Taylor Marshall, The Catholic Perspective on Paul (Dallas: St. John Press, 2010).
There have recently been a number of Reformed converts to Roman Catholicism and Taylor Marshall is among their number. Mr. Marshall and a number of other converts at www.calledtocommunion.com offered to pay for the book to be given to Reformed seminarians who wrote in. As one who by definition is connected to Rome, though as one dissenting from her, I was interested to read his perspective on the Apostle Paul.
In the Introduction Marshall states that while he used to be a Protestant who believed Pauline theology was antithetical to Roman Catholicism, he now believes that Paul is actually Catholic. So throughout his book Marshall intends to demonstrate Paul’s Catholicity. He says, “You will find this volume filled with examples of Paul’s Catholic teachings…throughout this journey we find that St. Paul is in fact a Catholic priest.” With all due respect to Mr. Marshall, however, I did not find his attempt very convincing.
It ought to be noted at the outset that the fact that Mr. Marshall and others wanted to give the book to Reformed seminarians indicated to me that it would be an apologetic book. If I am wrong about this then this would temper some of the criticisms in this review. However, there are still a number of unfortunate caricatures and uncharitable portions of this book.
For example, in his introduction Marshall lays out three perspectives on Paul: The Marcionite Paul, the Lutheran/Protestant Paul, and the Baur/higher critical Paul (The “Catholic Paul is the alternative to these three). In describing the “Lutheran” Paul Marshall implies that Luther taught that the message of the Apostles was not consistent with one another (13). Then Marshall says, “Unfortunately, the four Gospels do not hold the esteemed place in Protestantism that they do in the Catholic Church” (14). This is admittedly a baffling statement. Marshall does not go on to describe why this must be the case in Protestantism but only offers anecdotal evidence. But this flatly contradicts Reformed teaching as contained in all the Reformed confessions. No piece of Scripture is placed over another. Unfortunately, this type of facile argumentation occurs in other places.
Marshall proposes that the problem with Protestantism is that it adopts a “zero-sum theology.” At this point Marshall is helpful in pointing out that that Catholics do not view Marian dogma or prayer to saints as separate worship from Christ. He points out that all theology and all the blessings of salvation derives from Christ. This is very important for Protestants to understand about Rome, but Marshall seems to ignore the fact that the Reformed confessions speak about the importance of the means of grace. He wants to say that participation in Christ creates a way by which Marian devotion and prayer to the saints make sense.
While one would wish that these issues were explored more, Marshall then goes on to apply his conception of “zero-sum theology” to salvation. The Catholic paradigm views salvation is terms of operation and cooperation where grace is resistible. According to Marshall it is 100% God and 100% man. The Reformed perspective however teaches that it is “100% God and 0% man” (29). Sadly, Marshall does not quote any Reformed literature that teaches this, he simply asserts it. It is of course totally reasonable if Marshall believes that Reformed theology results in this type of formula, but this is not the way that Marshall presents his case. For one who was educated at a Reformed seminary and was an Anglican priest, I expected more robust argumentation.
This approach continues in subsequent chapters. Yet another example can be found where he says, “The Catholic Church is not a denomination because it does not claim to follow a certain human founder (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Wesley) but is the unbroken community of clergy and laity going back to the Apostles. Not one Protestant congregation on earth can trace its origin to the Apostles" (37). This quotation is ripe with errors. First, Reformed and Anglican churches do not follow any particular human founder (and even Lutheranism does not follow Luther, it follows the Augsburg Confession). Furthermore, as a former Anglican, Marshall may reject the idea that Anglicanism has any claim to Apostolic Succession but it does in fact make that claim.
Elsewhere, in discussing Sola Scriptura, he says that the Paul clearly rejects the idea. He appeals to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions, which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter.” Marshall comments, “This is the preeminent text supporting the Catholic Church’s doctrine that the Word of God comes to us both in oral Tradition and in written Scripture. The Apostle confirms that oral tradition is in fact the “word of God” (44). If this text supports any side in this debate however, it is the Protestants. The teaching that Paul references is not the teaching of the Magisterium, but it is the Apostolic teaching. It is the Apostolic teaching that was passed on through writing and speaking, not the Magisterium of the Church. To suggest that Paul is speaking of the Magisterium appears naïve—at least to the Protestant seminarian this book is designed to persuade. That is not to say that this is not the paradigm through which Catholics perceive Paul.
Much more could be said and analyzed but I will conclude with a general criticism about the methodology of the book. For a book concerned with Pauline theology, it is frustrating that there is so little exegesis. For someone who claims to have come to understand that Paul was indeed Catholic based on Greek and Hebrew, it was disconcerting that more primary source work was not done. For example, in the above example from 2 Thessalonians 2, Marshall just asserts what he believes Paul to be saying. A further example can be found in Marshall’s section on purgatory.
After briefly asserting two Pauline texts for purgatory (1 Cor 3:11-15 & Phil 1:6), Marshall comes to a rather bizarre reading of Rom. 8:17. He seems to affirm that what Paul says in Rom 8:17 is that we will be glorified with Christ if we suffer in purgatory. It is admittedly unclear if he is attempting to argue the distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment or if he believes that this verse actually speaks to purgatory. An indication that he means the latter is found where he says, “In summary, temporal punishment is what we experience in purgatory, which is entirely different from the eternal punishment of the damned" (109).
Suffice it to say, the exegetical process employed by Marshall left me more confused about Catholic exegesis than when I started. That is not to say that I did not pick up subtlety in Roman theology that I was not aware of before. In many sections Marshall does provide interesting perspectives. If someone is looking for the best in Roman Catholic apologetics or if someone wants an introduction in Roman Catholic theology, I would not recommend this book. While this review has been quite critical of Mr. Marshall, it is in no way meant as an attack on him, but it is out of a zeal for a true and meaningful reunion of Christ’s body. While we may not agree with what that looks like, I pray that both Protestants and Catholics can pray for a spirit of love while engaging in straightforward dialogue on the issues that separate us.
Reviewed by Brandon Addison
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Rev. John Bales, Library Director and Lecturer in Theological Bibliography, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island.
You can find the episode here.
How Can I Know God Exists?
We exist to glorify and enjoy God. But that begs the question of whether there are reasons for belief in a god in the first place. There are three offered in Q&A 2: the light of conscience, the light of creation, and the light of the canon.
Let me say a word about using the so-called proofs for God’s existence. They serve a twofold purpose. First, they are meant to bolster our own faith. We believe in order to understand, as ancient Christians used to say. We believe God exists and then we come to know that truth more and more over the course of our lives. Second, the proofs can certainly be used in witnessing to unbelievers, but in doing so, our expectation should be that they can only show that our faith is reasonable; they should not be expected to “prove” God outright. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.
Light of Conscience
How can I know God exists? The light of conscience, or, as the Catechism calls it, “the light of nature in man,” which is within me testifies that he exists. Humanity naturally knows that God exists. For example, as Paul passed through Athens and went up to the Areopagus to testify to Greek philosophers, they had idols for every god. And just in case they missed one, they had one with this inscription: “To the unknown god” (Acts 17:23). Why would these great philosophers create idols? It was because God has set eternity in their hearts (Ecc. 3:11). They intuitively knew that there was something greater than them.
Because of this Paul’s words in Romans 1 take on significance. The fact that people deny God exists or do everything in their life to live as if he did not exist is evidence that on our consciences is the knowledge of God. Why would people need to go to such lengths if God did not exist? In our sinfulness we want to suppress the knowledge of God. But trying to do this is as effective as pushing down all the bubbles in a jacuzzi.
Light of Creation
How can I know God exists? The light of creation testifies that he exists. As with conscience, the Catechism says “the works of God declare plainly that there is a God.” In Psalm 19 David likens the heavens to a preacher, constantly proclaiming their Maker: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims his handiwork, day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Ps. 19:1–2).
