The Gospel Coalition

Romanian language classes had been going on daily for almost two months. Due to my work in the village and my learning 100 new Romanian words a day, I was far ahead of much of the class.

The teacher expressed his concern that the snail-like pace of the Russians might slow me down. To solve the problem, he asked me to consider coming to class only to receive grammar exercises from him that he would assign me daily. That way, I could use the time in class to continue on in the textbook and begin learning at my own speed.

The proposal made me go weak in the knees. I was not convinced that I would be able to learn better without a teacher. But our professor convinced me that staying in the class could actually hinder my language learning, since I was doing so much outside of class anyway. He assured me he would give me enough assignments to keep me busy, a promise that he kept.

From this point on, I only went to class occasionally. Most of my days were spent doing grammar exercises and building vocabulary.

I appreciate the professor’s genuine concern that I be allowed to go at my own speed. He could have easily held me back so that the whole class could move together. But he understood what was at stake and cut me loose, so I could begin to “fly” in Romanian.

During this discussion, the teacher vented some of his frustration, stating that no matter what he did, he could not ensure that the three Russian boys would be sufficiently prepared for their entrance exam. I asked why they seemed so disinterested, to which he took me up to the dry-erase board. With a black marker he drew two brains. Looking to me, he answered, “Trevin, here is your brain,” and then promptly colored in one of the brains. He took a red marker and added a little red dot over in the corner of the brain. “Your brain is black with a hint of red.” Then, he turned to the other brain he’d drawn on the board. With the red marker, he colored in the brain and added a little black dot in the corner. “This is the Russian brain. Red with a hint of black.”

Sighing, he added, “Even with this new generation, the Communist mindset prevails.”

What is the Communist mindset? I’ll elaborate on that in a few days…

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

He became what we are that he might make us what he is.
Athanasius

God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man.
C.S. Lewis

The mystery of Christ, that He sunk Himself into our flesh, is beyond all human understanding.
Martin Luther

The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God.
C.S. Lewis

Nowhere is salvation conceived of as a flight from history as in Greek thought; it is always the coming of God to man in history. Man does not ascend to God; God descends to man.
George Eldon Ladd

On a snowy day in Oradea, Romania, Corina and I were married…

Happy Anniversary, Corina!

Doug Wilson has begun blogging through John Piper’s The Future of Justification. He’s got some good comments already.

It’s nice to know that not everyone at Southern Seminary is automatically anti-N.T. Wright.

Signs you might be taking this Emerging thing too far.

Danny McDonald interviews Mark Coppenger on philosophy in the Christian’s life.

Cool story. Christmas card arrives after 93 years.

Be on the look-out next week for a list of all books reviewed at Kingdom People in 2007. And then… take note of my Ten Favorite Reads of 2007.

For ease in sifting through my lengthy commentary on John Piper’s book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, I am providing links to all 18 parts here in one post:

1. Some Preliminary Thoughts
2. Piper’s Introduction
3. On Controversy
4. Historical Research
5. Covenant and Law-court
6. Penal Substitution
7. Defining “Righteousness”
8. Imputation
9. What is “The Gospel” Anyway?
10. The Gospel is “Jesus is Lord”
11. Our Standing Before God
12. Justification and “The Gospel”
13. Justification By Works
14. Common Ground?
15. Judaism in the First Century
16. Self-Righteousness
17. The Righteousness of Christ
18. Piper’s Conclusion

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

• Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. there will be an ice cream social. All ladies giving milk will please come early.
• Wednesday, the Ladies Liturgy Society will meet. Mrs. Jones will sing “Put Me In My Little Bed” accompanied by the pastor.
• Thursday at 5:00 p.m. there will be a meeting of the Little Mothers Club. All wishing to become little mothers, please see the minister in his study.
• This being Easter Sunday, we will ask Mrs. Lewis to come forward and lay an egg on the altar.
• The service will close with “Little Drops Of Water.” One of the ladies will start quietly, and the rest of the congregation will join in.

Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement (Abingdon, 2007) is one of the most important Christian books of the year. McKnight’s work shows how each model of atonement theology has a biblical basis and a rightful place in discussions about the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection.

If you ever tire of seeing the beauty of the atonement mired in abstract theological debate, you will love this book. If you prize one model of the atonement at the exclusion of all others, you will hate this book.

A Community Called Atonement is not a treatise on how the atonement leads to mission; it is about how the atonement breathes mission. McKnight masterfully weaves the biblical stories and theology of the atonement into missional focus – showing how each model of the atonement serves a purpose in the mission of the Church.

Of particular interest to me was the way Scot shines light on important moments for the atonement. While obviously centered on the cross and resurrection, Scot’s theology of the atonement takes in Christmas and Pentecost too.

I appreciate Scot’s willingness to formulate the doctrine of penal substitution in a thoroughly biblical way, avoiding the misconceptions and caricatures while maintaining its essence. Even though penal substitution may be out of fashion for many in the Emerging circles who will pick up this book, Scot refuses to dismiss this model, since he finds it clearly expressed in the biblical text.

Yet, Scot maintains (over against many proponents of penal substitution) that the atonement cannot be reduced to one theory. He holds many theories in tension, likening them to golf clubs in a golf bag. He believes that identification for incorporation is the most important motif of the atonement, as it incorporates all the others.

Read this book. The last section on “Atonement Praxis: Who Does Atonement?” is helpful in answering the “So What?” question that many laypeople ask regarding the atonement. McKnight’s work is thorough, fair, and gives weight to the biblical witness in all its glory. You will come away from this book with a wonderful sense of how big the atonement is and how great is God’s love for this fallen world.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

We’ve come to the end of a very long series on John Piper’s book The Future of Justification. I have decided to refrain from commenting on the Appendices in Piper’s book. The Appendices are very helpful for those who want to better understand Piper’s framework for understanding justification. Perhaps I will interact with these chapters at a later time. For now, I am ready to close my commentary on this book by offering some comments on Piper’s conclusion.

Earlier in this series, I mentioned why I believe Piper cannot allow Wright’s definition of the gospel (a definition that does not include “justification”) to stand. The concluding chapter of Piper’s book backs up my earlier contention. At some level at least, Piper is driven by a desire to clearly delineate the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (181-183). The Reformation is most assuredly not over, according to Piper.

Piper finishes his critique of Wright by once again pointing to Wright’s view of justification and works. He believes that Wright’s view will be co-opted into the Roman Catholic view (183). Piper then issues his own “Here I Stand” section, where he clearly and unabashedly affirms the traditional Protestant understanding of justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ’s righteousness alone (184).

I admire Piper’s allegiance to the biblical truths recovered at the time of the Reformation. I too believe that these doctrines are important. They are vital for the health of the church. I agree with Piper that we need more theological clarity and that N.T. Wright has often been unclear as to what he believes, largely because he is not operating within the traditional categories of Protestant exegesis.

I admire N.T. Wright’s determination to hear Paul in his own context, no matter what the cost. I appreciate Wright’s desire to challenge our theological categories and to avoid reducing biblical truths to neat formulas.

Interestingly, N.T. Wright’s book on justification and Paul has a picture of the Apostle Paul on the cover, whereas Piper’s book on justification and Paul has a picture of Martin Luther. I’m not saying that Piper is more devoted to Luther than Paul or that Wright is more devoted to Paul than Piper is… only that the picture does express, at least at some level, one of the reasons this book exists.

N.T. Wright is ready to dismiss certain Reformational teachings if they do not agree with his understanding of Paul in the first century. Piper is ready to affirm Reformational teachings, as he believes that they correctly understood the Apostle.

Both of these men should be commended for their dedication to Scripture and for their hard work in discovering what the text says.

I hope that I have been as fair in this series as Piper has been to Wright in this book. Surely The Future of Justification represents the way that theological debate should take place! As I said at the outset of this debate, both Piper and Wright have good points to make. Though I am closer to Piper on the definition of justification and imputation, I am indebted to Wright for the depth of his historical research and for the terrific and winsome ways he presents old truths.

I thank John Piper for teaching me that our existence is to be totally God-centered. We exist to enjoy him, all to his glory. I thank N.T. Wright for opening up the Gospels to me in a way that helped me understand my Savior and Lord in historical context. We do not worship a timeless talking head, but a flesh-and-blood Jew who walked the shores of Galilee during the first century.

My encouragement to my readers? Read both these men. You will benefit immensely from their scholarship and their pastoral hearts. You won’t agree with either one in everything, but you will be a stronger, more faithful servant of God’s Church for having heard what God has to say through them both.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Though in the Fall of 2000, I felt I was beginning to make a little headway with the Romanian language, the country’s poverty was still very hard to get past.

One day, I was with a family from the village church that I worked in. We were driving through Oradea and I couldn’t help but notice how ugly everything seemed to be.

The sidewalks were cracked and muddy.

The streets were filled with potholes, many filled with brown water.

Paint was peeling off the gray buildings, and many of the houses had roofs and walls that looked as they could cave in at any moment.

The cars whizzing past us featured a rainbow of colors, yet due to the grime on their exteriors, the colorful variety remained hidden behind a dull gray coating.

The unkempt city could be described with many adjectives. “Beautiful” was not one of them.

As I beheld the blandness of the city sights, I heard the soft sounds of singing float past my ears. Sister Lidia was singing “How Great Thou Art.” O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder, consider all the works Thy hands have made… the verse began, before going on to praise God for the beauty of His creation. Finally, the song climaxed with the strong exclamation of the chorus: “How great Thou art!” I was looking at Oradea, impressed by its ugly exterior, while the Romanian woman in the back seat was praising God for His beautiful creation.

It all comes down to perspective. Often we are hindered by a false perspective, and we unwittingly choose to observe the negative aspects of life, while God is waiting to open our eyes to see His beauty.

As the woman continued to sing her song of praise, I found myself looking through the window of the car and becoming aware of the trees with their leaves changing colors. I noticed bright colored leaves lying on the ground, creating a quilt of color that padded the cracked streets. My eyes caught a glimpse of a little dog chasing a squirrel down one side of the street, before stopping to bark at the foot of a tree as the squirrel scampered up the side to his stash of acorns.

Suddenly, I realized that even in the ugly conditions brought about by human activity, God rains down His beautiful colored leaves in the fall, blankets the dirty city with snow in the winter, and splashes a myriad of colors on His world through the blooming flowers of Spring. God keeps His creation intact.

I had been observing the ugly remains of a once-beautiful city. The Romanians were looking at the beautiful patches of God’s handiwork springing up among those remains.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

Before I ever cracked open The Future of Justification, I knew that John Piper’s main area of disagreement with N.T. Wright would be on the doctrine of imputation. Chapter 11 lays out Piper’s reasons for retaining belief in the traditional Reformed view of imputation.

Piper begins by returning to the definition of righteousness he provided earlier (one that does not stay on the surface of what righteousness does) (164-165). He then takes on Wright again for his reductionistic definition of righteousness and for the “confusing” way that Wright speaks of justification (165-167).

The rest of the chapter contains brief expositions of the relevant Bible passages that seem to affirm the doctrine of imputation as traditionally defined by Reformed exegesis (167-175). Piper seeks to prove Wright wrong by pasting together the texts that support imputation and providing brief exegetical reasons for seeing imputation as a central motif of the texts.

Despite some minor quibbles here and there (I disagree with Piper’s take on 1 Cor. 1:30), I am largely in agreement with Piper’s understanding of imputation. I take great comfort in the “Wondrous Exchange” that Luther affirmed – wherein sinners take Christ’s righteousness and Christ takes our sin.

And yet, I believe the “Wondrous Exchange” is even more wondrous than Piper affirms in this chapter. We receive so much more than righteousness. Christ has identified with us, represented us, substituted himself for us. He becomes all that we are and we receive all that he has to offer.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog