Tag archives for Catholicism

Worship Has a Moral Aspect

Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, on the connection of sabbath and worship with creation:

The Bible, to be sure, could take up the fundamental notion of the universe as existing for the sake of worship, but at the same time it had to purify it. This idea is to be found there, as has already been said, in the context of the sabbath. The Bible declares that creation has its structure in the sabbath ordinace. But the sabbath is in its turn the summing up of Torah, the law of Israel. This means that worship has a moral aspect to it. God’s whole moral order has been taken up into it; only thus is it truly worship. To this must be added the fact that Torah, the law, is an expression of Israel’s history with God. It is an expression of the covenant, and the covenant is in turn an expression of God’s love, of his “yes” to the human being that he created, so that he could both love and receive love.1

Footnotes

  1. Joseph Ratzinger, ‘In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, Ressourcement, trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1995), 29.
Posted in Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Imputation Makes Righteous

Dikaioo means “to declare righteous” not “to make righteous.” This is accepted by two theologians on either side of the New Perspective discussion, N. T. Wright1 and Robert L. Reymond.2

“Leon Morris points out that ‘verbs ending in [-oo] and referring to moral qualities have a declarative sense; they do not mean “to make __.”‘”3 Therefore Reymond willingly concedes that justification is “an objective forensic judgment.”4

Where’s Room for Imputation?

How then can definitions of justification contain “make” language as one finds in definitions that include imputation of Christ’s righteousness? Consider how Reymond characterizes justification (emphasis original; red text mine):

“[J]ustification refers to God’s wholly objective, wholly forensic judgment concerning the sinner’s standing before the law, by which forensic judgment God declares that the sinner is righteous in his sight because of the imputation of his sin to Christ, on which ground he is pardoned, and the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to him, on which ground he is constituted righteous before God.”5

“Constituted righteous”? Here constitutive, or “make” language as I’ll call it, creeps in, subsumed under declaration justification. Reymond’s next sentences are helpful for further elucidating this point (emphasis original; red text mine):

“In other words, ‘for the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly’ (Rom. 4:5), God pardons him of all his sins (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-7) and constitutes him righteous by imputing or reckoning the righteousness of Christ to him (Rom. 5:1, 19; 2 Cor. 5:21). And on the basis of his constituting the ungodly man righteous by his act of imputation, God simultaneously declares the ungodly man to be righteous in his sight.”6

Here Reymond is clearly defining justification as containing a declarative action and a constitutive action when on the very next page he will approvingly cite Leon Morris’ conclusion that dikaioo and verbs like it “have a declarative sense [and] they do not mean ‘to make’.”

Where’s room for the constitutive language of imputation on this understanding of dikaioo?

Imputation in Rome

If when in Rome one is does as the Romans, imputation is in Rome because it is doing as the Romans.

Reymond repeatedly writes that “justification is an objective forensic judgment, as opposed to a subjective transformation” and backs it up with Deut. 25:1, Job 32:2, Proverbs 17:15, and Luke 7:29.7 He’s attempting to distance the Reformed position as far as possible from “Rome’s tragically defective representation.”8

But how is imputation not also “subjective” as Reymond classifies the Roman Catholic understanding of justification which holds to infused righteousness? Imputed and infused are both “subjective,” a understanding that goes against Morris’ definition of dikaioo.

Wright on Dikaioo

Augustine interpreted “justify” as “make righteous.” “That always meant, for Augustine and his followers, that God, in justification, was actually transforming the character of the person. . . .”9

Let me just let Wright continue in his own style and words with what he’s saying (emphasis original):

“The result was a subtle but crucial shifting of metaphors: the lawcourt scene is now replaced with a medical one, a kind of remedial spiritual surgery, involving a ‘righteousness implant’ which, like an artificial heart, begins to enable the patient to do things previously impossible.

“But part of Paul’s own language, rightly stressed by those who have analyzed the verb dikaioo, “to justify,” is that it does not denote an action which transforms someone so much as a declaration which grants them a status. It is the status of the person which is transformed by the action of ‘justification,’ not the character. It is in this sense that ‘justification’ ‘makes’ someone ‘righteous,’ just as the officiant at a wedding serve be said to ‘make’ the couple husband and wife . . . .”10

In other words, Wright is reiterating the point that justification with a right understanding of dikaioo describes a verdict rather surgery. Imputation like infusion both seem to be surgery.

Feedback

Am I missing something?

Courtroom One Gavel
Creative Commons License photo credit: lambdachialpha

Footnotes

  1. N. T. Wright, Justification (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 91.
  2. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 743.
  3. Ibid., 743, citing Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie, 1986), 70.
  4. Ibid., 743.
  5. Ibid., 742, emphasis original.
  6. Ibid., 742, emphasis original.
  7. Ibid., 743-744.
  8. Ibid., 741.
  9. Wright, Justification, 91.
  10. Ibid., 91.
Posted in Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Book Review: Can God Be Trusted?

