davidould.net

blame honoria

Anglican Mainstream have published 2 pieces in defence of the upcoming UK launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, “Be Faithful”.

The first, by Bishop Wallace Benn, is also titled “Be Faithful”:

The FCA is not another organization. It is not seeking to create another church.  It is a spiritual movement and fellowship for renewal, reformation and mission – uniquely bringing together those whose key shaping and commitment, but not exclusive identity, has been through the Anglo-Catholic, conservative evangelical, and charismatic expressions of Anglicanism.

The FCA movement can do this because it is defined by its centre in the Christian faith as currently embraced in the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement. Vinay Samuel, a speaker on July 6th writes:

“Gafcon is defined by its centre and not by any boundaries.  It is a fellowship of people who affirm the centre of orthodox faith as expressed in the Jerusalem Statement. Some who are uncertain whether they are in or out might be finding boundaries which were never intended by those who have taken the initiative to launch this fellowship.”

“Some orthodox Anglicans distance themselves from GAFCCON/FCA while affirming that they have much in common with the Jerusalem Statement and with the initiators of FCA. They are as keen to be seen as “inclusive” as they are to be seen as Orthodox. Inclusion is elevated to as important a basis for fellowship as orthodox faith.  As an Indian Christian who lives in the west I am no stranger to exclusion, but I do not believe a biblical understanding of inclusion supports such a view.”

It would be premature to ask a movement to clarify all its terms or meet all the requirements set by others sadly hesitant to identify with it.  What matters, as Bishop Bob Duncan told the launch of the Anglican Church in North America, is “to keep the main thing the main thing”.  That is what ‘Be Faithful’ will seek to do by the grace and with the help of God.

The second piece, by Charles Raven of SPREAD, is entitled “On being moderately faithful: Why Fulcrum is wrong about the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans”. The title alone, of course, is direct. But some of the piece deserves further highlighting:

Goddard’s central objection to the FCA is simply that it is not actually needed in the Church of England and what really energises it is a schismatic agenda.

Here we approach the core problem of Fulcrum, its attachment to the status quo and the consequent denial which deepens as the gap between the picture its members need to paint and the reality on the ground becomes wider and wider. We know from the Cost of Conscience survey of 2002 that from a half to a third of the Church of England’s clergy did not believe core doctrines such as the physical resurrection, the virgin birth and Christ as unique saviour. It is not good enough to take refuge behind the claim that there has been no formal shift in Anglican doctrine; the score may still be there, but many of the orchestra are making it up as they go along and will continue to do so in the absence of any effective discipline.

There is a clear liberal bias in the Church of England’s institutions. For instance, evangelical ordinands are typically made to work with people of liberal views to ‘broaden their perspective’, but it is very rare to hear of the reverse happening. This is most evident with regard to the promotion of gay relationships which is at the sharp end of what the philosopher Roger Scruton has called the ‘culture of repudiation’ which systematically dismantles the Judeo-Christian tradition which has sustained English and Western culture for the past millennium and beyond. Gay organisations openly advertise in official publications, including Crockfords and the Church of England Yearbook and a number of diocesan bishops are patrons of homosexual advocacy organisations without any significant challenge.
...
Not only is Fulcrum in denial about the Church of England, but is also in a degree of denial about itself. A brief glance at its own history shows how the movement had its origins in supporting the current Archbishop of Canterbury when his controversial views on sexuality were questioned at the time of his appointment, views which have added hugely to the influence of gay campaigning groups in the Church of England and beyond. Yet Goddard quite unselfconsciously includes Fulcrum as a group ‘committed to orthodox faith and morals’ along with Reform, Church Society, Forward in Faith and others.

This is difficult to square with the evidence. In practice, Fulcrum’s position seems to be rather ambiguous. When Christina Rees, one of the founders of Fulcrum , was asked in an interview in 2006 about what she thought Jesus’ attitude to various groups within the Church today would be and in answer to the question ‘And actively gay bishops like Gene Robinson, would he have minded them? ‘ she replied “No, not if they were in a faithful relationship, of course not.”

Now, regular readers will know which side of this discussion I fall on. Whether you agree with me or not on the merits of the FCA, it should now be clear that “active resistance”/“internal persuasion” camps are rapidly being defined and distinguished.

Who is right and who will succeed are both fascinating questions.

a day late, sorry Latayne!

Ever since my brother came home from a journey in Argentina where he met some Mormon missionaries and then related the story to me, I have been fascinated by the Church of Latter-Day Saints (or “Mormons” to the rest of us).

Being the kind of guy I am I read voraciously about them. 2 books stand out in particular. The first is James White’s “Letters to a Mormon Elder, the second Mark Cares’ “Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons.

And now Latayne Scott has revised and re-released her own “The Mormon Mirage” and asked a bunch of us to review it. So here goes.

This is a dangerous book to give to a Mormon. It’s dangerous first of all because it sets out so clearly what is so utterly wrong with Mormon theology and explanations of the origins of their religion. Even James White does not come close (and that’s a compliment to Scott!) to this level of detailed explanation of the history and flaws in Mormonism. From the life of Joseph Smith, Scott moves on to other areas of Mormon doctrine, consistently showing the errors and plain mistruths.

Like I said, it’s dangerous - because the evidence and argument piled up is simply overwhelmingly persuasive. From the opening chapter where she tells us her own conversion/apostasy story, we are carried along on a discovery of quite how without foundation the claims of Joseph Smith and his successors are. You cannot read this book, chase up the meticulously researched and documented references, and the not conclude that Mormonism is a fraud!

And yet, I had this growing, almost gnawing nag in the back of my mind as I read that this book was dangerous. For it seems to me that it launches into a full-scale assault on Mormon historicity far too quickly.

Now, perhaps at this point I am overly influenced by Cares’ “Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons but reading that book I became very aware of the danger of simply hammering those issues with a believer of any sect or cult. There is, Cares explains, such a personal loyalty to such claims and the “prophet” or other authority that made them, that opening up a bazooka on them has a negative effect. Too often the object of our ambush closes down and becomes offensive. Far better for us, Cares suggests, to make the gospel the issue - we are not, after all, seeking to bring them out of Mormonism so much as to bring them to Christ. Perhaps an open assault upon historicity misses the point.

It pains me to say it, but I wondered if Scott would face the same problem.

This is not to say that she does not recognise that the gospel is the key issue. In the foreword we are helpfully told:

[The Mormon Church]‘s claims that it is a gospel different from traditional Christianity remain unchallenged. No matter how you dress it up or water it down, Mormonism is not Christianity.

and yet Scott does not begin by making the gospel the issue in the main text of the book. Latayne’s account of her “gentle apostasy” is not heavy on key gospel doctrinal matters but rather relates her understanding of the flawed claims of Mormonism, both historical and biblical.

And yet I am then reminded that here, then, is a conversion story that comes out of such factual confrontations! Perhaps my fears are unfounded.

Having written the above, let me finish by commending the book to you, not least if you simply want to understand Mormonism. It’s a great book - very readable and engaging. What’s more, the presentation of the gospel comes pushing through by the end of the book and is well compared to the Mormon gospel. And yet even at this moment I felt the language harsh and sometimes verging on the sarcastic. Closing this chapter on “Salvation and Exaltation” she writes:

Mormons teach that those who go to hell are burned forever with unquenchable fire. But their heaven isn’t much better, for the saved of Mormonism are promised a home with their God who dwells in “everlasting burnings”.

The only conclusion I could offer is that Mormons had better reject their gospel - and soon - or be burned forever!

I’m just not sure I’d put that in the hands of a Mormon.

So I feel conflicted at the end of this review. A great book to give to Christians to learn about Mormonism and all that is wrong with it and highly recommended by me on that basis. But if you want an example of a meaty engagement of the same issues with a Mormon then go with James White’s “Letters to a Mormon Elder. If you want to think about communicating the gospel as the central issue then Mark Cares’ “Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons.

Latayne’s book falls somewhere in the middle, but is no less worthy of praise because of it - it’s just a different tool in your armoury.

If I had not previously been convinced of the raw and awesome power of teh intarweb then the past half hour of my life has forever solidified that conviction.

I just received a visit from a Spanish man called Ricardo here at the rectory in Neutral Bay, Sydney, Australia. He must have been all of 70 (if not more) but still spritely. He presented to me a copy of the KJV of the Bible printed in 1848 and wondered if I might be able to do something with it or, at least, enjoy it.

On the frontplate was inscribed the following:

From the Rev. J. Frampton. Vicar

to

Mr. Francis Brown

In remembrance of the completion of the new Church in the Parish of Tetbury dedicated in the name of the Holy Saviour and consecrated the 23^rd. of Aug. 1848

Intrigued? So was I. And so to the web I went. Well, actually let’s be honest - I jumped straight to Google.

First, Rev. J. Frampton. Almost immediately I hit paydirt. This history of the church in Tetbury told me the following:

During the incumbency of Paul’s successor, John Frampton, (fn. 92) a chapel of ease dedicated to St. Saviour was built on the west side of the town, partly financed by the sale of the advowson. (fn. 93) Consecrated in 1848 (fn. 94) and designed by S. W. Daukes and J. R. Hamilton, (fn. 95) it is in Decorated Gothic style and comprises sanctuary and aisled nave. It was declared redundant in 1974. (fn. 96)
(footnotes hyperlinked in the original)

But more was to come. Google Books had an archived copy of page 113 is a section dealing with the chapel:

In addition to this, ” a limited subscription, very insufficient to cover the cost of the building,” was raised. The whole cost of this Chapel of Ease exceeded by .£2000 the sum thus obtained, for which sum the Vicar is responsible, and has paid interest upon it from the time the debt was incurred.”

A Chapel of Ease, dedicated to Our Blessed Saviour, was consecrated by the Right Rev. James Henry Monk, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, on the 23rd of August, 1848 ; the foundation stone having been laid by Miss Framp- ton, the daughter of the Vicar, on the 31st of March, 1846. It was erected through the instrumentality of the Vicar, assisted by friends, and the sum of £1,000 from the fund arising from the sale of the advowson in 1839 ; and contains seats for about 400 persons. It is built in the Decorated style, with a Chancel, Nave, North and South Aisles, Porch, and Vestry. The nave is separated from the Aisles by five arches, which rest on piers alternately circular and octagonal, their dripstones terminating in carved figures of angels. Both Nave and Aisles are covered by one roof, inclined at their junction ; it is of a high pitch, open in the interior to the ridge piece of foreign oak, with horizontal tie beams, &c., the wall pieces resting on corbels covered with foliage, and the cornice ornamented with the ball-flower. The whole of the interior is lined with ashlar, the stone used for this purpose being the white Painswick, which in fineness of grain and general appearance nearly approaches the Caen. The North and South windows of the aisles are single lights, with trefoil heads; those at the East and West are, however, of two lights, with tracery in the head, and are all filled with stained glass in patterns, with the exception of the West window of the South…

and it carries on. On the next page there are details of the consecration itself:

On the day of Consecration (August 23rd, 1848), the Clergy met at the school room, and awaited the Bishop, on whose arrival, they formed a procession in their surplices to the Church. Amongst them were the Rev. R. W. Huntley, of Box- well, George Madan, of Cam, Rural Deans, Sir George Prevost, Bart., W. F. Powell, of Ciren- cester, and about twenty others. The petition for Consecration having been read, the Bishop and Clergy entered the Church, and proceeded to the Chancel, repeating the twenty fourth Psalm; after which, the Bishop duly signed the deed of Consecration. The service for the day then commenced. The Prayers and Litany were read by the Curates, the Rev. C. F. Lowder, and the Rev. H. H. Wyatt. The Lessons by the Rev. W. F. Powell, and Sir George Prevost, the Psalms and Canticles were chanted to Gregorian and English chants. The service for the Holy Communion was read by the Bishop, his two Chaplains, the Rev. T. Murray Browne, and Rev. G. N. Barrow, reading the Epistle and Gospel. The sermon was preached by the Vicar, the Rev. John Frampton, from the fortieth chapter of Exodus, and thirty fourth verse. The Offertory sentences were then read, and the prayer for the Church militant followed; after which, his Lordship consecrated the burial ground, and the non- communicants having left the Church, the Holy Communion was administered. After the service, the Bishop, Clergy, and many of the parishioners were entertained by the Vicar. The children of the School, to the number of three hundred, together with the workmen and others connected with the building of the Church, were also liberally entertained.

There was a second service in the evening at seven o’clock, when the sermon was preached by the Rev. W. F. Powell, the Vicar of Cirencester.”

Mr. S. W. Daukes, of Whitehall Place, London, was the architect. The Church of S. Andrews, Wells street, London, and the Agricultural College, at Cirencester, were also built by him. Mr. Francis Brown, of Tetbury, was the contractor for the works.

and so there is Mr Francis Brown (more of whom later).

So what does the chapel itself look like? The current owners of the chapel are The Churches Conservation Trust. They have a page dedicated to St. Saviour’s here. (See also here).

Here is a Gothic Revival church of 1848 built in defiance of the pew-rental system, for the poor who could not afford to pay for their seats in Tetbury’s mighty church of St Mary. Constructed of local stone and Cotswold slates, it was designed by a local architect Samuel Dawkes, assisted by A W Pugin and John Hardman. Together they created a very fine example of High Church architecture, displaying craftsmanship of equally high quality.

Better yet, a local heritage group have photographs. Here is the side view:

which agrees with the google map of the building:

Finally I turned to check out Francis Brown. The UK National Archives tell us about other building projects and property deals he was involved in:

Crudwell Eastcourt school 782/40 1857
Contents:
Boys’ and girls’ school and mistress’s house, (4), including block plan but no elevation. No: 2518.
[Architect: Francis Brown. Cert. 12 Apr.1858.]
...
Malmesbury and Westport C. of E. school 782/69 [c.1849]
Contents:
School and house (3), including block plan. Architect: Francis Brown, Tetbury. No: 2084.
[Cert. 9 Jan. 1857.]
...
[no title]  D1774/7 2 January 1841
Contents:
Conveyance in Trust: David Chappell of Tetbury, yeoman (1), Rev. Wm. Scott Panting of Wickwar (2), John Bevir of Cirencester, gent. (3), Sarah Biscoe of Bath (4), Francis Brown of Tetbury, builder (5), Robert Clark Paul of Tetbury, gent. (6) and John Brown of Tetbury, plumber and glazier, (7): messuage formerly called the Packhorse, and then the Sun, messuage formerly a stable, with a burgage and close of meadow adjoining near the Long Bridge.
...
[no title]  D1774/10 24 July 1875
Contents:
Conveyance in Trust: John Tanner of 118 Newington Causeway, Surrey, M.D., Robert Habgood of Cirencester, draper, and Henry Holborow of Great Sherston, Wilts., farmer (1), Francis Brown of Tetbury, builder (2), Robert Clark Paul of Tetbury, gent., (3): property as above.

Tetbury Families (who I think I will be calling when the UK wakes up) record Francis Brown as owning several properties on Fox Hill. But perhaps the best of all comes from the same site where their page of local militia records that a Francis Brown was in the Hussars in 1835. Why is this the best? Because they link to a photo:

Francis Brown, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, Tetbury Troop

As the name implies, Yeomanry troops were raised by and from the property-owning class ; that is certainly the case of the sitter, Francis Brown :

Francis Brown was born in Silver Street, Tetbury in 1803. It is interesting to note that he is recorded as living at that very address in 1841, 1851, 1861, 1863, 1871 and 1881. He certainly is a landowner : the list of his properties in 1860 includes “cottages on Charlton Rd, Gumstool Hill x2, house and garden on Fox Hill, with tenants”.

He was a builder by trade ; he’s recorded as being the architect of the Malmesbury and Westport C. of E. School (built c. 1849). In 1861 he was employing 32 men and 7 boys, a figure that soared to 66 men and 7 boys in 1871, to get down to 22 men and 2 boys in 1881.

He married Sarah Sisum on september 9th 1833 in Hankerton, Wiltshire (where she originated from). They will have some 11 children, all born in Tetbury (Sarah Ann, Francis, Martha, James Sisum, Edward, Robert, Esther anna, Alfred, Henry, Walter and Emily Jane). Francis Brown died in 1890 ; in Tetbury of course.

It is interesting to note that the Tetbury Troop was sent in 1831 to Bristol - they spent one week there to prevent pillaging in the wake of riots. It is not impossible that Francis Brown, then a 27 years old bachelor, was part of the action. He is listed as a Private in a 1835 list for the Gloucestershire Yeomanry.

Members of the yeomary were to provide their own horse - this somehow shows on that photograph : though a superb animal, Francis Brown’s mount is no racing steed and may have been employed for more mundane tasks.

And that is why you have got to love the internet!

Andrew Goddard, a member of the leadership team of Fulcrum has written a piece entitled “Should we all join the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans?”. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans officially launches on July 6 and seeks to be a continuation of the GAFCON movement. As would be expected his answer is “no” and the article sets out the reasons why:

The first concern is that Chris Sugden at NEAC clearly stated, ‘We will keep formal administrative links with the formal Church of England, but our real identity is with Global Anglicanism as defined by the Jerusalem statement and declaration.  GAFCON is our connection to the Global Anglican Communion’. This suggests that aligning with FCA is self-consciously to distance oneself from the structures of the Church of the England and the Instruments and to view FCA as one’s primary ecclesial identity.
...
The concern is that it will simply support those who sign up to it however they conduct themselves in relation to the authority structures of the Church of England and the separatist tail will end up wagging the officially non-separatist dog.
...
Although it is claimed that women’s ordination is recognised as a “second-order” issue within FCA, many of those most associated with FCA are committed to “male headship” as clear biblical teaching and are firmly opposed to both women priests and women bishops. The concern is that one major factor in uniting those evangelicals and anglo-Catholics currently in FCA is apparently their shared opposition to these developments. Over half the speakers advertised for the launch - both anglo-Catholic and evangelical – are committed to the minority integrity but there is not a single ordained woman speaking (there is only one woman among the 12 speakers on the FCA brochure) or prominent in the Fellowship.

The extent to which there can really be fundamental long-term harmony between Reform and Forward in Faith (given their major ecclesiological, liturgical and sacramental differences and the lay presidency sub-culture in parts of one constituency and the gay sub-culture in parts of the other) is a question that must be being asked within both those groupings but there is an even more important set of questions for most evangelicals: If the FCA is correct in its analysis that there is a need for a confessing fellowship in the Church of England because it could soon be headed down the perilous path of TEC, why do they appear so unconcerned that they are not viewed as a welcoming and nourishing place by the many orthodox women priests who share their opposition to such a development? Are evangelicals fully supportive of women’s ministry really as welcome in FCA as Anglo-Catholics opposed to it?
...
The sad impression of the last year is that those most committed to GAFCON and FCA are determined to press ahead with their vision and, convinced by their own rhetoric and rightness, to ignore or dismiss those who are unwilling to follow their lead.

Strong stuff, but nothing really new.

Perhaps the first response to highlight is that of commentor “Nersen” on the Fulcrum forum thread opened along with the article. He writes:

the FCA can be questioned about the support it has in the CofE or AC, but what support does the “open” position of Fulcrum have and how effective has it been?  It seems that the FCA has broader support than Fulcrum, despite the “evangelical centre” self-identification. Why are FiF not working with Fulcrum rather than AM and Reform?  Perhaps the “open” position is viewed as ineffective. I do not see much good fruit from “constructive engagement”  with “liberals” in the AC but years and years passing since the Windsor Report….and for those wanting a covenant, the Ridley Draft has been kicked into the long grass in Jamaica because a small minority who will never sign a covenant successfully manoeuvre for more (endless) discussions and reviews etc…. and in 8 months they still won’t sign -  who will be surprised at another year of waiting and another committee being formed?  Are “open” evangelicals falling into the trap of those who want to take “an inch at a time”, betting on no strong opposition at any point, until we get to a similar situation in the CofE as we see in TECUSA, with the “open” evangelicals remaining loyal to the institution (or perhaps the ABC) and being the most conservative in the CofE and having the same influence as the Communion Partners in TECUSA, i.e. zero?

which strike me as very important observations.

Both “leavers” and “stayers” will have an interest in this debate.

Love or hate the Christian Institute (and I think it’s a little of both with me), they are certainly doing a great job with their recent slate of videos. This one is incredible - boring, dull, bland evangelical man is questioned by police for handing out invitations to an Easter service. Can you guess why?

Crazy.

Have been tagged by Rachel on a more interesting meme…

Here’s the crack:

1. Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have permanently changed the way you think.
2. Tag five others.

Right then. Got to say, after 4 years at theological college there’s a whole bunch to choose from, but some do stand out. And some make the list from before college. Let’s see now….

Gospel and Kingdom - Graeme Goldsworthy

I had never heard of Biblical Theology before I read this book. It sounds drastic but until I opened it up and read through the Old Testament had been a mystery to me. I had understood that there were predictions of Jesus but had never before seen how those 39 books worked together to present the Lord Jesus Christ and the unveiling of God’s promises.

Goldsworthy analyses those promises under three broad areas: land, blessing and people - drawing these aspects out of the great promise to Abram in Gen. 12:1-3. He then shows the flow of these promises (or, to be more accurate, one large promise) through the Hebrew Scriptures under the moniker of “God’s people, under God’s rule in God’s place.

I was never the same after I read this stuff. It opened a world of typology and foreshadowing - it showed me how God made promises and was faithful to them. When Luther says the the Old Testament is the cradle in which the baby Jesus was laid it’s Goldsworthy’s book that made me see how true it was.

Since then Graeme has written more on these subjects and the original “Gospel and Kingdom” is part of a larger trilogy that also includes “Gospel and Wisdom” and the “Gospel and Revelation”.

Desiring God - John Piper

Subtitled “Confessions of a Christian Hedonist”, this is a great book for understanding justification by faith alone. Piper, by his own admission, reworks Jonathan Edwards classic “The Religious Affections” and shows how the Scriptures call us to desire God. In its most basic form this is stated thus:

God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.

Perhaps the best moment for me in the book was when Piper addresses what he calls “the debtors’ ethic”. He argues that all too often to seek to “repay” God with the mindset that “God has been good to us, how may we now repay Him?” This, Piper argues, denies the grace of God. Since when was grace something to be repayed? Rather, we are urged, we should seek new ways every day to put ourselves “further in debt to God”. Of course, what Piper is not arguing is that we should sin more (so Rom. 6:1) but, rather, that justification by faith alone should course through us. God should always be seen as the benefactor and never the beneficiary. We should delight in Him by trusting Him and living as though we truly depend upon Him for all things, first and foremost for His favour.

It’s compelling stuff, even if not without its critics.

On Being a Christian - Hans Küng

A curious choice, perhaps, for a solid evangelical but Hans Küng’s famous work had a monumental effect on me.

What Küng did was convince me of the gaping holes in the middle of liberal theology. Time and time again he moves away from a comprehensive (ie “comprehended”) reading of the text of the Bible to one where everything that he is unwilling to accept has to be re-interpreted. As just one (but very important) example, he discussed the Resurrection of Jesus in a fascinating way, opening up with this clear statement:

Corporeal resurrection? Yes and no, if I may recall a personal conversation with Rudolf Bultmann. No, if “body” simply means the physiologically identical body. Yes, if “body” means in the sense of the New Testament soma of identical personal reality, the same self with its whole history.

It’s classic liberal theology. It wants to sound orthodox, but it scrabbles as far as it can from orthodoxy. Ultimately (and this is the real issue) it just doesn’t do justice to the text. It’s not what the original writers intended to communicate.

The frustrating thing, of course, is that it comes bundled up with some fascinating insights. So, for example, a little later Küng notes:

Exaltation? In the older texts of the New Testament the “exaltation” or “taking up” of Jesus is simply a form of expression for Jesus’ raiding or resurrection, with a different emphasis. The fact that Jesus was raised means in the New Testament nothing more than that he was elevated to God by the very fact of being raised: exaltation as completion of the resurrection.

There is gold mixed in with the dross there. Resurrection and ascension are joined together in some New Testament texts. But which one of us would describe that as “nothing more than that he was elevated to God”?

Nothing more? With the same breath Küng observes the themes that the NT writers are showing us and then collapses them away leaving us with nothing but a nice idea about Jesus.

The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology: Towards a Christ-Centred Approach - Adrio König

At first sight a book that many will want to move swiftly past but this one stands out clearly as I think about what I learned at college. König showed me something I’d never seen clearly before - again in the author’s words:

The eschatological message of the NT is that the whole history of Jesus Christ is eschatological.

Just consider that for a moment. Usually when we think of “eschatology” (lit.: “things of the end”) we think of the return of Christ and the end of the world. But König shows us the Bible time and time again presenting the Incarnation as an eschatological event (so e.g. Heb. 1:1-2; 9:26. 1Pet. 1:20. Matt. 12:28).

Here it is again, this time König speaks about Heb. 9:26:

Just as in Heb. 1:1, so also here, the author of the letter sees Christ’s first appearance as “the end”- and therefore as decisively eschatological. It is equally important, however, to note that he does not do this at the cost of future eschatology (Christ’s return), but in the same breath (v.28)!’

and again…

It is … striking that the New Testament authors consistently presented the day of the Lord as fulfilled in Jesus’ first advent, in his earthly ministry, and in his work in the Holy Spirit – as well as in the day of judgment. That is to say, the day of the Lord came already with the birth and life of Jesus.

For me that was paradigm-shifting. And for making me think so hard, and helping me love Jesus all the more because of it, König’s book has to go on the list.

Scripture and Truth - D.A.Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Eds.)

A series of essays, compiled and edited by Carson and Woodbridge, that span a wide range of topics centering on the Scriptures themselves, how they are to be read, how they relate one to another and how scholarship has approached various issues. From Grudem’s opening “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture” you are launched into rigorous and engaging scholarship which I found stimulating. If asked for a basic book on the Bible for those who want to think a little further then this is my number one recommendation by far, if only for the consistently high quality across so many topics.

The essay by Bromiley, “The Church Fathers and the Holy Scripture” is a particularly fine piece of historical work and an honest look at the weaknesses of those first theologians, along with some great observations about how they handled Scripture and the place they insisted it should have in the Christian life.

There it is.

Now, who to tag?

the clone, the Prophet, Clancey/Orr (expect some heavyweights from those guys), CraigS, Fongster

nice

h/t: Dark Roasted Blend

cute…

h/t: neatorama