New Titles from Just and Sinner Publications!

I am pleased to announce that two more volumes of the American Lutheran Classics series are now available. They are Elements of Religion by Henry Eyster Jacobs, and Biblical Dogmatics by A.G. Voigt. They are both available on the Just and Sinner Publications page here. 

The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church: a Video Introduction

American Lutheran Classics Volume 1 Now Available!

The first volume in the series American Lutheran Classics is now available. It is The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church by George Henry Gerberding. This is a work that every Lutheran should read. In it, Gerberding gives a thorough understanding of how Lutherans view salvation. He talks about Baptism, Holy Communion, Sunday school, Confession, Justification, Sanctification, Christian parenting, and he discusses the subject of revivals at length. This is a great introduction to Lutheranism for those who would like to learn more, and a help for those in the Lutheran church, including pastors.

The book can be found here

The kindle edition is here

Review of Matthew Levering's "The Theology of Augustine"

Augustine is undoubtedly the most prolific and influential writer in the history of the Western church. He is one theologian who Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists alike cite as a primary influence on their varied theological traditions. Because of this fact, treatments of Augustine since the Reformation have often taken on a polemical tone, trying to place him into whatever theological framework one holds to. In this way, Augustine's ecumenical appeal has been both his greatest asset and the greatest hindrance to an honest investigation of his writings.

Levering's work does not engage in theological polemics. Though himself a Roman Catholic, he does not try to fit Augustine into any particular theological mold but engages Augustine as an independent theologian in his own right. Treatments of Augustine have often suffered from two primary deficiencies: either they try to explain too much in a single volume becoming rather garbled and inaccessible, or they paint him as a one sided theologian, centering on a single aspect of his thought. For the Calvinist writer, he has been viewed as the ultimate predestinarian; for the Roman Catholic the defender of the Roman Church against the schismatic Donatists; and for the Lutheran tradition, an early voice for justification by faith. Levering avoids these extremes by centering his work on seven distinct works of Augustine. Rather than trying to encapsulate everything taught by Augustine (which is impossible for a work this size) or centering on works that deal with the same topic, this approach allows Levering to be both balanced and comprehensive in his interpretation.

The seven works which Levering focuses on are: On Christian Doctrine, Answer to Faustus a Manichean, Homilies on First John, On the Predestination of the Saints, the Confessions, the City of God, and On the Trinity. With On Christian Doctrine, Levering demonstrates Augustine exegetical method which involves the confession of the historical reality behind the Biblical narrative, as well as the typological and allegorical nature of the Biblical texts. This allows Augustine to remain historically grounded while affirming the unchanging truths of the Christian faith. Augustine's response to Faustus is an extremely helpful work to include in this volume because it succinctly shows both how Augustine responded to his Manichean past, and how he, as a catholic Christian, approached Old Testament revelation. Augustine's commentary on 1 John may seem like something of a random selection in this work, as it isn't a primary work discussed  in contemporary theological dialogue, but Levering has an important reason for including it in this work. If there is any unifying theme in Augustine's theology it certainly isn't predestination or justification by faith, but love. Levering uses this work to demonstrate the complexity and predominance of love as the essence of the Christian life. This includes love toward God and creation in a rightly ordered fashion, and Augustine is even willing to employ the principle of love as a hermeneutic. The final smaller work Levering deals with in this book is On the Predestination of the Saints. If I were to write this book, I would have likely chosen another work like On the Spirit and the Letter, which focuses on the priority of divine grace against the Pelagians rather than predestination per say, but that may be due to my own theological biases. Levering treats this work honestly, demonstrating that Augustine is concerned with the providence of God over human salvation while denying that God is active in predestining evil actions.

The final three chapters in the book are the most beneficial, as they overview Augustine's three theological masterpieces: The Confessions, The City of God, and On the Trinity. The final two works are quite a challenge to get through due to their length and the seeming tangential nature of many of his arguments. Levering offers a helpful overview of the arguments and content of these books. This allows new readers of Augustine to read through these works with the overall context and purpose of Augustine's writing in mind.

This book is simply the best introduction to Augustine that is available. Levering's work is extremely accessible without sacrificing theological depth. The lay reader may get somewhat lost in the final chapter on the Trinity, but that is due to the speculative nature of Augustine's work rather than Levering's writing which is extremely lucid on such a profoundly complex topic. If you are interested in reading Augustine, or you are teaching a seminary/college course on his thought, this book is highly recommended. Don't however, let this be a replacement for reading the works of Augustine themselves, which have so many treasures that no treatment of his thought could capture them all.

American Lutheran Classics

I am going to be publishing a series of books under the title "American Lutheran Classics." I will be taking some Lutheran works (primarily 19th century), updating some of the language, giving citations of Scripture and the Confessions where absent, and changing the Scripture references to ESV. The goal is to have these works available for lay and congregational use, as a cheap and easy way to be introduced to Lutheran theology. Unfortunately, the editions that are currently out of these works are poorly formatted and are often just photocopies of older editions.

I am going to be self-publishing these through CreateSpace, which is owned by Amazon.com. This will allow me to keep the prices down, so that these works will be more affordable than many of the Lutheran works out there. 

The first book I am working on is "The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church" by G.H. Gerberding. I am open to suggestions for other works you would like to see in this series. I am in the process of editing this work, and will keep you updated as to when it is finished and available. 

Some Updates on my Book

The book is now available on Amazon.com here. Please consider ordering it if you have appreciated my writings on the blog.

Also, a review has been posted by Charles Wiese at the Lamb on the Altar blog here. The formatting errors and typos mentioned in the review have been corrected, and so if you order the book now they should be fixed.

If you have read the book, please let me know your thoughts and consider posting a review on Amazon.

My Book "The Righteousness of One" is Now Available!

An updated version of my Masters Thesis The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul is now available to order at the Wipf & Stock site here. It will be available on Amazon in the near future.

In the forward, Peter Leithart writes that this book "should have a dramatic effect on the debate" regarding the New Perspective on Paul. He writes that,

"Cooper does not claim to pass final judgment on the New Perspective. What he offers is the opportunity to renew the debate in a more historically informed fashion. Having cleared the clutter, Cooper leaves us still with the task of grasping what St. Paul really said."

A Review of William W. Schumacher's "Who Do I Say That You Are?"

The most comprehensive critique of the Finnish school of Luther interpretation available in English is the volume of William Schumacher titled, Who Do I Say That You Are? Anthropology and the Theology of Theosis in the Finnish School of Tuomo Mannermaa. Arguing from an anthropological perspective, Schumacher argues that the Finnish school has misinterpreted Luther's theology, replacing Luther's theology of the word with an ontologically focused approach to the human person. For Schumacher's Luther it is God's word of address to the sinner, as a creative word, which has primacy. This is distinguished from Finnish writers who propose that the human creature is defined by ontological union with God.

For Schumacher, the traditional Lutheran approach to justification and Mannermaa's school are incompatible with one another. Justification is either theosis (Mannermaa) or forensic (the Book of Concord). Thus Mannermaa's approach to justification is essentially an attack on the entire Lutheran tradition after the Osiandrian controversy. Schumacher purports that the Finnish school is "if not a complete rehabilitation of Osiander, then at least the attempt to salvage key elements of his system which has been previously rejected by the Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord."(91) Schumacher points out that the Osiandrian error involved more than a denial of the unity of Christ's two natures, but also the prioritizing of the incarnation of Christ over his death and resurrection, leaving the cross in a subsidiary position. I think Schumacher's argument here is partially correct. There is an overemphasis in many of the Finnish writers on the incarnation, which makes salvation primarily an ontological reality, displacing the objective event of the cross. I don't think the solution to this problem is to reject ontological categories, and the soteriological significance of the incarnation as Schumacher does, but is to have a balanced approach to the soteriological significance of all events in Christ's life. In Lutheran soteriology (along with that of Paul), the cross is always the central salvific event. I think a more balanced approach would be to take the Finnish theology of incarnation, and place it within the context of the Formula's forensic emphasis. While the forensic elements of salvation may be primary, there are also strong ontological themes in Luther's thought which need not be neglected.

One of the problems with Schumacher's contention that the Finnish school is essentially Osiandrian is that he fails to discuss the primary problems with Osiander's theology according to the Formula of Concord. The Formula isn't condemning the concept of ontological union, or the importance of Christ's indwelling; rather, the Formula is seeking to clarify that the infusion of love and other virtues does not precede justification. In other words, the concern of the Formula is salvation by works, not the idea that Christ is present in faith. I think the problem here begins with the Finnish interpretation who conclude that the Formula is opposed to Luther. I don't think such a division exists. Luther places salvation in both juridical and participationist categories. The Formula focuses on the forensic elements (rightly so I think) because of the necessity of clarifying these issues in light of Osiander's teaching. This shouldn't be pitted against Luther's own theology, when Luther was willing to approve of Melancthon's writings on justification with primarily (at times exclusively) forensic language.

The most interesting chapter in Schumacher's work is in his evaluation of Luther's own writings. Schumacher rightly points out that the Finnish school tends to conflate the early and late Luther, ignoring the development of Luther's thought, especially his great Reformation discovery. It is somewhat surprising that one of the most significant passages for the Finnish school comes from a Christmas sermon in 1514, when Luther hadn't yet developed his mature understanding of justification. In some of the more extreme forms of the Finnish approach (Karkkainen for example), the Reformation discovery is almost completely ignored, and one wonders why the Medieval church would even have an issue with Luther's view of justification if this interpretation were correct. Here is where I think Schumacher paints with too broad a brush. While many in this school ignore the categories of imputation, and even sola fide, Mannermaa is careful to place these categories in the context of Luther's overall thought, though I do agree that he downplays their importance. This chapter demonstrates that some of the language used by the Finnish school doesn't mean what they claim in the context of Luther's own writings. However, I remain convinced of the central thesis of Mannermaa that Luther teaches that an ontological union with Christ is the metaphysical basis for God's gracious imputation. In otherwords, Christ is truly present in faith, giving himself to the Christian as righteousness, especially through the debt paid on the cross and Christ's victory over the devil according to both natures; this does not neglect the fact that the union of God and man in the incarnation is also a necessary part of the Christian's righteousness. (Regarding the so-called "active obedience" of Christ, I don't find this theme in Luther, though I personally do affirm its validity).

One of my primary areas of interest, especially as I dealt with this topic in my book The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul, is in the connection between Luther's theology and that of the Church fathers. Schumacher convincingly demonstrates that the influence of the Greek fathers on Luther has been overstated by the Finnish school. Luther's primary influences, rather, were Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Bernard, and the German mystical tradition. He correctly points out that deification language in Luther is taken from medieval mysticism, and is thus not identical with Eastern conceptions of theosis. I would point out, however, that there are many commonalities between the mystical tradition which Luther praises and the Eastern fathers. Whether the Eastern fathers had any significant influence on Bernard, Tauler, or the Theologia Germanica remains to be demonstrated, but one cannot help seeing certain common themes. The Theologia Germanica, for example, states: “God assumed human nature or humanity. He
became humanized and man became divinized. That is the way amends were made." (The Theologia Germanica of Martin Luther, 63) It seems unthinkable to me that Luther would promote and publish the Theologia Germanica and the works of Tauler throughout his life if he didn't agree with their conviction that salvation is in some sense an ontological event.

Schumacher's book is a fascinating read, and is essential to grapple with for any interested in this issue. Schumacher points out some of the genuine flaws in Finnish Luther research, which often lets an ecumenical agenda guide research, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself. However, in doing this, Shumacher swings too far in the other direction, ignoring the ontological soteriological concepts that are prominent in such works as "On Christian Liberty", "Two Kinds of Righteousness", and the 1535 Galatians commentary. The fact that Luther could promote both Melancthon's works which deal almost exclusively in legal categories, and the Theologia Germanica which deals almost exclusively in ontological categories should show us that both sides in this debate have often set up a false dichotomy which was foreign to Luther.

A Review of "Inhabiting the Cruciform God" by Michael J. Gorman

Michael J. Gorman's work Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology, is one in a number of works seeking to reinterpret Paul's theology. Rather than defending traditional Pauline interpretation, or getting on the New Perspective bandwagon, Gorman offers a proposal that transcends other interpretive grids.

For Gorman, the center of Pauline thought is not to be found in forensic justification (Luther), nor is it to be found in the concept of covenant community (Wright). Rather, "theosis is the center of Paul's theology." (171) Theosis, for Gorman, is a thoroughly Christological reality, and can be called "Christification." Gorman's concept of theosis shares similarities with the Eastern Orthodox approach, but is not synonymous. For Gorman, theosis is primarily cruciformity. God's nature is cruciform, and thus theosis is living the cruciform life, mirroring God's self giving love. Gorman proposes that the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2:6-11 is Paul's "master story." This text serves as a lens through which Paul's theology is to be read. Gorman argues, convincingly I think, that the phrase "although he was in the form of God" can be read "because he was in the form of God." In other words, the incarnation is not contrary to God's normal manner of acting, but is thoroughly consistent with God's character. In fact, it is the ultimate revelation of God's character. Thus, in contrast to human perceptions of divinity which are linked with political power, God's power in shown in weakness. It is of God's essence and character to be self-giving. In Gorman's words, "divinity has kenotic servanthood as its essential attribute."(31)

There is a redefinition of the term "Justification" in Gorman's writing. For Gorman, justification is not a purely forensic reality, but is thoroughly participatory. Trying to overcome the division common in Pauline studies between juridical and participationist soteriology, Gorman contends that "Paul has not two soteriological models (juridical and participationist) but one, justification by co-crucifixion, meaning restoration to right covenantal relations with God and others by participation in Christ's quintessential covenantal act of faith and love on the cross."(45) Justification is a covenantal category, and it involves participation in Christ's death and resurrection. The believer, through faith, is incorporated into Christ and is "co-crucified" with Jesus. Through this crucifixion, covenantal relations are restored. This involves both the restoration of one's relationship with God, and the restoration of the relationship one has with fellow man. Gorman discusses Galatians 2, in which Paul connects justification with participation in Christ's death. This causes Gorman to conclude that "Justification by faith, then, is a death-and-resurrection experience."(69)

The exegesis that Gorman provides is challenging, and does point to a connection between justification and the death and resurrection of the believer. However, it is not entirely convincing. Gorman contends that justification is not a judicial term, and does so through the text in Galatians 2. However, he does not spend time exegeting various texts which would seem to put this idea into doubt. For example, Romans 8:33-34 is a text that has been used since the Reformation to defend a legal reading of justification. Paul writes, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?" In this text, Paul contrasts justification with condemnation; the assumption is that both are legal terms that can be contrasted with one another. Because of justification, no charge can be brought against the believer. A detailed exegesis of this text would have to be done for Gorman's thesis to hold, which would demonstrate that Paul is not using legal categories here. Another text, which Gorman mentions only in passing, is Romans 4:4-5. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." The contrast between faith and works, as well as the language of crediting in contrast to earning, point to a thoroughly Reformational understanding of justification. This text simply doesn't fit many of the contemporary readings of Paul. It is usually passed over without a lengthy discussion.

It's my contention that Gorman is correct about a number of points in this work. First, it is part of God's nature to be self-giving. In contrast to the Reformed conviction that God's own glory is his ultimate concern, Paul would agree with Luther that salvation through self-donation is God's "proper work." Gorman has also demonstrated that there is a closer connection in Paul's theology between justification and participation in Christ, specifically in his death and resurrection, than many Pauline interpreters have been willing to allow. Justification does involve a death and resurrection as Gorman contends. However, I don't think there are grounds for simply dismissing the traditional forensic approach to justification in Paul. This is especially clear in Romans 4:4-5 and 8:33-34, but can also be demonstrated elsewhere in his epistles. I contend that justification includes legal and participationist categories. When justified, the believer is imputed righteous by the righteousness of Christ. However, in light of Paul's participationist theology, this justification also involves a death and resurrection of the sinner through mystical union with Chist's life, death, and resurrection.

Gorman's work is challenging, and is refreshing in that he avoids many of the typical false dichotomies presented in contemporary Pauline scholarship. However, like much of the New Perspective, Gorman's work ultimately privileges certain aspects of Pauline thought over others, and ultimately misses the Reformation's understanding of Paul, which I still believe (unpopular as it may be) to be exegetically warranted.

A Review of "On Being a Theologian of the Cross" by Gerhard Forde

I have written a review of Gerhard Forde's work On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. It can be found Here.

Forde's Article "The Lutheran View of Sanctification"

Much of the contemporary debate on sanctification stems from Gerhard Forde's essay "the Lutheran View of Sanctification", published in the volume Five Views on Sanctification, and republished in The Preached God (these are the page numbers I will be referencing). This article has not only influenced the liberal to moderate circles of which Forde himself was involved, but conservative Lutheranism, and even certain Reformed writers.



Forde's main thesis is that sanctification is simply "the art of getting used to justification." (226) Forde's contention is that sanctification and justification are synonymous realities that need not be carefully distinguished. "In fact, the Scriptures rarely, if ever, treat sanctification as a movement distinct from justification." (229)Divorcing the discussion of sanctification from justification allows one to fall into moralism and lose the unconditional nature of the gospel. Forde equates the majority view of sanctification with moralism. He argues that we "make the mistake of equating sanctification with what we might call the moral life." (227) The two primary errors in this approach are that it makes sanctification about works, and it conflates civil righteousness with that which one needs to stand before God.

The problem with Forde's definition of sanctification is that it doesn't exhaust the Biblical and Confessional testimonies on the subject. There is a sense in which sanctification involves a greater understand of grace. As the knowledge of one's own sin increases, so does one's understanding of the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, our sanctification involves "getting used to justification." Yet, at the same time, there are ethical and moral implications to sanctification. On this point, Forde falls into a false dichotomy. Either justification and sanctification are synonymous, or God's unconditional grace is lost. Forde argues that "the distinction between justification and sanctification is a strictly dogmatic one made because people got nervous about what would happen when unconditional grace was preached, especially in Reformation times." (230) This sweeping statement contains no reference, and presumes a motivation on the part of those who utilize the distinction which isn't always there. The distinction between justification and sanctification is not a post-Reformation dogmatic tradition, but is inherent in Church teaching from the first centuries of the Church.

The early church distinguished between the forgiveness of sins that one receives through baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, from the inward work of God wherein the Christian's actions are changed. The terminology was often in terms of theosis rather than sanctification, but the same distinction between forgiveness of sins, and the destruction of the sin nature applies. This distinction applied throughout the middle ages and into the Reformation period itself. Unfortunately. Forde's essay has barely any footnotes or references, and so I am unsure where he sees this supposed shift in the dogmatic tradition between identifying sanctification as justification. I presume that Forde sees this error arising as early as the Formula of Concord which distinguishes between justification and sanctification precisely in the manner that Forde criticizes,

"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God." SD III.35

Though Forde seeks to divorce sanctification from morality, placing it solely in the civil sphere, the Formula connects sanctification with virtue and good works, which would certainly be considered "moral issues." In fact, Websters Dictionary cites "virtue" as a synonym for "morality." Unless Forde has an extremely unusual definition of morality, he disagrees with the Formula on this point. Paul himself equates sanctification with certain moral issues as well,

"Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8)

Forde sees a genuine problem within the contemporary church that he seeks to correct: moralism. However, Forde's solution is not tenable, as it ignores certain aspects of Scripture, the Confessions, and the catholic tradition. Rather than denying sanctification (or at least central parts of sanctification), the solution is to teach a more robust doctrine of justification. The problem with many evangelical churches is not that they don't equate sanctification and justification, but that they lack a proper understanding of justification. If justification is simply a one-time event, an entrance term at the beginning of one's life of faith, then sanctification takes the central position, and grace can be lost in the mix. We need to emphasize justification as the central reality of the Christian's life. Justification is not just an "entrance term" but defines our entire life in Christ. Justification is continual, not as a process, but as the continuous life giving declaration that our sins are forgiven. This occurs through the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist. This solution to moralism, rather than Forde's, is consistent with Scripture, the catholic tradition, and the sacramental theology of the Lutheran Church.

One of the primary issues with Forde's article is that he doesn't do any real exegetical work, and doesn't explain how his position is consistent with various passages of Scripture. He even brings up the question, "Does the Bible not follow the declaration of grace with certain exhortations and imperatives?" (232). But rather than answering this valid question, Forde retorts, "So the protestations go, for the most part designed to reimpose at least a minimal conditionality on the promise." (232) These types of pithy and dismissive responses characterize Forde's work on this issue. Rather than dealing with the Biblical data, he dismisses any opposition as a denial of unconditional grace.

Forde basically limits all talk of sanctification to one solitary passage in Scripture, Romans 6. On this text Forde states, "Actually, all evangelical treatment of sanctification should be little more than comment on this passage." (233) Rather than taking the Biblical data as a whole and consequently analyzing it, Forde takes one section of Scripture, isolates it, and then determines it to be the sole determinative text on sanctification. Ironically, the text doesn't even use the term "sanctification" as does the above quoted statement from 1 Thessalonians which would refute Forde's primary contention. While Paul does certainly point Christians back to the gospel in Romans 6 as the means of sanctification, that doesn't deny the fact that ethical exhortation is a necessary part of the Pastoral office. Romans 6 cannot be pitted against Romans 8, or Romans 12-15. These texts simply don't fit into Forde's system which equates morality purely with civil righteousness. If Paul were talking about civil righteousness, why would the discussion begin with the phrase, "in view of God's mercies" (Rom 12:1)?

One final issue I have with this essay is that Forde reverses the existential order of Law and Gospel. For Forde, the gospel, the message of God's unconditional grace, comes first, and consequently one understands sin. "We begin to see the truth of the situation when we realize that because God had to do that, we must have been at the same time sinners. God would be wasting his breath declaring people to be righteous if they were not actually and wholly sinners!" (238) Our understanding of sin, in Forde's view, arises from the unconditional nature of the gospel. If God's grace is unconditional, then I must be a sinner and have nothing to do with my own redemption. This reverses the traditional approach that the Law shows sin, and consequently the gospel shows God's grace. Ironically, Forde agrees here with Krister Stendahl's critique of the traditional Lutheran view, wherein he argues that "solution precedes plight."

It has to be said that Forde does allow for progress in sanctification in some sense. He says, "there is a kind of growth and progress, it is to be hoped, but it is growth in grace - a growth in coming to be captivated more and more, if we can so to speak, by the totality, the unconditionality, of the grace of God." (240) But this growth is really a growth, not in good works, but in understanding justification better, or, "getting used to the fact that if we are to be saved it will have to be by grace alone." (240) He describes this as a process wherein God is coming down to us. It is a downward movement, rather than upward moral progress. In this context, he is willing to say "it is not that sin is taken away from us, but rather that we are taken away from sin - heart, soul, and mind, as Luther put it." (242) In some sense then, Forde is willing to say that Christians begin to hate sin, and even stop "particular sins" (242) The good works of the Christian are real, and they show themselves through earthly things, through vocation, and love of neighbor. He rejects the idea of deification, or any "upward movement" of the soul toward God.

I am glad that Forde can speak of progress, yet the way that growth is explained is one dimensional. Growth demonstrates itself almost exclusively in having a greater understanding of justification. This simply does not comport with the Biblical data. It is certainly true, but not to the exclusion of other aspects of growth in faith. Forde is also right in his eschatological emphasis, and his focus on vocation. However, again, he is teaching truth to the exclusion of other realities. The Christian does move toward the goal, just as the goal moves toward him. Paul is willing to say that he presses on toward the goal. (Philippians 3:14) This is not a purely downward movement. Also, vocation is not all there is to say about the Christian life. It is certainly a central theme in Scripture, and Luther's writings, but there are other important themes as well. Involved in growth is communion with the Trinity - participation in God that works itself out through prayer, the sacraments, the divine liturgy, etc. While good works are performed "downward" there is also an upward movement of the soul toward God. This is even confessed in our liturgy. We are to "lift up our hearts" to the Lord.

Frankly, of all the work of Forde that I have read, this article is the weakest. Forde adopts certain important Biblical themes, but in doing that he denies others. He doesn't deal seriously with the Biblical text, the Confessional tradition, or even cite the theology he is critiquing. I am personally amazed that this article has had such a broad impact on the church.

Forde's Essay "Whatever Happened to God? God Not Preached"

I have been accused, through my previous posts on sanctification, of not properly representing Gerhard Forde. Well, this seems somewhat odd to me since none of my posts even mentioned Forde. However, this has caused me to go back and reread many of his works; I have decided to give an analyses of certain prominent ideas in Forde's Theology.



Gerhard Forde was a highly influential ELCA theologian, who battled both against the encroaching liberalism of the ELCA and the inerrantist convictions of the LCMS. He coined the phrase "Radical Lutheran" and spent his career primarily writing on the doctrine of justification.

The essay I am taking a look at is titled "Whatever Happened to God: God Not Preached" The reason I am discussing this particular essay is that it expounds upon one of Forde's central themes, which he discusses in greater detail in his work Theology is for Proclamation. This essay can be found in the book The Preached God: Proclamation in Word and Sacrament.

Forde's primary contention, in both this essay and the above-mentioned book, is that there is a distinction between systematic theology and proclamation. He asks, "whatever happened to God? God has fallen victim to explanations, to theology itself--theology about God-not-preached." (38)He critiques various theologies which attempt to explain God away, answer the problem of suffering by altering the doctrine of God. Forde is spot on in his critique of the theologies of Moltmann, Pannenberg, and others who attempt to argue that divinity suffers as a philosophical explanation to the problem of suffering. Weakening and emasculating God do not solve such issues, and ultimately are not in accord with the Biblical witness or the catholic tradition. Not all theological and philosophical questions need to be answered; what is needed is proclamation of the cross of Christ.

What concerns me in this essay, however, is that Forde never explains exactly what constitutes systematic theology, or what constitutes a theology that speaks "about God" rather than preaching God. Forde does acknowledge that systematic theology can be a good thing and helpful, as he equates his own writing here with systematic theology. He writes that "the purpose of systematic theology is not to subvert proclamation but to drive to effective proclamation." (42) My question is: Is systematic theology purely that which speaks about proclamation? Or is the Lutheran scholastic approach to theology also considered a valid method of theologizing? Because of the way that he speaks negatively about atonement formulations in other work, I worry that he is rejecting the entire Lutheran dogmatic tradition. I want to know how far this goes.

Forde is right that there is a distinction between God proclaimed, and God explained. There certainly is a difference between me giving a sermon on the communicatio idiomatum and telling my congregation "Your sins are forgiven!" Preaching should not be abstract theologizing; it should always be connected to the people and focused on the cross. However, Forde divorces these two methods of speech beyond what I think is viable. In Forde's words, "Proclamation means finally to stop talking about it, and actually to give it. It means not talking about God, but speaking for God." (43) The question I have is: Can we really proclaim something directly without simultaneously speaking about something? When I proclaim to my congregation "Your sins are forgiven" there is implied objective content behind what I am saying. Behind the proclamation is the teaching that Christ is God and man, died on the cross for sins, and rose from the dead.

I fear that Forde, taking a cue from Barth, privileges act over being. He constantly speaks of of Christology in these terms: "What happened to God is Jesus." (48) Talk of action, of doing, takes precedence over talk of being, or of something that is a metaphysical reality. Forde writes, "Since theology has tried to penetrate the mask of the hidden God by peddling some general metaphysical 'truths', faith becomes not trust in the proclamation but strives toward sight, to become a kind of gnosis." (53) I wonder if this includes typical discussions of the attributes of God. If this is the case, how are the ancient metaphysical explanations of the Trinity valid? Or are they? Forde's contention is not in accord with the catholic tradition, which has typically adopted the Greek conception that being has priority over act.

There are a couple curious statements that temper what Forde is suggesting. He states for example that "there can be didactic preaching, there can be preaching as ethical discourse" (45) which he calls "legitimate forms of discourse in the church." (45) This demonstrates that there can be some type of theologizing, and even ethical instruction from the pulpit. He even says that, "Not every sermon, certainly not even the entire sermon, will or must be proclamation. But it is what the theologian, the preacher, must eventually be aiming at." (45) It is curious and surprising that Forde would approve of preaching a sermon without proclamation.

In this essay, Forde makes some valid points as to the necessity of proclaiming the forgiveness of sins; however, he oversimplifies the distinction between giving an explanation and proclaiming. One cannot happen without the other. He also is unclear about what he views as "systematic theology" and exactly what type of theologizing he is rejecting. I fear that he is rejecting much of the catholic and Lutheran tradition through his privileging act over being, declaratory speaking over objective metaphysical content.

A Review of "The Baptized Body" by Peter Leithart

Peter J Leithart's "The Baptized Body" is a fascinating read. Coming from the controversial "Federal Vision" movement, Leithart seeks to infuse a high sacramental theology into Reformed Christianity. His argument comes primarily through exegesis, though with a strong dose of Calvin references. Leithart argues that contemporary Reformed Christianity has deviated from both the Biblical and Calvin's understanding of baptism.

There are three main points that Leithart attempts to demonstrate in this text: "Baptism" is Baptism, "The Body of Christ" is the Body of Christ, and Apostasy Happens.

Leithart argues that all of the references to baptism in the New Testament are references to actual water baptism. Arguments to the contrary are groundless. They necessitate an arbitrary distinction between "water baptism" and "spirit baptism" which is absent from the text. Others argue for such a union between sign and signified that one can refer to the "sign" while intending that which is signified as the referent. As Leithart rightly points out, this approach is unwarranted and becomes an easy escape for any who deny sacramental efficacy to argue that any text about the effect of baptism is just playing word games and doesn't mean what it says. Especially illuminating and provocative is Leithart's argument that baptism is not a sign, nor is it a means of grace. Rather, it is a rite.

The second argument of Leithart is that the "body of Christ" is the body of Christ. In this chapter, Leithart proposes that the internal/external approach to the New Covenant and the visible/invisible church distinction are not valid Biblical categories. The phrase "body of Christ" is a reference to all who are in the corporate social community of the church. Thus, Leithart proposes that a better distinction would be between the historical and eschatological church. Though all in the visible community partake of Christ in some manner, not all of these people will share in the eschatological kingdom due to lack of faith.

Finally, Leithart argues that apostasy happens. In contradiction to the commonly understood definition of the Perseverance of the Saints, Leithart argues that one can have a true relationship with Christ and subsequently be cut off. He convincingly demonstrates that typical Calvinistic interpretations of falling away passages are unconvincing. Leithart does not, however, abandon the concept of predestination. According to Leithart, God does predestine the elect unto salvation and even predestines the apostasy of those who fall away.

Being a Lutheran myself, I had minor disagreements with Leithart's presentation; namely his insistence on double predestination and adoption of certain New Perspective on Paul views that I find unpersuasive. That being said, this is one of the best presentations of the doctrine of baptism I have read. Even if one disagrees, this book will cause one to think further through the issues and challenge common assumptions.

A Book on the Differences Between Lutheran and Reformed Theology

Once I compile that which I have written on my blog into articles dealing with different issues, I am hoping to get a book published. This will be a book dealing with the theological differences between the Reformed and Lutheran churches on numerous issues, and giving an exegetical and theological defense of Lutheranism.

The chapters I have done work on thus far are dealing with the following topics:

Part 1: Election and Free Will

Predestination
The Extent of the Atonement
Apostasy and Perseverance
Distinguishing Mild and Strict Augustinianism

Part 2: Worship

The Eucharist
Baptism
The Worship Service

Part 3: Soteriology

Justification
Sanctification

Is there anything else I should be dealing with that I have neglected? I would appreciate advice and recommendations.

More Free Kindle Books

V.W. Richter- Why Should a Lutheran Not Join a Sectarian Church?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Why-should-a-Lutheran-not-join-any-sectarian-church%3F-by-V-W-Richter-ebook.html

David Henkel- Answer to Mr. Joseph Moore, the Methodist
http://www.retroread.com/title/Answer-to-Mr-Joseph-Moore-the-Methodist-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

David Henkel- Against the Unitarians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-treatise-on-the-person-and-incarnation-of-Jesus-Christ-in-which-some-of-the-principal-arguments-of-the-Unitarians-are-examined-by-David-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Emanuel Schmauk- How to Teach in Sunday School
http://www.retroread.com/title/How-to-teach-in-Sunday-school-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Lectures on the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/Lectures-on-the-Augsburg-Confession-by-Theological-Seminary-of-the-General-Synod-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-in-the-United-States-ebook.html

W.H. Dau- Reviews of the Work of the Missouri Synod During Three Quarters of a Century
http://www.retroread.com/title/Ebenezer-by-William-Herman-Theodore-Dau-ebook.html

Diedrich Henry Steffens- Dr. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther
http://www.retroread.com/title/Doctor-Carl-Ferdinand-Wilhelm-Walther-by-Diedrich-Henry-Steffens-ebook.html

Johann Michael Rue- Homiletics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Homiletics-by-Johann-Michael-Reu-ebook.html

Martin Chemnitz- Enchiridion (in German)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Enchiridion-by-Martin-Chemnitz-ebook.html

Thomas Martin Lindsay- A History of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-history-of-the-reformation-by-Thomas-Martin-Lindsay-ebook.html

Henry Clay Vedder- The Reformation in Germany
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-reformation-in-Germany-by-Henry-Clay-Vedder-ebook.html

George Wilson- Philip Melancthon
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Melanchthon-1497-1560-by-George-Wilson-ebook.html

Martin Luther- A Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-commentary-on-Saint-Paul-s-Epistle-to-the-Galatians-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Table Talk
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-table-talk-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- On the Bondage of the Will
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-on-the-bondage-of-the-will-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Letters
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-letters-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Two Catechisms Explained by Himself
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-two-catechisms-explained-by-himself-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- House Postil
http://www.retroread.com/title/Dr-Martin-Luther-s-House-Postil-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Christmas Sermons
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-Christmas-sermons-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Harold Ulrik Svendrup- Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Explanation-of-Luther-s-Small-catechism-by-Harold-Ulrik-Sverdrup-ebook.html

Jan Hus- Letters Written During His Exile and Imprisonment
http://www.retroread.com/title/Letters-of-John-Huss-written-during-his-exile-and-imprisonment-by-Jan-Hus-ebook.html

Bernard of Clairvaux- On the Love of God
http://www.retroread.com/title/Saint-Bernard-on-the-love-of-God-tr-by-M-C-and-C-Patmore-by-Bernard-st-of-Clairvaux-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- a Study in Comparative Symbolics
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-study-in-comparative-symbolics-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Lutheran Commentary Series

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 1-15
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-I-XV-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Matthew 16-28
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Schaeffer-C-F-The-Gospel-according-to-Matthew-XVI-XXVIII-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Mark
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Haas-J-A-W-The-Gospel-according-to-Mark-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Acts
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Stellhorn-F-W-The-Acts-of-the-Apostles-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Romans- 1 Corinthians 6
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Jacobs-H-E-The-Epistles-of-Paul-to-the-Romans-and-1-Corinthians-I-VI-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-commentary-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Voigt-A-G-The-Epistle-to-the-Ephesians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Philippians-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-the-Colossians-Horn-E-T-The-First-Epistle-to-the-Thessalo-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Hebrews
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Wolf-E-J-The-First-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Second-Epistle-to-Timothy-Wolf-E-J-The-Epistle-to-Titus-Horn-E-T-The-Epistle-to-Philemon-Wolf-E-J-The-Epi-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary- James, I, II Peter, Jude, I, II, III John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-General-Epistles-of-James-Peter-John-and-Jude-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

The Lutheran Commentary: Revelation of St. John
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-Commentary-Weidner-R-F-The-Revelation-of-St-John-the-Divine-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Free Lutheran Kindle Books

I recently purchased a Kindle. My first thought of course was to see if there was any way to find Confessional Lutheran works for free in kindle format. I found this website: RetroRead.com which allows you to convert books in epub format to kindle, and it sends them directly to your kindle. I spent a few hours searching google books and found some great resources. So this is to save you the time in looking for and converting books from googlebooks.

Charles Krauth- The Conservative Reformation and its Theology
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-conservative-reformation-and-its-theology-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.retroread.com/title/Commentary-on-the-gospel-of-John-by-August-Tholuck-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System
http://www.retroread.com/title/Infant-baptism-and-infant-salvation-in-the-Calvinistic-system-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-chronicle-of-the-Augsburg-confession-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Poverty
http://www.retroread.com/title/Poverty-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Charles Krauth- Baptism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Baptism-by-Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-ebook.html

Adolph Spaeth- Charles Porterfield Krauth (Biography)
http://www.retroread.com/title/Charles-Porterfield-Krauth-by-Adolph-Spaeth-ebook.html

Ambrose Henkel- Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/Symbolical-books-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-Church-by-Ambrose-Henkel-ebook.html

Theodore Schmauk- The Confessional Principle and the Principles of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-principle-and-the-confessions-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-Theodore-Emanuel-Schmauk-ebook.html

Johann Gerhard- Sacred Meditations
http://www.retroread.com/title/Gerhard-s-sacred-meditations-by-Johann-Gerhard-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Works Volume 1
http://www.retroread.com/title/Works-of-Martin-Luther-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Marie Richard- Philip Jacob Spener and his Work
http://www.retroread.com/title/Philip-Jacob-Spener-and-his-work-by-Marie-E-Richard-ebook.html

John Kohler-Shall we have a bishop? Or, The episcopate for the Lutheran church in America?
http://www.retroread.com/title/Shall-we-have-a-bishop%3F-Or-The-episcopate-for-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-John-Kohler-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-way-of-salvation-in-the-Lutheran-church-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Church in the Country
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-church-in-the-country-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Pastor
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-pastor-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- The Lutheran Catechist
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Lutheran-catechist-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- What's Wrong with the World?
http://www.retroread.com/title/What-s-wrong-with-the-world%3F-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- New Testament Conversions
http://www.retroread.com/title/New-Testament-conversions-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

G.H. Gerberding- the Priesthood of Believers
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-priesthood-of-believers-in-its-relation-to-inner-mission-work-of-Christian-social-service-by-George-Henry-Gerberding-ebook.html

Heinrich Friedrich Ferdinand Shmid- The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-doctrinal-theology-of-the-Evangelical-Lutheran-church-by-Heinrich-Friedrich-Ferdinand-Schmid-ebook.html

A.G. Voigt- Biblical Dogmatics
http://www.retroread.com/title/Biblical-dogmatics-by-A-G-Voigt-ebook.html

Jeurgen Ludwig Neve- A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-brief-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-in-America-by-Juergen-Ludwig-Neve-ebook.html

Henry Immanuel Smith- Scriptural Character of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord's Supper
http://www.retroread.com/title/Scriptural-character-of-the-Lutheran-doctrine-of-the-Lord-s-Supper-by-Henry-Immanuel-Smith-ebook.html

Theodor Haring- The Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Christian-faith-by-Theodor-H%C3%A4ring-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- A Summary of the Christian Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/A-summary-of-the-Christian-faith-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

James William Richard- The Confessional History of the Lutheran Church
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-confessional-history-of-the-Lutheran-church-by-James-William-Richard-ebook.html

Wilhelm Lohe- Liturgy for Christian Congregations of the Lutheran Faith
http://www.retroread.com/title/Liturgy-for-Christian-congregations-of-the-Lutheran-faith-by-Wilhelm-L%C3%B6he-ebook.html

Memoirs of the Lutheran Liturgical Association
http://www.retroread.com/title/Memoirs-of-the-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-by-Lutheran-Liturgical-Association-ebook.html

Martin Luther- Large Catechism
http://www.retroread.com/title/Luther-s-large-catechism-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Martin Luther- the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude
http://www.retroread.com/title/The-Epistles-of-St-Peter-and-St-Jude-by-Martin-Luther-ebook.html

Henry Eyster Jacobs- Martin Luther, the Hero of the Reformation
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-the-hero-of-the-reformation-by-Henry-Eyster-Jacobs-ebook.html

Charles Beard- Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany until the Close of the Diet of Worms
http://www.retroread.com/title/Martin-Luther-and-the-reformation-in-Germany-until-the-close-of-the-Diet-of-Worms-by-Charles-Beard-ebook.html

A Review of "Longing to Know" by Dr. Esther Meek

Dr. Esther Meek in her book "Longing to Know" has sought to formulate a Christian epistemology devoid of any foundationalist presuppositions. I read this book when trying to figure out exactly how a Christian "knows." How do I explain to an unbeliever why and how I believe? How do I know that I can trust God's word and Christ's death on the cross?

In this book, Dr. Meek argues that knowing God is like knowing one's auto mechanic. One hears of the auto mechanic. One hears that this auto mechanic is reliable. One then brings their car to this auto mechanic and sees that his work is reliable. Whether or not one sees this auto mechanic, he has no reason to doubt this mechanic's existence or his faithfulness to his vocation.

Dr. Meek sees all knowing as relational. To know is to be in a subjective process with the object of knowledge. Knowledge is not "justified belief." One follows a series of "clues" and comes to the conclusion that he can have trust, and confidence in truth. This is like a "magic eye" puzzle wherein one puts the clues together and eventually comes to see the whole picture. This is the same with our knowledge of God. Knowledge is a skill which needs to be practiced. There is however, no certainty. Certainty is not possible, nor should it be sought for. For one to assume that he can be certain is to assume that his knowledge is inerrant. Doubt is good and necessary.

I have several problems with the epistemology Dr. Meek espouses in this volume. While several of the ideas she proposes are relevant to every day knowing, they are inadequate when coming to the subject of God.

Dr. Meek assumes, first of all, that man is an active subject when it comes to the knowledge of God. However, I would argue that man's pure passivity in justification and conversion is applicable to man's knowledge as well. This is why old dogmaticians used the term "illumination" as one of the steps of the ordo salutis. Man does not know God because he has "put the clues together" or had an epistemic experience, but because God, as the active subject, has freely illumined the mind of man, the passive subject.

Dr. Meek seems to have adopted something similar to the I-Thou epistemology of Martin Buber. Knowledge is personal and existential. It comes through an experience between two subjects. This is in opposition to the I-it relationship which has been promoted in modernism wherein man is an active subject who knows an abstract object. While I do affirm that there certainly is a relational aspect to our knowledge of God, it is not the whole picture. There is an objective gospel, objective doctrine which is the object of faith. Perhaps this could be described as an I-it-thou relationship, wherein one has a relational knowledge of God which comes through objective means, namely, the gospel (which includes certain doctrinal propositions) as delivered through word and sacrament.

The problem with the illustration of the auto mechanic is that the analogy does not completely work. Man is not born with a mind with hatred and utter blindness to the truth of the auto mechanic. However, this is his natural state with God.
The main problem with the epistemology espoused by Dr. Meek is its starting point. The subject is ultimately the starting point of his own knowledge of the divine. However, if the word of God is the ultimate source of truth it should be our starting point. The starting assumption should be that God's word is infallible and inerrant truth. Truth, as from a personal being contained in a book, should approach us. We cannot attempt to approach it. We should be that which is acted upon by truth. We cannot try to reach truth through our perceived truthfulness and reliability of God. His truthfulness and reliability should reach us and penetrate our minds and hearts.
If it is an infallible God working knowledge within us, there is no problem in our having certainty. The certainty then does not lie in our own epistemic efforts, but in the truth itself.

Ultimately, the book gives a good explanation of how knowledge of ordinary life works, however, it is inadequate to explain our knowledge of God. It is essentially an epistemology of glory, wherein our knowledge of God depends upon our own experience and perception of truth. We should adapt an epistemology of the cross, wherein we must admit our inadequacy to know at all and become passive receivers of the revelation which is in the person of Christ.

Rereading Pieper Volume I. Part 2

It is interesting that Lutheran dogmaticians use different categories for classifying the attributes of God than do the reformed. The reformed typically discuss the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Pieper however classifies them as positive and negative attributes. Those attributes which are positive things which we have in part such as love, holiness, justice etc. Negative attributes are those attributes of God which are known negatively, or as opposed to our own attributes. These would include omnipresence, omniscience, etc. Pieper is correct in saying that how one classifies these attributes is not particularly important. Theologians are free to use different categories to discuss biblical truths.
Pieper then discusses the doctrine of creation. He opposes the doctrine of Augustine and other fathers who claim that the six days are a mere literary device to describe God's creation. He argues that those Christians who subscribe to evolutionary theories are putting the truths of science over God's word. Here is where I think Pieper goes too far. Science can find legitimate truths. When science finds something which disagrees with scripture, either the result of science is wrong, or one's interpretation of scripture is wrong. Pieper does not seem to be able to admit that perhaps his interpretation of scripture is wrong. He goes so far as to argue for geocentrism in a footnote. (pg. 473) I do not buy into evolutionary theory, however, I do not have a problem seeing the days as a literary device. The problem is never with scripture but with our interpretation of it. We must admit our interpretation as fallible.
Pieper's section on divine providence admits that God's providence extends over all things that happen. He deals with the problem of God's sovereignty over sin in a particularly good way. He states that God is sovereign over man's sinful actions so far as they are actions, but not so far as they are sin. This protects God from causing sin, but preserves his sovereignty. Pieper at this point leaves it to mystery.

Rereading Pieper Volume I.

When I first read through F. Piper's Christian Dogmatics, I was a Calvinist. By the time I had finished volume III, I was convinced that there was simply no exegetical foundation for many core Presbyterian beliefs, primarily in reference to the two natures of Christ and the sacraments. These volumes were one of the most important factors in my decision to join Lutheranism. I decided to reread them now as a convinced Lutheran. I am going to put up reviews of each of the three volumes, as I have no noticed several things I both agree and disagree with as a Confessional Lutheran within his Dogmatics.

Pieper spends a considerably large portion of the first volume on Prolegomena. The main point he gets across is that scripture itself is the sole authority of all theology. He argues against 19th century liberalism, which was prominent during his writing. Neither reason nor experience is above scripture. He sees both the reformed and Roman churches as flawed in similar ways. The Roman church places it's own tradition and magisterium above scripture. The reformed church, though they profess sola scriptura, too often make doctrinal formulations based upon logical deduction. For example; some men are saved and not others. Those that are saved are only converted by God's own choosing, therefore, those who are damned are only damned due to God's own choosing. When first reading this, it made me think about two books in particular which have been staples of Reformed theology for years: John Owen's the Death of Death, and Jonathan Edwards' the Freedom of the Will. Ultimately, much of Reformed theology, specifically the doctrine of limited atonement is not based upon clear exegesis but logical argumentation. When I was reading through Hodge's systematics (at the same time I read Pieper) I noticed that his whole argument against the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of attributes of Christ's divine to his human nature, was based on the fact that he had decided that to be human means to be present in one place at one time.
The next section in the book is on Holy Scripture. Here he defends the older orthodox theologians who had been attacked so often by 19th century liberalism. He spends much of his time defending the fact that Luther also taught Biblical inerrancy. Pieper discusses the Homoleugomena, Antileugomena distinction taught by the Lutheran fathers. This distinction comes Eusebius. The books of the New Testament are categorized by acceptance in the early church. Some books have been universally recognized: the 13 epistles of Paul, the four gospels, Acts, 1 John and 1 Peter. There was doubt in some areas about: 2, 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. The first books listed are primary. All doctrine should be decided chiefly by books about which there is no doubt. The Antileugomena have been accepted as inspired by most in the Lutheran church (though there have been times when one has doubted one of these books), however they take a secondary place in establishing doctrine. I think that this distinction is valid, however, it seems that because God has led his church with these specific books for most of the 2000 years of church history, it would be acceptable to get rid of this distinction. It can be confusing and unhelpful.
The next section of volume I is on the doctrine of God. He begins this section by discussing the natural knowledge of God. He believes that man knows the existence of God a priori, through the conscience, and a posteriori, through creation. This knowledge however is never a saving knowledge which comes only through the gospel. Pieper then moves on to discuss the trinity. He defends the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. All who deny this are heretics. It is refreshing to read Pieper's blatant refusal to claim those who deny the trinity as Christians. In our day of relativism, barely anyone is willing to affirm that knowing even an essential truth like the Trinity is necessary for salvation. This is one of the highlights of the Dogmatics. Peiper's theology is thoroughly trinitarian. He defines concisely and clearly the false explanations of, and denials of the trinity which have arisen through out history and refutes them with scripture.
One thing which I found particularly interesting is the Pieper denies Augustine's explanation of the trinity. Augustine explains the trinity by describing the Father as love. The Father, as love, must have an object of love, thus the Son is eternally begotten as that object. The love itself between the two persons is the Holy Spirit. This always seemed too speculative to me, though I love Augustine. I agree with Pieper that this is not clearly taught in scripture. He also denies Melancthon's idea that God the father, when reflecting upon Himself creates in reality what he is reflecting upon. This is how the son is eternally begotten.
Pieper also has a very good section on the trinity in the Old Testament. He says, contrary to modern theology, that one can produce the doctrine of the trinity from the Old Testament, particularly in reference to the angel of the Lord and the Spirit at creation.

An Evaluation of NT Wright's Critical Realism

NT Wright is certainly a controversial figure within Evangelicalism these days. It seems like some accept everything he says as truth, while others see his mistakes and dismiss all of what he has written. I, being a Lutheran, reject his interpretation of Paul and adamantly disagree with his redefinition of justification. However, I do believe he has some helpful insights in other areas which the reader of the New Testament can greatly benefit from. Among these is his dismissal of both the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern ways of looking at texts. They all have truth to them, but all dismiss a vital aspect of exegesis. This information comes from his book "The New Testament and the People of God".

When reading the New Testament, we must read it like any other book, taking into account what the author was trying to say, and how it applies to us today. Thus, we must construct a theory of reading any historical text. Wright dismisses the idea that history and theology form a dichotomy and must be studied seperately. The New Testament itself always grounds theology historically, and interprets history within the realm of theology. The tendency of many to seperate the "natural" elements of history and the "supernatural" of theology is in itself flawed. The liberal camp has dismissed the supernatural, while the conservative camp has also fallen into this false dichotomy by focusing on the "supernatural" as if it is somehow seperated from the natural.

The modernist epistemology of Positivism is a completely wrong way of coming to the knowledge of a historical text, or anything for that matter. The positivist sees some aspects of knowledge to be absolutely certain. What is not absolutely certain then falls into the realm of the unknown and must be doubted. This view holds to the idea that one can have a "god's eye view" of the facts, without being influenced by any preconcieved notions. Since theological ideas cannot be objectively verified, they are rejected. This view has logically resulted in the relativism that is rampant today. When people realize that there is doubt in every sort of knowledge, and that nothing can be empirically 100 percent verifiable, they reject objective knowledge all together, thus one is only left with doubt. Some areas of knowledge such as science are seen as knowable, while facts about God and the afterlife are left to mere speculation.

The phenomenalist rejects the notion that one can have certainty of objective truth. However, phenomenalism goes too far in rejecting the false epistemology of positivism by asserting that one can only know his perspective of what the truth is. If one reads a New Testament text, he has no certainty what that text means, only what he percieves it to mean. In fact, one cannot even be sure that there is a New Testament, but that one percieves a book with understandable words telling the story of Jesus. Thus, the only knowledge one has is of oneself. Logically, this could cause one doubt the existence of everything but oneself.

So, what is Wright's position rejecting both the mere objective and subjective ways of viewing things? The objective and subjective categories to Wright are unhelpful. One must dismiss these categories and look beyond them. All truth involves both the knower and the known. There is a truth that is out there to be known. I need not question whether or not the New Testament actually exists while I am reading it. This is called Realism. However, though it is admitted that truth outside of oneself can be known, he does not accept the idea that the process of knowing is a mere intellectual excercise which does not engage the knower. The knower only views the known within his own preconcieved notion of reality. His worldview is not only shaped by evidence, but shapes it. We all have our own stories that we fit our experiences into. We must also realize that the New Testament writers also have their own stories by which they interpret their experience. There story involves the redemption of the people of God. This part of Wrights epistemology is Realism.

Having explained the epistemology Wright uses to come to the text, the question is now how that epistemology works itself out practically in New Testament exegesis. Let us look at four common methods used in the interpretation of scripture. The first is the pre-critical method. This was the method used by the Patristics often, especially in the practice of "lectio divina" wherein one sees the text outside of its historical context and interprets it in a way that it applies specifically to the reader's life. This, in the worst cases, resulted in an allegorical interpretation of the text. Fortunately this position sees the text as something which is alive, and not simply dead in the past with no relevance to the modern reader. Pietistic circles still practice the pre-critical method.

The next approach is the "historical approach" which became popular at the time of the enlightenment. In the approach one looks behind the text to see which parts are genuine historical events, and which are not. One studies the historical context of these statements and other statements at the time period like the one being studied, and tries to reconstruct it's original meaning. While this method is correct in looking at historical reality, it is overly optimistic of our attempt to reconstruct the past, and leads to a static reading which has no effect on the modern reader.
The third approach is the "theological approach." This takes the text and evaluates how it speaks of God and man. It is not so much concerned with the historical content, but with what point the author is trying to make with the text. This view, promoted by Bultmann, again promotes the false dichotomy of theology and history. Historical and theological interpretations are always connected in the view of the New Testament writers.

The postmodern approach rejects all the modernists questions about the text regarding "what actually happened" in history. Instead, the focus is on the reader himself. What presuppositions does the reader bring to the text he is reading? How does this effect how he understands the text? This may to some extent, involve his view of the historical question, it is certainly not the focus. Unfortunately, this approach only leads one to knowledge of self, rather than the text, thus the entire purpose of the New Testament is missed.

There are elements of each of these approaches which are certainly helpful. The enlightenment, though its beginings were greatly flawd, does have some helpful insight for the believer. The Biblical story is grounded in history, and is dependent upon history. We must not forget that fact. Scripture does not testify to mere "spiritual truths" whose only purpose is to edify individual believers, but to the coming of God into actual history through the person of Jesus. However, we must also remember that this recorded history is never merely "objective." This history is always recorded and interpreted by one who has his own set of preconcieved notions of the world. He fits this real history into his own story. It is to be remembered however, that the New Testament is not simply "about faith" as Bultmann would have it, but about Jesus. Some have mistakenly seen the purpose of the New Testament writers as showing transcendent truth which has no bearing on actual history. The New Testament includes both real history and transcendent truth. They need not be seperated.

So what do I think of Wright's proposition of critical realism? It certainly has much truth to it. The categories of "objective" and "subjective" are often unhelpful. Many see truth as something that either exists completely outside of oneself, or only inside of oneself. However, I feel the Wright goes too far in seeing all truth as involving both the known and knower. There is much truth that is unknown to us, and our ignorance in no way effects the reality of such truth. In my mind, the categories of "objective" and "subjective" need to be redefined, though not necessarily dismissed. One of my main concerns about NT Wright's exegetical efforts, is that he sometimes reads too much into the story of the writer. Narrative does certainly effect how all men think and write, however, this is not to the exclusion of propositional truth. One need not, as Wright does, read into Paul's discussion of baptism in the opening verses of Romans 6, the underlying narrative of the crossing of the Red Sea. The position I would opt for is a modified critical realism, accepting Wright's critiques, while not completely accepting his revision.