9780446515009_388X586The publisher of Thomas D. Williams’ Can God Be Trusted? Finding Faith in Troubled Times sent me an early review copy of the book. I finally read through it today and now offer the following thoughts for anyone who might be interested. This review may be slightly peculiar in that I’m going to offer my thoughts on the actual book’s appearance and then simply list pros and cons of the content and appearance. It’ll be fun. Read on.

First Impression

The cover design is very unassuming. The background’s empty. Just white. Title at the top like you’d expect. A splash of red gives the subtitle and then the author’s name at the bottom. There’s nothing about the cover of this book that’s going to grab your attention. It’s all about the (scandalous?) title for this one. Why God in the title is over- and underlined is beyond me, which isn’t to minimize the importance of God by any means. I do find it quite tacky when author’s feel the need to append the title of their degree(s) to their name on the front cover. Nobody cares that you have a ThD. In fact, most readers probably think it’s a knock off a PhD anyways. There’s no reason for an author to include their degree(s) near their name on a book. Make a reputation for yourself by writing something worth reading and then we may check to see where you went to school and what degree you got, if we feel like it.

The book has no index. If you’re going to take the time to write a book worth anyone’s consultation, take the time to prepare or have prepared an index. Please.  The back cover gives no endorsements which to me is only of minimal importance.  I do appreciate a short bio of the author on the back of a book. That, however, is lacking here.

Cons

  • No index
  • Cheesy inset quotes with borders (you know the kind)
  • ThD on cover
  • Uses myriad Bible translations throughout the book (eight in all). Makes me wonder if he simply selected translations that fit the interpretation he wanted the text to have. Makes me uneasy.
  • Borderline semi-pelagian at points (pp. 147-150).
  • Synergistic view of God and man in salvation. E.g., “It is no exaggeration to say that he [God] depends on our cooperation for our own salvation…” (p. 166).

Pros

  • Decent printing/typesetting/typography–what’s the best word?
  • Catching chapter titles. Flicking through the table of contents is interesting enough to continue reading.
  • Asks hard questions. For example, Chapter 9 “What To Do When God Lets You Down.”
  • Addresses practical concerns (pp. 88-92). Can I trust God if he doesn’t bring me a spouse or if my wife and I are unable to have children?
  • Quotes from a wide body of notable Christians including William Carey, Thomas Merton, Mother Theresa, St Augustine, C.S. Lewis and a pope or three among others.
  • Illustrates points well. The story of the teacup on pp. 99-100 is exemplary.
  • Not trite in the least. He lists God’s “nonpromises” to perhaps startle some readers out of a pet-god theology.

Who Should Read This?

Have you really struggled with trusting God and need practical pastoral guidance? If yes, read.

What Should I Read Instead?

John Piper’s Spectacular Sins, if you don’t mind a book that doesn’t pussyfoot (not that Williams does).

Can God Be Trusted?

Yes.

Overall Rating

6/10

Posted in Christianity | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

He’s Three Persons

Overhearing random conversations is always intriguing.

“So, I was talking to my friend who grew up Catholic and I told her that she could have a relationship with God.”
“She said ‘No way. Really?’”
“‘Yeh,’ I replied, ‘He’s like a person and stuff.’”

Missy, not only is he a person, but he’s three persons and stuff. What are we going to do about this lack of articulation, Al?

Posted in Christianity, Theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Weekly Review: 10-05-07

Theology I (Dr. Keathley)

New Testament I (Dr. Black)

  • Dr. & Mrs. Black share stories, pictures, and video from their work in the far away land of Ethiopia. I watched a blind man recite a large chunk of Matthew’s gospel in Amharic which he was able to memorize from cassette. Younger ones recite passages (not verses!) in exchange for a Bible. Why do I devote my time to that which will not last? Tears began to fill my eyes as this Scripture came to mind:“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9-10).

    Yes, Amharic! Sing to Jesus for by his blood he has ransomed you, too!

Church History I (Dr. Hogg)

  • I am amazed at how much Southern Baptist students care about the rise of the papacy and its sidekicks (indulgences, relics, supererogatory acts). Just checking what the grass is like on the other side of the fence? Looking for ammunition? Or plain ignorant? I have to admit that the questions intrigue me as well.

Baptist History (Dr. Harper)

  • The 19th century Anti-Missions movement did not stem from unevangelistic hyper-Calvinism as one might conjecture, but from a concern that the organization of mission boards and societies was unbiblical. Baptists are building schools and the Anti-Missions folks are asking, Where is building schools in the Bible? A good example of not to suppose you understand where someone is coming from until you’ve got it from the horse’s mouth.

Miscellany

  • Happy birthday, Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703).
  • SEBTS chapel Q&A with President Akin. The question of worship style came up again. As my tenth grade science teacher used to say, “We think we don’t have answers, but what we really don’t have are questions.”
  • I now understand the Southern Baptist denomination a little bit better thanks to Nathan Finn.
Posted in Christianity, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark.