear.  I know Enns' thesis is really about whether or not Christians need to understand Gen 2-3 as literal history or something else.  But long before we get to that topic I'd say this suggests our protestant emphasis on hereditary sin is at the very least an overemphasis and most likely a misreading of Paul.  Which send me scurrying to look at Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15 again, and I think to myself, this is possible . . .

Action points: I'm going to have to read Enns' book myself (I thought Inspiration and Incarnation was overrated, so wasn't going to bother) and I'm going to have to do some exegesis on these Pauline Adam passages.

So, what do you think? :-)

Reformed Baptism Critique #1

OK, before I start this I should say that I was baptized as an infant and I'm very grateful for the faith legacy of my family and my parent's commitment to raise me as a Christian.  I also have the utmost respect for the godliness and sincerity of many of my paedo-baptising brothers and sisters, that doesn't change the fact, however, that on this subject I think they are totally wrong and that my own baptism as a baby was no baptism at all and so when I was later baptised as an adult, that was my first and only baptism and not a "rebaptism" at all. 

I came across this article via TC Robinson who did so via Will Lee.  The article is written by Richard L. Pratt, Jr. professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida, and so I don't think I can be accused of attacking a straw man.  If someone reading this thinks his presentation is not representative they should let me know. This should not be taken as an attack on any person but as a genuine attempt to engage the ideas in a robust fashion.

In its own way, the Reformed understanding of baptism is highly sacramental. That is, Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith. (p1)

In this I have little to say except that I am perhaps a less typical Baptist in that I don't object to sacramentalist language being applied to baptism (nor to the Lord's Supper).  However, for any talk of sacrementalism not to degenerate into mystical superstition or magic, "particpation by faith" has to be a key concept.  Any idea that just having a rite done to you regardless of your own disposition towards God can be efficacious is superstition pure and simple.

For example, Paul spoke of baptism as “the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). He also wrote that, through baptism, believers are united to Christ and die to sin (Rom. 6:3-7). Peter, in turn, when asked what was required for salvation, replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Elsewhere, Peter boldly declared, “Baptism … now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). These and many other New Testament passages at least seem to indicate that baptism is much more than a symbol. In the language of the Bible, spiritual realities such as rebirth, renewal, forgiveness, salvation, and union with Christ are intimately associated with the rite of baptism. (p2)

Although Pratt wrongly conflates the "wasing of rebirth" with the "renewal by the Holy Spirit" which are two separate things, every one of the scriptures he cites clearly links baptism with repentance, there is no suggestion of the "baptise now, repent later" aproach to baptism found in mainline churches.  Instead baptism and repentance go hand in hand.  As Pratt points out, "spiritual realities" are "intimately associated with the rite of baptism."  Infant baptism surely severs the rite from the reality when it is given to an infant incapable of repentance.  The most important verse in this regard is perhaps Romans 6:3-7, rather than some sort of spiritual reality or philosphical metaphor Paul understands "dying to sin" to be a very real concrete ethical process of ceasing to perform the works of the flesh (see Rom 6:11-14, Col 3:5-11) how can a baby die to sin?  They cannot, they are cute, but they are not yet moral agents.

Pratt is yet to make his case for infant baptism, but I must confess at this stage to be at a loss to see how he can build a case for such on the foundations he has laid so far.  Stay tuned.

Let me know what you think,  :-)

Here's one for the Calvinists

Lest I be accused of allowing Xenos to be a little one sided,

HT

Food for thought

• Kim Fabricus challenges our understanding of what repentance really is.
• John Byron offers some pertinent thoughts on inerrancy
• Paul Windsor takes a look at the biographies of his dad and Don Carson's dad
• Richard Beck discusses Romans 1 and "nature"
• Scot McNight ponders the "Historical Jesus"
• And Roger Olsen makes an irenic plea for historic premillenialism

look what the cat dragged in

• John Byron wonders about a paradigm shift in peer review for scholarship
• Jason Goroncy tells a tragic tale about pastoral ministry
• Elizabeth McNamer digs up biblical women (HT Jim West)
• Edinburgh University has a blog on Christian Origins with some very respectable contributors
• James McGrath gives us all some tips on evaluating sources
• Tom Wright pontificates on the humanity of Jesus
• Jim West helps us to be more accurate about Jesus' speed and timing in Revelation
• Marc Cortez is giving away a big book on Romans
• Maggie Dawn shares a video on the 21st century enlightenment
• Someone is cleaning up the streets of Britain (HT Jim West)

On Being Baptist

I love this venn diagram by Alex Baker,

But there are other reasons for being Baptist, like

1. congregational discernment of the mind of Christ - OK, in the west we do struggle not to turn this into democracy with all the attendent political fallout, but I'd rather shoot for the stars of Rom 12:1-8 than settle for the beaurocrats making decisions for the local congregation.
2. a commitment to New Testament Christianity - OK, you've gotta be careful not to look at the early church with rose tinted specs, and you have to realise that as the world changes so will the way the church presents the gospel to that world, but honestly I'm not interested in imitating the reformers or the fathers any more than as far as they imitated Christ.  And if that is my goal then I might as well start with Christ first.  I'm grateful for church history, its legacy and lessons, but the church of today honours the church of yesterday, not by imitating them, but by doing with equal vigour and determination what they did, submitting themselves to the teachings of Christ and his apostles.
3. we don't baptise babies - how can a sign of repentance, conversion, and wilingness to die to self be performed for a baby?  Honestly, of all the confusing things to do, you don't come to Christ through having something "done" to you. If baptism of infants works, why don't we just run round throwing water over everyone, they'll thank us one day, won't they?  
4. James William McClendon

So, what's your excuse? ;-)

A Two Faced Approach to Idolatry?

I continue my slow but very enjoyable reading of Chris Wright's, The Mission of God (IVP, 2006). (Which also inspired this earlier post.) Wright's treatment of idolatry, the subjectof his second major section, is simply fantastic and he has both answered a number of questions and posed questions I hadn't properly thought of before. In pages 179-188 he finishes his chapter on idolatry with an examination of Paul's approaches. To summarise, in Acts Paul's evangelistic preaching treats idolatry markedly differently to how he does in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Wright suggests that Paul reserves his strongest langauge about idolatry for theological and pastoral discussions with Christians (Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 8-10) but moderates his tone considerably when talking to pagans (Acts 14:8-20; 17:16-34; 19:23-41).

Wright, also argues that this approach of Paul's is entirely consistent with the modus operandi of the OT prophets who would accuse the pagan nations of numerous moral wrongs but would only mock idolatry per se when confronting those who should know better, the people of God (e.g. Amos, who lists the sins of the surrounding nations in 1:1-2:3, but only mentions idol worship in connection with Judah in 2:4).

Wright concludes, "in confronting idolatry, we need to be discerning about what responses are appropriate in different contexts, learning from the apostles and prophets as we do so." (p188)

The conclusion then seems to lead us to have two faces with regard to idolatry. When talking to pagans we major on the kindness and mercy of God and don't attack their gods directly, but when dealing with those who should know better we pull out all the stops and expose idolatry in all its depraved sinfulness. Now on one hand this makes sense, there is no point lambasting people for what they cannot help, if you don't know God then you have no reason not to worship others gods (whether they be traditional idols or contempary analogues), but those who do know God are doubly culpable. But on the other hand it does seem like there is potentially going to be some inconsistency between what is said in house and in public. The problem is exascerbated by the way so little Christian discourse is actually in house anymore. We put our sermons on the internet, we publish our books, and our inter and intra denominational disuputes are the stuff of news programs and history books. What we say in private will be shouted from the rooftops one way or another, especially if it is deemed offensive by the general public. The recent furore over Brian Tamaki's oath is a good example of that. While I am convinced by Wright's arguments, I think the onus needs to be on us to make sure that what we say in private is still something we would be happy to be heard in public. And if you aren't, best not to say it at all!

Let me know what you think, :-)

NT Wright on the call to holiness for God's people

"The major theme which marks out Paul's theology of God's people as renewed by the Spirit is the renewed call to holiness. It is a holiness not defined by Torah [OT law], and yet in much of what Paul says he can draw upon Torah for outline guidance... It is, as the prophets always wanted, a holiness which comes from the heart; and it is a holiness which ought to make the pagan nations see who the living God really is. It is in other words, not simply a matter of 'now you are saved, this is how to behave'; it is a matter of the genuine humanness envisaged as God's will for Israel being attained through the Spirit by God's renewed people. It is summed up well at the start of Romans 12, in the appeal for self-offering and transformation trough the renewal of the mind, resulting in the mutual upbuilding of those who, though many, are one body in the messiah."

[Source: N.T. Wright, Paul in fresh perspective, Fortress 2005, p124]