This is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1. God is knowable in creation. It is plain or evident to us. In the things God has made all humanity from the creation onward has testified of his creation. In fact, again Paul proves the positive by the negative. Because humans create idols according to their own image this proves that God exists, for where did the idea to make a god come from in the first place?
Light of the Canon
How can I know God exists? The light of the canon, the Word of God, testifies of his existence. The Catechism sets this final reason apart from the previous two by using two adjectives: “But his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.”
While conscience and creation reveal the existence of God, only the Word of God does so sufficiently. In Paul’s words, conscience and creation can only leave people “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). They can only testify that there is a God, while in the Word alone we have all that we need for a saving knowledge of God.
While conscience and creation reveal the existence of God, only the Word does so effectually. Only the Word, joined together with the Spirit of God, can bring us to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Psalm 19 compares and contrasts creation and the canon. While creation proclaims the glory of God, the law of the Lord revives the soul, makes wise the simple, rejoices the heart, enlightens the eyes, and endures forever.
But it is not just the bare Word that does this. The Word is the instrumental cause of salvation, that is, it is the means by which the Lord brings us to faith. But the efficient cause, that is, the power that actually does the work, is the Holy Spirit alone. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2, “my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (v. 4). As Paul went on to speak of the glories of eternity, he said, “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (v. 10a), and, “we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God” (v. 12).
In saying this the Catechism reminds us that in all our evangelism, witnessing, testifying, and apologetics, we must reply upon the power of the Holy Spirit to use his Word to bring the world to faith in Christ. For what is the use of arguing over issues of the conscience and ethics or over issues of creation and teleology unless these lead people to encounter Christ himself in his Word?
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, Everything You Know About Evangelicals is Wrong (Well Almost Everything): An Insiders Look at Myths and Realities (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010). $16.99. Paper.
The use of the words “evangelical” or “evangelicalism” continues to be the source of no little consternation in conversations among professing Christians. In some corners, they have come to connote everything that is thought to be wrong with Christianity in the 21st century. Some seek to preserve valuable common ground between believers of different doctrinal or practical persuasions and use these terms to fit them all under one large umbrella. Still others are convinced that evangelicalism has become so ambiguous a term as to render it useless in academic or popular discourse. Yet, Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen recognize that “evangelicalism” still receives heavy use in popular culture, and so they have written Everything You Know About Evangelicals Is Wrong (Well Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at Myths and Realities with hopes of clearing up what they perceive to be misconceptions about what is implied when one uses the term “evangelicalism.”
The authors take up their task by first exploring whether or not we should even be bothered to try to use the word “evangelicalism” anymore. While acknowledging the notorious difficulty of formulating an “adequate and accurate definition” (11) of evangelicalism, the authors nevertheless press forward in search of a proper basis for understanding the existence of the movement. They argue that despite the differences that Christians have had over doctrine and practice, evangelicalism finds its identity in its history of cooperative works and causes such as orphanages, hospitals, and the abolition of slavery in the United States as well as Great Britain (14). After this brief introductory discussion of the essence of evangelicalism, the bulk of the book is taken up with chapters covering the supposed misconceptions about evangelicalism. The authors address ways in which evangelicals are possibly perceived by outsiders looking in (Evangelicals Are Not All Mean, Stupid, And Dogmatic; Evangelicals Are Not All Republicans) as well as topics that they fear might cause someone to be excluded from the evangelical camp (Evangelicals Are Not All Inerrantists; Evangelicals Are Not All Waiting For The Rapture). After making the case for the legitimacy of diversity within evangelicalism, the final chapter once again takes up the challenge of defining evangelicalism by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of various attempts at a definition and finally settling on the authors’ own definition.
Wilkens and Thorsen approach their discussion of evangelicalism with a humility that is commendable. One of the great strengths of this book is the charitable way that they discuss topics on which Christians have historically come to differing conclusions. It is never difficult to ascertain which side of the debates the authors themselves land on, but they always make an honest attempt to fairly portray all views that they deem pertinent to the discussion at hand. The book also offers the reader a number of opportunities to be challenged. The authors keenly point out the ways that Christians put secondary issues such as identity with a political party at the same level as our identity as subjects of God’s kingdom. Their discussion of evangelicalism’s attitude toward homosexuality is a convicting reminder that it is is easy to depersonalize those whose lives are ravaged by sin with which we do not identify.
The book also has weaknesses, however, that ultimately make it unworthy of recommendation. The true aim of the book is never quite clear enough to make what that authors are saying very compelling. It is hard to tell most of the time which of their four intended audiences they mean to address with what they say in the following chapters. The reader comes away feeling like the book was more a chance for Wilkens and Thorsen to vent about some hot button issues in contemporary Christianity than an attempt to offer any new or interesting insights. If you are looking for a helpful, compelling examination of the phenomenon known as modern evangelicalism this book will, unfortunately, leave you disappointed. Despite its strengths, Everything You Know About Evangelicals Is Wrong does not add much to the continuing discussion of the essence and continuing viability of evangelicalism.
Reviewed by Aaron Harding
Why Do I Exist?
Our Ultimate Question
“What is the chief and highest end of man?” This is our ultimate question and should be the heartbeat of who we are, thinking of it daily. This is what it is all about as a Christian. To have a “chief end” means that we were made for something, that we have a main purpose in life. And we have a “highest end,” among the many goals and accomplishments of our lives.
The Larger Catechism speaks of our chief and highest end as being twofold: “to glorify God” and “to enjoy God.” This is what Peter meant when he said that we are “being built up as a spiritual house, to be a priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5) and when he said “you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Our Ultimate Goal
This is also our ultimate goal. Our forefathers were enlivened by the phrase soli Deo gloria—to God alone be the glory. What it says to the question of “why do I exist” is that we do not exist for ourselves—our needs, our pleasures, or our desires.
We exist to glorify God even before we have received anything from him. This is what Psalm 29 teaches when it says, “Ascribe to the Lord the glory due his name” (v. 2a). Literally this phrase in Hebrew is “the glory of his name,” but all translations say “the glory due his name” because that is an accurate interpretation of what is being commanded.
But what does it mean to “glorify” God? The Hebrew word kavod most often means heavy, or weighty. The weightiness of gold, for example, comes to mean that it is honored. To glorify God, then, is to consider the supreme worth of who he is, then to magnify and exalt his name above all others as the way to honor the excellent dignity of his greatness. We are called to hallow, honor, and lift up the name of the Lord, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thoughts
We are to glorify God in our thoughts. Peter says to us, “Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded” (1 Peter 1:13). Our glorifying of God begins with the head, trickles down to the heart, and then moves out to the hands. David says, “On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate” (Ps. 145:5). How often do you think about God? Do you stop and think what he has done much?
Words
We are to glorify God in our words. The work of Christ has made us a a royal priesthood for this purpose: “that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Deeds
We are to glorify God in our deeds. In Ephesians 2:10 we read: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Our heavenly Father has taken us, lifeless lumps of clay, and molded us into a masterpiece to bring him glory. Paul speaks of our deeds being for the glory of God when he says, “present your bodies as a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1). Peter says, “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12). Notice that, as we glorify God in our deeds God uses these fruits of the Holy Spirit to cause the world to glorify God.
Our Ultimate Enjoyment
This is also our ultimate enjoyment. To “enjoy” God means to have fellowship with him. The Larger Catechism does not just say that we are to enjoy God, but that we are “to fully enjoy him forever.” As the great Benefactor of the covenant of grace, God gives us himself with all his benefits for our enjoyment. We enjoy him in this life by faith and in the life to come, in the fullness of sight and experience. We enjoy God in our present state of grace as in a glass dimly, but we will enjoy him in the future state of glory face to face. Now is the age of pilgrimage; then is the age of eternal rest. 1 John 3:2 says, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is.”
Why do I exist? I exist to give the God who made me glory with my whole being because he has given himself wholly to me. I also exist to enjoy this Triune God in this life by faith but in the life that is to come in fullness of sight and experience. As John Calvin said, “We are God’s; therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God’s; to him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed” [Institutes, 3.7.1]
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
Ron Gleason, Herman Bavinck: Pastor, Churchman, Statesman, and Theologian (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2010). $29.99. Paper.
Herman Bavinck: Pastor, Churchman, Statesman, and Theologian is a very detailed and multifaceted biography.
What I knew of Herman Bavinck prior to reading this volume came solely from his Reformed Dogmatics. Gleason’s work encompasses all aspects of Bavinck, as indicated in the subtitle. As Gleason posits, it is a shame that this Dutchman is so overshadowed by Abraham Kuyper, who tended to be “more romantic and speculative” where Bavinck was “a man of precision and exact exegesis” (427-8). I suspect most people are like me: if they know something about one historical Dutch figure, it is Abraham Kuyper. Gleason remedies this shortcoming with his excellent book on Herman Bavinck.
Gleason sets the stage for the reader, beginning with Bavink’s grandfather, and ends with Bavinck’s death in 1921. The different phases of Bavinck’s life in academia, politics and church affairs are given in great detail. When I had finished reading this book I felt as though I had gained, in addition to the life story of Herman Bavinck, a thorough overview of the theological and ecclesiastical history of the Reformed church in the Netherlands. Included in great detail are the battles and conflicts in which Bavinck engaged in the academy and the Synod.
Despite the detailed analysis, the writing is engaging and holds the reader’s attention. It is clear from Gleason’s work that this research was massive and thorough. His unfolding of Bavinck’s story shows his in-depth mastery of the subject matter and synoptical thinking regarding all the various angles and aspects involved in the story.
Gleason begins his biography with Herman Bavinck’s grandparents and parents. This was of particular interest to me because it showed something of the family culture into which Bavinck was born. The introductory paragraphs describe Herman’s baptism. Gleason tells of the glorious mundane Christian life and his parents’ commitment and influence on their son from his birth. “The distinctively Christian life and worldview present in the Bavinck household deeply influenced young Herman’s thinking, behavior, relationships, and spiritual perspectives. His parents molded his character and carefully guided him” (2). There is something wonderful about this ordinary manner of discipleship and handing down of the faith.
Bavinck’s father, Jan, was raised solely by his mother after the early death of his father. While his mother was devout and dedicated her life to her children (4), Jan said his early training “did not introduce him to the necessary spiritual exercises that belong to the inner life of the Christian and the experience of faith that is discovered by those who are truly children of God” (5). Jan had several men in his life who became spiritual mentors of sorts to Herman. One was an uncle who returned to the Lord after walking away for a time, and the other a “dynamic” preacher. From them Jan learned the spiritual, experiential side of the Christian life. These are some of the factors that surely contributed to Jan being a well respected and loved pastor.
In chapter two Gleason’s syntopical thinking shows where he interacts with an earlier biographer, Valentine Hepp, regarding Bavinck’s choice of clothing at Leiden. Hepp makes much of Bavinck’s garb while Gleason attributes the choice to the culture in which he found himself (bucolic vs cosmopolitan) (37).
Bavinck’s decision to go to the liberal Leiden rather than the school in Kampen was not a popular one (40-1). His decision was based on his desire to learn firsthand and fight against the liberals there. This is a tendency that occurs at other times in history (i.e. Machen). He wanted to know them well and represent them accurately. Bavinck emerged from his studies with his Reformed faith unscathed (55). He had clearly learned from his father a vibrant and lively faith and he clearly loved his church. Gleason ends chapter three (and elsewhere in this book) with some very pertinent questions that any MDiv student would do well to ask of himself: “How would this young brilliant theologian function as a pastor? Would he prove to be merely an academic or would he also possess a pastor’s heart? Would he be the type of pastor that stayed locked away in his study or would he be accessible to his congregation, and would he shepherd them according to Scripture?” (68).
Gleason opens chapter four with similarly insightful word, “After completing his studies…the time came…to take his very high level of academic achievement and accomplishment and to translate it into spiritual edification for God’s people” (69). Only in the pastorate for one year, Bavinck entered into his academic career and his life as a theologian and churchman. Chapters five through twelve detail Bavinck’s years at Kampen, his friendships and battles with Abraham Kuyper and others at Kampen and at the Synod. In chapters thirteen and fourteen Gleason tells the reader of Bavinck’s time at the Free University in Amsterdam. Gleason discusses Bavinck’s life as a politician in chapter fifteen. This section of the biography, chapters 5-15, is essential for anyone wanting an overview of the political and ecclesiastical situation and development of the time.
Chapter sixteen asks the question “Did Bavinck change theologically later in life?” Gleason says no (399). He adds (402) that Bavinck did shift in his interests from dogmatics to a wider range of topics. Bavinck wrote more on psychology and pedagogy than on dogmatics and philosophy (413). Bavinck at this stage was aging and burned out from the workload he kept for so long. He experienced the joy of marrying his daughter and baptizing his grandchild. Gleason ends with Bavinck’s last days. Bavinck is said to have repeated themes and phrases in his last days, the most common was, “I have kept the faith” (424). Gleason comments that “the Lord’s ways are truly inscrutable. He raised up three theological giants for the edification of His church: B.B. Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck, who all were taken from the church within an expanse of time of less than a year” (422).
Gleason’s love for the topic at hand is evident from his analysis of others’ work on Bavinck with his own, as well as the sheer volume of details and topics that he skillfully intertwines to tell the story of one this important Reformed man. Gleason includes several appendices which include some of his father’s work as well as Herman’s inaugural address and other essays. This book is not overly technical or theological. The little theology in it involves where Bavinck disagreed with Kuyper (Kuyper’s view of justification from eternity and resultant preemptive regeneration (baptismal regeneration), reordering the ordo (regeneration prior to calling contrary the traditional Reformed view)—all stemming from his supralapsarianism (190ff).
This was a wonderful read that I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of the Reformed Church, the Netherlands, or Herman Bavinck. Gleason is readable, intelligent and witty (139 fn 37 for example). The $29.99 cost of the book is quite reasonable for a book of 511 pages. While I liked the price, a really nice hardback would be worth the extra expense.
Review by Tony Garbarino
Keep your eyes peeled (I know, as painful as that might be). There's a new book soon to be released later this summer: Westminster Seminary California--A New Old School, written by W. Robert Godfrey and D. G. Hart. This book was written to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Westminster Seminary California. Recently there have been some who claim to know what the seminary is all about, but such purported "histories" reveal more about the critics than they do the seminary.
The book has seven chapters:
1. The Call of the West
2. Heritage from the East: Roots of the Vision
3. The Founders, Their Vision, and Their Work
4. The Faculty
5. Changing Evangelical Environment
6. Challenges Among the Reformed
7. The Growing Old School
In a word, the seminary has sought to carry on the legacy of Old School Presbyterianism, an ethos embodied in the Scriptures, carried on in 16th and 17th century Reformed theology, trumpted from Old Princeton through the mighty pens of the Hodges, B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and J. Gresham Machen, and subsequently planted in the sun-soaked earth of Southern California. Though WSC is is relatively new, it is nonetheless an Old School institution, hence a new old school.
The book spells out not only our history, details of key events in the seminary's life, but also our key theological committments within the broader evangelical culture. As one who has read a pre-publication draft of the book, I can tell you that it is as much about WSC as it is about the changing evangelical theological landscape on the West Coast. One of the chief contentions of the book is that WSC has never waivered in its committment to the Reformed faith, but rather, the changing and fluid evangelical scene around the seminary has certainly changed. Once committed to such things as biblical inerrancy, for example, many evangelical institutions have drifted from their doctrinal moorings, and they have done so in a relatively short amount of time. WSC has held the same ground for thirty-plus years. We have not moved to the right; the surrounding theological culture has moved significantly to the left.
Nevertheless, as a whole, WSC is marked by the following five characteristics.
1. Biblical. WSC is committed to:
- the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.
- the Christ-centered character of all the Bible.
- the Bible's comprehensive regulation of faith and worship.
- the Bible's authority in all it teaches about all callings and all of life.
2. Confessional. WSC is committed to:
- the teaching of the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity as a faithful summary of the teaching of the Bible.
- the priorities of the confessions which we believe are the priorities of the Bible.
- the confessions as vitally relevant for the life of the church today.
- the confessions as faithful guides to minsters for the work of the ministry today.
3. Pious. WSC is committed to:
- cultivating piety in the hearts and lives of its students.
- encouraging growing faith in the promises of God and growing holiness of life in all Christians.
- teaching students to preach faithfully, expositing and applying the whole counsel of God.
- developing knowledge of and involvement in evangelism and missions.
4. Scholarly. WSC is committed to:
- careful and thorough engagement with the best scholarship.
- a scholarly development and defense of Reformed orthodoxy.
- encouraging students to love God with all their minds.
- preparing pastors for the church who have had an excellent scholarly education.
5. Passionate. WSC is committed to:
- being valiant for truth.
- pursuing our faith and work with zeal, not calm indifference.
- serving Christ, His Gospel, and His Church
As an institution, we are firmly committed to these principles. If you're interested in finding out more about WSC and reading this book, you can find an excerpt here. Tolle et Lege! Take up and read!
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to W. Robert Godfrey, Professor of Church History and President of Westminster Seminary California, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island.
You can find the episode here!
Why do seminaries exist? There are undoubtedly a number of different answers to this question, but in the light of recent discussions on the web (here and here) regarding revisiting the nature of seminary education, hopefully VFT readers will find some helpful answers to this question as it relates to WSC.
1. To bring gifted preachers and teachers together to provide an excellent education for future pastors
We should begin with the Scriptures. In Ephesians 4.11-12, Paul writes that Christ gave gifts to the church in the wake of his ascension to his royal session at the right hand of the Father; Christ gave apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, and these gifts have been given for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, and the edification of the church. I suspect that this is something that few immediately consider in the question of a seminary education. Some assume that seminaries exist simply because humans have a penchant for wanting to speculate and pontificate about "academic" things. But at WSC we hold the firm conviction that Christ has specifically given teachers to his church in addition to pastors. Teachers are those men specifically gifted to instruct the church, including prospective ministers, in the Word of God. It seems like a prudent thing to do to gather in one place those who are gifted by Christ to teach and facilitate access to these teachers, so many people in the church can benefit, not just a few.
One of the necessary things for a proper understanding of the Scriptures is a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. While all ministers should be able to read the Bible in its original languages, not everyone has the skill and gifts to teach these languages. The same can be said for the other disciplines: systematic theology, New Testament, Old Testament, and Practical Theology. It is wise to gather the very best teachers in these respective areas, men who have been called and gifted by God to serve the church, and enable them to teach teach future leaders in the church.
2. To create a community of accountability for those future pastors as they study
With the constant wave of new technological developments, people are always seeking to make education better, more efficient, more cost-effective, and more easily accessible. Why pay money for a seminary education when you can buy a some books, do some reading, listen to some podcasts, download free lectures, and educate yourself? True, a person can learn a lot through self-study, but God calls us to community--he calls us to a churchly existence. As such, who is to say that we are instructing ourselves properly? It's quite possible that as we study a key subject, such as the christological heresies of the early church, that we might miss an important distinction--one that separates the truth from the lie. Who will catch our mistake? In other words, a seminary student has accountability as he learns--he is held accountable by his professors and his peers. There is also the accountability of the most underrepresented constituency in the church--the dead, that is, church tradition. Critically employed, church tradition helps us know where the lines of truth and deceit lie. Our bright idea may have been condemened as heresy in the early days of the church!
One of the reasons people hire personal trainers is because they want someone to push them beyond their own comfort zones--cause them to extend far beyond what they thought they could achieve. I think the same principle applies to the seminary context, which is another dimension of accountability. Professors have a way of bringing the best out of a student--causing the student to study intensely, learn and memorize more than thought possible, and then hold the student accountable through examination. Beyond this accountability, the professor, ideally, also encourages the student to take what he has learned and share it with the church--preach it in sermons, teach it in Sunday School, give counsel to people who are in desperate need of good biblical advice. But in addition to this, learning in a community where you study, labor, struggle, share, and even disagree, are all vital elements to spiritually healthy service to the church. It's in the classroom where students learn to express themselves, hear different opinions, and interact with one another in a loving and charitable manner.
Communal learning is something that goes back thousands of years to God's instruction to Israel (Deut. 6.4ff), to Christ's ambulatory classroom with his disciples, to monks gathering together to study God's word, to the Log Cabin school in colonial America that later became Princeton University.
These are just two key reasons why WSC exists--to bring ministers who have been gifted to the church as teachers to instruct a community of people who then take what they have learned and preach, teach, and spread the Word of God--to serve Christ, his gospel, and his church.
I am thankful for the invitation to contribute to the Valiant for Truth blog. In the series that follows, I will be offering Meditations on the Larger Catechism, which will include exposition and application of this wonderful statement of Christian teaching from our Reformed Protestant tradition.
A Meaty Catechism
When our spiritual forefathers gathered at Westminster Abbey in the mid-1640’s to express the Christian faith, they labored to produce a suitable catechism to teach the people. After many dissatisfying efforts, the Assembly ended up agreeing to write two catechisms. George Gillespie reported to the Scottish General Assembly that they wrote a shorter catechism, “to condiscende to the capaities of the common & unlearned” as well as a larger catechism, of which George Gillespie said it was “for those of understanding” [Bower, 11]. This pastoral reality of the people led Samuel Rutherford to say the reason for two catechisms was that it was “very difficult...to dress up milk and meat both in one dish” [Mitchell, 418]. We still need this pastoral sensitivity to the people in our congregations. We need to be as “wise as serpents” (Matt. 10:16) when it comes to instructing inquirers, new converts, covenant children, young people, those who enter our churches from non-Reformed backgrounds, and those who have been members in our churches for years. The Larger Catechism is meaty, but that meat can also be served in bite-sized portions.
A Neglected Catechism
Despite the esteem of the Larger Catechism by those who wrote it and approved it, when we as Reformed believers today think of the faith of our Reformed and Puritan forefathers, we most likely think of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. We have neglected the Larger Catechism. But it has been this way for quite some time. B. B. Warfield once said it “has taken a somewhat secondary place” [Warfield, 64]. In fact, there is no major commentary on it from the seventeenth century and only one from the eighteenth century—written by Thomas Ridgeley and entitled, A Body of Divinity (1731–1733).
Its neglect is one of the reasons I recently took two years in my congregation’s evening service to preach through it. If you are a pastor or teacher and have never taught through the Larger Catechism, it is a wonderful experience. The usefulness of it in our time and place cannot be underestimated. As our own Bob Godfrey once wrote,
Today the churches face a greater educational task than they have for several centuries. Doctrinal ignorance is widespread. Pastors and teachers are often looking for useful, effective study materials. In response to his need the church must reclaim its great educational resources from the past. The Larger Catechism is a neglected tool the church needs today to help believers develop vital and balanced Christian faith and life. [Godfrey, “An Introduction,” xviii]
An Outline of the Catechism
So what does the Larger Catechism teach? It teaches the height and depth, the breadth and length of the Christian faith as revealed in the Word of God. Having read it many times, but only just recently invested serious energy to study it and to present it to my congregation, I have come to see why it has been described as “a mine of fine gold theologically, historically, and spiritually” [Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” 129]. The basic outline of the Catechism is as follows:
Introduction (Q. 1–5)
Doctrine (Q. 6–90)
Duty (Q. 91–196)
As one used to the Heidelberg Catechism and its famous division into guilt, grace, and gratitude, I have found the Larger Catechism’s outline helpful as well. One with a keen historical sense notices right away the typical “Puritan” emphasis in this outline upon doctrine and use, exposition and application. Our forefathers’ outline reminds us that our preaching and teaching must instruct the head, stir the heart, and move the hands in order for it be truly biblical as well as effective in the lives of our people. I look forward to exploring the details within this meaty, neglected, and helpfully outlined catechism with you in the series to follow.
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church
Works Cited
John R. Bower, The Larger Catechism: A Critical Text and Introduction, Principal Documents of the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010).
W. Robert Godfrey, “An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism,” in Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).
W. Robert Godfrey, “The Westminster Larger Catechism,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God, ed. John L. Carson and David W. Hall (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994).
Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1884).
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Westminster Assembly and Its Work,” in Works, 10 vols. (1932; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).
Constance Cherry, The Worship Architect: A Blueprint for Designing Culturally Relevant and Biblically Faithful Services (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2010). $22.99. Paper.
This book does not delve into detail into the Regulative Principle. It does not quote the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Three Forms of Unity. It is not a book on Reformed worship. So if the book that you are looking for is an introduction to Reformed worship, this book is not for you. Before you stop reading this review, however, know that a book cannot be summarized by what it is not. Cherry’s proposal is not reformed, but much of the book is amicable to the Reformed tradition.
In order to describe what biblical and culturally relevant worship looks like, Cherry evokes the image of an architect. In order for a building to be properly constructed, it must be set on “pillars,” or a foundation. Cherry argues that worship is the same way and that there are four “load bearing walls” which are necessary for facilitating the dialogue of worship (God speaks to us, we respond). The worship “architect” (read: pastor) must call the people to worship. But Cherry is quick to note that this call is not simply the call of the minister. It is God’s call that comes through the minister that His people gather for worship as a corporate body. So this is the first “load bearing wall.”
The second is the Word. Like the call to gather, the Word is not just the minister reading the Bible or giving a sermon. It is the Word of God spoken to his people. Cherry also makes a critique of the modern Protestant service. She says that many Protestant churches have eliminated Scripture reading from their worship services. Cherry argues that we ought to follow the apostolic example and include them. She even includes an appendix giving advice on how to read longer Scripture passages in an engaging way.
One criticism in this section is that Cherry does not spend time reflecting on the value of the participants in the service worshiping God with his Word. To be fair, there are hints of this idea by Cherry, but this section would have been stronger had she included more reflection on the function of the Word in our response.
The third wall is the Table of the Lord. As the people have gathered at God’s call and heard God’s Word, they are called to participate in the Supper of God’s people (She includes what she calls alternative response as another way of achieving this in traditions that do not celebrate the Supper every week). Cherry argues that this is one of the clearest ways that God’s people are called to participate in the dialogue of worship. Cherry notes that the Supper is part of a corporate activity and not just an individual exercise. The response of the sermon is done by the community, and not just individual members.
Finally, Cherry talks about the “sending.” Cherry defines the sending this way: “The sending is a time when God blesses us to bless the world in Christ’s name, and commissions us to live in a particular way as a result of having heard the word as a community” (112). God is the originator and consummator of worship. Typical Reformed liturgies label this the “Benediction.” Cherry’s view of this aspect of the service is refreshing and important. The dismissal of the service must be intentional because it is when God pronounces a blessing on his people in order that they may be a light to the world.
Cherry concludes that these four walls are essential for the worship of God and without these four walls, biblical worship cannot commence. Then Cherry continues to detail various elements of the worship service. Her discussion on worship style is excellently done, and she discusses five common myths regarding style of worship. Cherry also gives an extensive discussion of encountering God in music and the wisdom of using various tunes and songs in the worship service.
Much more could be said about Cherry’s book (including footnotes, it is 293 pages), but upon reflection of the above mentioned aspects of the book, it is a book that Christian ministers should read. It does not mean that they will always agree with Cherry. For example, her chapter on utilizing the Christian year may be one that Reformed pastors utilize for various theological reasons. However, even in this chapter there are numerous insights that require reflection. I would highly recommend this book to ministers who wish to think more rigorously about why we worship the way we do and the implications of our worship on our congregation.
Reviewed by Brandon Addison
If you're interested in the doctrine of union with Christ, check out WSC's latest faculty publication, J. V. Fesko, "Geerhardus Vos and Louis Berkhof on Union with Christ and Justification," Calvin Theological Journal 47/1 (2012): 50-71. Sometimes Vos and Berkhof are pitted against one another, as if Vos was only interested in biblical theology and Berkhof was only interested in systematic theology. Many do not know that Vos was one of Berkhof's professors. Many do not know, at least in terms of a page-count, that Vos probably wrote more systematic theology than he did biblical theology. This essay explores the fact that Vos and Berkhof are nearly identical in their understanding of the relationship between union and justification. In fact, set side-by-side, one gets the distinct impression that Berkhof copied Vos! What also makes this essay interesting is its appendix, the translation of Vos's section on the ordo salutis (order of salvation) from his Compendium on Systematic Theology. Derke Bergsma translated this section out of Vos, and it is, I believe, the first time it has appeared published in translation. You know the tag line, tolle et lege! Take up and read!
p.s. The pic is of Louis Berkhof.
If you haven’t already noticed there is something of a publishing revolution going on around us with the advent of digital publishing. About five years ago e-books were not very common, though present. I can remember looking at a first generation e-reader and thinking that it seemed like a nice idea but that the technology had not yet reached my reading needs. Well, things are changing—quickly. This brings the question, What is better, e-books or books?
There are certainly many benefits to e-books. As little as ten years ago (or less), you couldn’t find very much for good theological reading. Now, with Google Books, there are a host of old out-of-print theological books that you can download for free. If you don’t want to pay hundreds of dollars for, say, the works of John Owen, you can download them for free and read them on your computer or e-reading device. The same can be said for journal research. It used to be that you had to photocopy or order journal articles and then store and house them. I have several filing crates full of articles that I’ve used over the years. Now, these articles can be obtained digitally—download a pdf from a journal service, or scan a journal article, or receive an article through inter-library loan. On this note, I was speaking with a historical theologian the other day who told me he had 12,000 books and essays stored on his laptop. In a word, buy an external hard drive and start downloading! Chances are when Google Books figures out what is valuable among the sea of scanned books, they will start charging to download books. Remember the old adage, “There’s no free lunch.”
On the other hand, there are also drawbacks to e-books. E-books require technology, equipment, software, and an internet connection. These things all cost money. Personally, I use a laptop with a relatively small hard drive (120 GB SSD) and an external for bulk storage if I need it. I also use an iPad (1st generation) with iAnnotate PDF. You can upload files via Dropbox. However, as helpful as all of these things are, and they work quite well (at times) the drawbacks can be significant. I can pick up a book, flip through it, mark it, read it, and peruse it. In the words of Winston Churchill, “If you cannot read all your books . . . fondle them—peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on the shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends; let them, at any rate, be your acquaintances.” Sometimes my laptop is out of battery power and I’m nowhere near a power outlet or internet connection. I’m too cheap to pay to tether my computer to my iPhone.
But the biggest drawbacks I know of are the dreaded computer crash, computer theft, or software updates / changes. I’m sure I’m not alone in this but I’ve had a computer crash and lost files, which is a lot more likely than, say, a flood or fire sweeping away my library. I have also bought Bible software (essentially a digital library of original language resources) twice. Not all software works on the same computing platforms. So for all of the bulk, size, and inconvenience of books, there are some great advantages to them—they never require power, never fail due to software updates, and if they crash, you pick them up off of the floor and place them back on the shelf.
So, then, what to do? In my judgment, e-books are useful for the books you can’t afford and storing research, as well as disposable reading. How often do you throw out that old stack of magazines? On the other hand, especially as it pertains to the classics and theological reading, invest in hardcopies of your books. Invest in purchasing a real library, one that has key theological works. As arduous as it can be hauling around books, they are an invaluable resource and used regularly. So in a word, use both e-books and books, but use wisdom in deciding when to go digital and when to go with dead-wood!
Robert Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: a Reformed Perspective (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2007). $19.99. Paper.
Western interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church is growing. Some enjoy its experiential liturgical worship; others appreciate its connection to ancient tradition. Reformed Christians might benefit from its distinction between God’s essence and energies. To address and evaluate these interests is the purpose of Robert Letham’s book, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: a Reformed Perspective. Though there are areas of disagreement between Protestant and Eastern theology, Letham argues that there are also areas of agreement, as well as areas of misunderstanding to be overcome (13). He organizes his analysis in three parts: historical summary, theological presentation, and comparative evaluation.
In his historical summary of the Orthodox Church, Letham details its formative ecumenical councils, sketches several biographies of its important Fathers, and briefly discusses its progression from the seventh century to the present. He then presents several aspects of Eastern theology, including icons, Scripture and tradition, sacraments, its position on the Trinity, and its belief concerning salvation. Next, he compares Eastern and Reformed Christianity, describing areas in which the Reformed can learn from the East, points of agreement between them, and issues over which misunderstanding should be remedied, while not withholding critiques of several Eastern doctrines.
There is much to commend in Through Western Eyes. Letham provides a clear, concise, and scholarly summary of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those interested in further study will find the footnotes, glossary, and bibliography helpful. Also, Letham presents an irenic evaluation of the Eastern church which, while critiquing areas of concern such as its synergistic soteriology and veneration of Mary and the saints, nevertheless finds aspects about it from which the Reformed may learn and concerning which more dialogue can be enjoyed (chap. 11). Furthermore, Letham seeks balanced evaluations of topics, such as his treatment of the different positions of the East and West concerning the Trinity, and particularly the famous controversy over the filioque clause (chap. 9).
Despite these strengths, there are a few areas with which some Reformed might differ. One might be the soft stance Letham takes on the Eastern use of icons (143-62). A second might be his critique that the more forensically minded Reformed need to learn from the East’s understanding of union with Christ, as if they are lacking in this area (273-75). A third might be his critique that the Reformed have not connected theology and piety or the academy and the church enough, as has the East (276-77), dichotomies that are not necessarily true. A fourth area to note might be Letham’s criticism of the Eastern essence-energies distinction, one which some Reformed theologians have found quite helpful (283-84).
These areas of concern notwithstanding, Through Western Eyes is an excellent book which I would recommend for those interested in gaining an introduction to the Eastern Orthodox Church’s history, theologians, and theology, and understanding how to evaluate and interact with its positions.
Reviewed by Brandon Hoffman
WSC's latest faculty publication has been released and seen in the wild! You can order Dr. Fesko's expositional commentary on Galatians here. And here's what others are saying about this book:
“The book of Galatians is a crystal vial containing the sweet medicine of salvation in Christ alone. Fesko opens the vial and pours out the healing doctrines of justification by faith alone and sanctification by grace alone. His simple, expository style will connect with ordinary people. Yet he helps us to do biblical theology, uncovering the Old Testament roots of the gospel. He guides us in systematic theology, distilling clear doctrinal statements from the Scriptures with the insights of great theologians of the past. And his commentary is practical, leading the reader in this present evil age to live by faith in the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself up for us. Read Galatians and read this book—and then walk by faith in Christ alone.”
- Dr. Joel R. Beeke
You can find out more about the Lectio Continua expository commentary series here. And as always, tolle et lege! Take up and read!
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Charles Telfer, Associate Professor of Biblical Languages, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island.
You can find the episode here.
The other day I was watching a show that, surprisingly, made reference to “Dutch Calvinism.” To say the least, I was shocked because, ordinarily, reference to Christianity is dominated by either a generic evangelicalism, which at times mirrors spiritual mysticism more than biblical Christianity, or Roman Catholicism, which is one of the more common forms of Christianity, at least socially (not theologically) considered. On the other hand, as quickly as I was surprised and encouraged by the mention of Dutch Calvinism, I was discouraged by how it was portrayed. The main character in the scene pointed to a cross hanging on the wall and beneath it was a portrait, not of Jesus or the pope, but John Calvin. Additionally, the character said something to the effect, “No, this person is not a smoker. She’s a Dutch Calvinist, and they believe the body is holy and a temple and therefore would never smoke.”
Aside from the fact that the character’s statement was partially true, setting aside the issue of Christian liberty, a key Reformed teaching, I know of no one who places pictures of John Calvin beneath a cross. I suspect that the prop people and script writers wanted to convey was that the main character, a detective, was keenly aware of obscure facts and information, and thus quickly discerned that there was evidence in the house of an uncommon form of Christianity, i.e., Dutch Calvinism. The problem is, I suspect that the script writer and prop people had no idea how Dutch Calvinists express their piety. They knew how Roman Catholics do it, so the figured that they could simply replace a picture of the pope with a picture of Calvin and that this would suffice.
Granted, this whole mention of Dutch Calvinism was a very minor point in the overall plot of this show, nevertheless I believe its an example of how Hollywood, no matter how it tries, never seems to get Christianity right. Movie companies and studios go to great lengths to get details right about so many things—they do research and actors will shadow the real-life people they portray. So why is it that Hollywood can’t seem to get Christianity right?
I suspect it's because as a general rule, Hollywood is far more interested in belittling and ridiculing the Christian faith that they have little time or interest in trying to understand it. How often are Christians portrayed as zealots, ideologues, racists, homophobes, women and child abusers, right-wing ignoramuses, or well-meaning but naive do-gooders? By contrast, the efforts in the media and the press to protect, advocate, and fairly represent issues such as gay “marriage” or Islam show the great lengths the entertainment industry goes to portray accurately, fairly, and sympathetically anti-Christian issues. It would be one thing if the entertainment industry ridiculed Christians, but at least represent the ideas, beliefs, and doctrines accurately. At least one could say, “I recognize my beliefs in this representation even if they are ridiculed.”
Why does this all happen? Is there a theological answer to this question? Yes. In a word, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2.14). The unbelieving world will always exhibit a degree of hostility towards Christ and the church. Our task, however, is not to worry about being accepted or fairly represented but rather to remain faithful to the church’s calling in the Great Commission. We know that even though the world will reject, ridicule, and malign, that as the gospel goes forth, the Spirit of God will change hearts and minds and enable people to embrace the foolish message of the gospel.
Philip S. Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2010). $19.99. Paper.
Take a moment to type the phrase “3 fold division of the law” in your choice of search engine (e.g., Google, Yahoo, etc.) and see what appears. You will notice that many people blog about this topic to no end because there seems to be many areas of disagreement. Knowing this, Philip Ross seeks to clarify certain misunderstandings of the 3-fold division of the law among its advocates and opponents, while shedding light on the topic from a historical and exegetical perspective. However, be forewarned, this book is not light reading. In fact, his use of Hebrew and Greek, as well as his overall scholarly approach may cause some to stop reading the book, but hang in there, and read it two times over if you need to in order to understand Ross’ point of view on this topic.
He begins by noting that the doctrine on which he is about to embark (e.g., the 3-fold division of the law) is a catholic doctrine. It is a distinction that is found throughout the Scriptures and goes back as far as one can think. One way in which he examines this is by citing some of the earliest theologians to some more recent. And his use of theologians spans the gambit of theologian convictions from Jewish to Reformed, evangelical to Roman Catholic, all of which state that the three-fold division (moral, civil, and ceremonial) challenges the view that the Old Testament law has always been viewed an as indivisible whole.
With this understanding, the whole of the book (some 353 pages) is taken up with answering this question: “Am I still bound to obey the Mosaic Law?” He answers this question in saying, “Yes and no. The Mosaic Law does not apply without exception to the Christian, but nor can we dispense with it altogether. One part of the law is non-binding, another binding in its underlying principles, and another ever-binding” (2). As an example of this distinction, he starts by utilizing the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 19. Ross notes, “…section III explains the non-binding ‘ceremonial laws’ and section IV deals with the ‘judicial laws’ of which only ‘the general equity’ still stands. The remaining five sections discuss the ever-binding ‘moral law’” (4).
As he goes about proving this, Ross answers several of the pertinent questions that usually arise when considering this topic: did the law exist prior to it being given at Sinai? If so, how do those relate to the Ten Commandments? Is the division of the law obvious in the Pentateuch? And how do these laws unfold in the New Testament? As he seeks to answer the latter, he expounds on the Sermon on the Mount (particularly tackling the difficult question of what Jesus meant by “abolish” and “fulfill”). Ross also examines the Gospels as a whole, the Pauline Epistles, and the book of Hebrews.
All in all, this is a well-written and thorough book. He demonstrates the consistency in understanding the law in both of the Old and New Testaments. But no sooner than I suggest that, I must admit that I am partial to Ross’ work because I concede to the 3-fold division of the law. But even if I were not a proponent of the distinction, it is clear that as Ross interacts with those with whom he disagrees, he does so in a fair and scholarly way.
This is a book that should be on your shelf. It may challenge the way in which you believe the law, in all its fullness, is used in the New Testament (e.g., was Jesus unclean when he touched the leper? Ross answers with an astounding, “Yes!”, but uncleanness, he goes on to say does not equal sinfulness). Nevertheless, being challenged is a good thing. Moreover, Ross clearly demonstrates that the way in which one answers the question, “Is there a 3-fold division in the law?”, has bearing on the lives of Christians today. Thus, he is not merely dealing with a doctrine in theory only, but he demonstrates its practical application for Christians today.
Reviewed by Leon Brown, Mdiv
Foreign missions is undoubtedly one of the primary tasks of the church. After all, it was Christ who commanded his church to evangelize the nations in the Great Commission. Moreover, we know that the apostle Paul was one who had a great zeal for missions.
But if we were to take a survey in the church and ask what the primary purpose of the church is, we might not be surprised to hear the answer of missions and evangelism. People might turn to the Great Commission (Matt. 28.18-19) as evidence of this fact: “Does not the Great Commission tell us to evangelize the nations?” While it is certainly true that the church must evangelize the nations, this is not the church’s primary purpose. What, then, is the primary purpose of the church? John Piper writes:
"Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever” (Let the Nations Be Glad, p. 11).
Remember that worship is primary as you pilgrim to Zion this coming Lord's Day and feast upon the heavenly manna from above in Word and sacrament. But at the same time, pray that the gospel would go forth into the nations. Pray that Christ would send faithful ministers to herald the gospel and administer the means of grace. And pray that Christ would give you courage to tell others of Christ. All of these things should mark the church of Christ to his glory.
Wayne Grudem, According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010). 619pp. Hardcover, $39.99.
In Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, Wayne Grudem attempts to provide exactly what the title advertises, but the result is less than satisfactory.
He sets out to achieve this ambitious goal by first establishing “basic principles” in Part One of the text. He critiques “five wrong views about Christians and government,” argues for a model of “significant Christian influence on government,” gives biblical principles concerning government, outlines a biblical worldview, and worries about the growing power of unelected courts in America. His basic principles set forth, he moves on in Part Two to give positions on over sixty modern political issues, ranging from abortion to farm subsidies to marriage to campaign finance restrictions. When the subtitle says “a comprehensive resource,” it means comprehensive.
Of course, the biblical text actually says very little about campaign finance restrictions, or nuclear weapons, cap and trade, and Native Americans (other political issues Grudem addresses). Grudem would not disagree. In his introduction, he explains that he uses three types of arguments in the book to defend his positions: appeals to direct teaching found in the Bible, arguments from broader principles, and appeals to facts in the world (18-19). Arguments about farm subsidies and campaign finance fall into this latter category. So much of the book falls into this category that it might better have been titled Politics According to Wayne Grudem.
But the problem with the book is not that Grudem appeals to facts and reason when there is no clear biblical teaching on an issue, although it is not clear why those issues would appear in a book with this title. The problem is when Grudem does appeal to the biblical text he often does so in a shallow way. The troubles begin in his biblical worldview chapter, where he lays out “an overall Christian worldview” (116). These are its components:
A. God created everything
B. The one true God reveals himself and his moral standards in the Bible
C. The original creation was “very good”
D. There is moral evil (“sin”) in the heart of every human being
E. God placed a curse on the entire natural world
F. God wants human beings to develop the earth’s resources and to use them wisely and joyfully (116-123)
That’s the whole thing. The discerning proprietor of a Christian worldview might take note of some startling omissions, such as redemption and consummation. This worldview cannot properly be labeled a Christian worldview, because there is no Christ in it anywhere. Because Grudem does not start with a complete worldview, it is impossible to tell how human politics in general, or American politics in particular, relate to the wider biblical story. Instead, human politics become the entire biblical story, and the Bible becomes primarily a book of moral absolutes to be used in crafting legislation.
This incomplete understanding of redemptive history and revelation has deleterious effects on Grudem’s exegesis and application. For example, he argues against euthanasia partially from 2 Samuel 1:1-16 (179-181). In this passage an Amalekite tells David that he killed a dying Saul, and David executes the Amalekite. Grudem says that the Amalekite was punished essentially for assisting suicide, and that this action is always wrong. In order to make this argument he downplays significant contextual factors, such as the fact that Saul was the Lord’s anointed, and that Saul’s special position is the explicit reason David gives for executing the Amalekite. So while I would agree that euthanasia is wrong, his argument from this text is not convincing.
There are similar problems when Grudem argues that Native Americans should move from a system of tribal ownership to private ownership, even though this goes against their cultural traditions. In support of this view he cites Matthew 15:2, 15:6, and Mark 7:9. In these passages Jesus accuses the Pharisees of rejecting the commands of God for the traditions of men (549). It would be helpful if Grudem explained why these Gospel texts could so immediately apply to Native Americans even though the contexts are so different, but he does not explain, he simply cites.
The book culminates in a section titled “The Details of Revival: What Might It Look Like if God Brought About a Revival of the Church and a Transformation of the Nation for Good?” Grudem never explicitly addresses eschatology, but in this section he offers a postmillennial vision of mass conversions, solid teaching in churches, a government that is obedient to Scripture, and a strong civil society, along with miraculous signs and wonders (599-600). Christians are to “continually put forth our utmost efforts to move the history of our nation in the right direction” so that revival can occur (601). It is not clear where Grudem gets his theology of revival or how it fits into the broader scheme of redemptive history. Once again Grudem’s incomplete worldview leads to viewing the biblical story through the lens of American politics, not vice versa.
There are some helpful portions of this book, usually when Grudem is appealing to facts and reason to make his case. The biblical hermeneutic he often uses to validate his positions, however, leaves much to be desired, because Grudem does not situate his view of politics in the overall scope of redemptive history. Without this proper perspective, politics quickly swell to become the whole story, and biblical texts are mined for rules of good governance rather than being allowed to speak on their own terms. For Christians looking to obtain a biblical view of politics (rather than the American political view of the Bible on offer here), there are far better resources available.
Reviewed by Anna Speckhard, MATS Candidate
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. Julius Kim to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island. You can find the episode here.
What would you do if your son was lost in a pit of sin and doctrinal evil? How would you respond to such a trial? Listen to how one man describes his mother:
“For my mother, your faithful servant, wept for me before you more than mothers weep when lamenting their dead children. By the ‘faith and spiritual discernment’ (Gal. 5.5) which she had from you, she perceived the death which held me, and you heard her, Lord. You heard her and did not despise her tears which poured forth to wet the ground under her eyes in every place where she prayed. . . . Despite my frequent efforts to climb out of it, I was the more heavily plunged back into the filth and wallowed in it. During this time this chaste, devout, and sober widow, one of the kind you love, already cheered by hope but no less constant in prayer and weeping, never ceased her hours of prayer to lament about me to you. Her ‘prayer entered into your presence’ (Psa. 87.3)” (3.11.19-20).
“She was . . . a servant of your servants: any of them who knew her found much to praise in her, held her in honor and loved her; for they felt your presence in her heart, witnessed by the fruits of her holy way of life. She had been the ‘wife of one husband’ (1 Tim. 5.9). She repaid the mutual debt to her parents; she had governed her house in a spirit of devotion (1 Tim. 5.4). She had ‘testimony to her good works’ (1 Tim. 5.10). She had brought up her children, enduring travail as often as she saw them wandering away from you. Lastly, . . . she exercised care for every body as if they were all her own children. She served us as if she was a daughter to all of us” (9.9.22).
“Another great gift with which you endowed that good servant of yours, in whose womb you created me, my God my mercy, was that whenever she could, she reconciled dissident and quarrelling people. She showed herself so great a peacemaker that when she heard from both sides many bitter things, such as the bilious and undigested vomit that discord brings up, the crude hatreds that come out in acid gossip in the presence of one woman who is a friend and in the absence of another who is an enemy, Monica would never reveal to one anything about the other unless it might help to reconcile them. . . . That is the kind of person she was because she was taught by you as her inward teacher in the school of her heart” (9.9.21).
Who is the man? Saint Augustine, the greatest theologian of the first millennium of the church and arguably of church history. The Reformation, after all, was a renaissance of the theology of Augustine. Who is the woman? Saint Augustine’s mother, Monica. Augustine recounted these words about his mother in his famous autobiography, Confessions. The lesson? Parents, never count the task you have been given by God lightly—pray, weep, exhort, and live out godliness before your children. May such words be written of you. Moreover, think of the impact of Monica’s life upon the church. It can be said that the theological impact of Augustine upon the church is a result of the tears and prayers of his mother.
If you're interested in the history of justification, you can take a look at Dr. Fesko's latest essay that was released yesterday over at Themelios. The essay is about John Owen's doctrines of union with Christ and justification. You can read the essay for free here. Tolle et lege ("Take up and read")!
Any seminary worth its salt is going to demand focused labor, time, and interest. In other words, it’s going to be a calling. That’s as it should be. After all, you’re going to be an undershepherd of Christ and you have to be a specialist in his Word. When I hear folks slight seminary education or suggest that it can be substituted with informal and mostly independent approaches, I ask them if they’d choose a brain surgeon who received his medical training in a similar manner. Do we really want our medical physicians operating on us while they are teaching themselves the taxonomy of pathologies? We are relieved to imagine that our doctors spent a lot of late nights preparing for the next day’s class, writing papers, reading journals, attending lectures, and observing veterans on their rounds. Anything worth doing is worth doing well and lives are at stake. What may seem like a routine paper you never would have written unless some rather uncharismatic neurologist assigned texts you never would have read for yourself might turn out to be “just what the doctor ordered” in an emergency room someday. To read more, click here.
Craig Ott, Stephen J. Strauss, and Timothy C. Tennent, Encountering Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010). Paper. 383pp. $29.99.
Encountering Theology of Mission, a comprehensive work in the field of missions written by Craig Ott, Stephen J. Strauss and Timothy C. Tennent, is the perfect remedy for a discipline often diseased by shallow theology. Instead, it situates a discussion of mission within the context of redemptive history and in relation to the role of the Church and the Spirit who empowers her. The result is an admirable resource for all those who seek to understand the mission work they engage in or support.
In the first part of the book, the authors explore the biblical foundations of missions. In the process, they provide a beautiful landscape of God’s redemptive work throughout human history. They also offer a helpful nuance to the traditional centripetal (gathering in) – centrifugal (sending out) model of missions used to describe the Old Testament and New Testament, respectively, by pointing to the ebb and flow of the missions movement in Scripture. For example, the nations not only came to Israel in the Old Testament, but Israel’s exile resulted in the Word of God going to the nations. Likewise, the decentralization of the Gospel to the nations in the New Testament anticipates the centralization of one, blood-washed people in the New Jerusalem.
The second part of the book is particularly timely in addressing the motives, and especially the means, of mission work. The chapter on “The Church and Mission” is especially engaging because of the preponderance of weak and twisted views of what the Church is and what the Church does in this world. While the chapter provides a robust defense of the Church as the primary means of missions, it falls short in addressing other related issues. For one, there is little to no discussion of the distinction between the visible and invisible church. In an age where the visible Church, the authority of the elders, and the primacy of the Word and sacraments are frequently derided, a discussion of these issues as they pertain to missions would be useful.
With a brief discussion of the role of parachurch agencies, the authors provide a helpful dictum: “Mission agencies retain their theological justification only to the extent that they serve the church in the fulfillment of its missionary calling” (211). This is a refreshing reminder in light of contemporary trends to pursue Christian work apart from the Church. There is a place for parachurch agencies, but only as a servant, and not a competitor, of the Church for which Christ died.
As a side note, there does seem to be a Baptist bent to this discussion of the church, as denominational mission work seems to get short shrift alongside ecumenical organizations and the local church (cf. 212-14). Ecumenical organizations can become “too cumbersome, self-justifying, and overly professionalized” (212) while “no single congregation has all the wisdom or resources necessary” for mission work (213). As a result, “congregations must continue to find ways to cooperate with and learn from one another” (213). Not to betray my own convictions, but that statement seems to provide a pretty good pragmatic justification for Presbyterianism. Local churches should indeed band together and share their wisdom and resources while resisting the compromising effects of ecumenical agencies.
The final part of the book deals with mission in the local and global context and helpfully delves into a number of thorny practical issues. A careful treatment of contextualization and syncretism is especially valuable in weighing how best to proclaim the Gospel in culturally comprehensible terms without compromise. Missionaries feeling the syncretistic pull should find this section enlightening as they seek to draw these lines.
While accessible to believers to all walks of life, this wonderful resource will be most useful to ministers, elders, deacons and missionaries. Its fairly comprehensive scope—alongside its careful exegesis and thoughtful consideration of difficult issues—makes it an indispensible resources for those who wish to justify, describe, and advance the role of the Church in the spread of the Gospel.
Here at WSC we're big fans of all things Machen. For those of you who are Machen fans, there is a new book based upon interviews of those who knew Machen personally. The book are the memoirs of OPC Pastor David K. Myers, whose daughter, Mary Peterman (the organist at New Life, La Mesa, PCA), has saved them for years--they are about his life as a circuit preacher on the Dakota plains. These memoirs are now available in paperback or as a free e-book. You can find more information about the book here.
Here's a couple quotes from the book to give you an idea about its content. Regarding Machen's untimely death:
Dr. J. Gresham Machen, though ill, came out to Bismarck to help his “boys” when they were facing possible loss of their church properties. …At the end of his tour, he was to speak in the city auditorium in Bismarck. I remember it well, for my wife and three children (John was a year old,) accompanied me as we traveled through the extreme weather the 120 miles from Lemmon to Bismarck to hear him. … A perfect gentleman, he was first a man of God who knew what it was to stand, like Luther, who had said only three centuries earlier, “Here I stand, I can do no other.” No other man was as responsible as Dr. Machen, for his stand was without compromise and led many young men to follow in his steps.
Here's a reflection from Pastor Myers on his own ministry:
For some 32 years I have been absent from the northern Plains area which I call “My Country.” I have had periods of great loneliness for it. I can fancy still the shouts and sounds of gunfire of riders, exuberant horsemen, rushing through the street on Saturday nights on “Silk Stocking Avenue” in Fairview, Montana, firing into the air. I can feel the pressure of a quick crush with my car into the huge snow drifts in the wake of blizzard seasons; the warm hospitality of the Plains people. I remember the joyful shouts of little children in Vacation Bible Schools; the young lad who joyfully received Christ at a Vacation Bible School, then said just before he succumbed from tubercular meningitis, “I go to dwell in the house of the Lord forever;” and the singing around the late evening camp fires of revived young people in Bible conferences and Camps. And I remember the exhausting nights after full days of preaching five or six times a Lord’s Day, the many miles traversed; but all, all forgotten in the joy of seeing souls saved at points in a far flung parish. However, it is all ending in gladness!
The Legacy
In spite of all of these challenges, Calvin accomplished far more than any of us could ever dream of accomplishing. He wrote the first edition of the Institutes by the time he was 27. He wrote thousands of sermons, often preaching five to seven times a week; he lectured regularly, and he wrote thousands of pages of theological works and letters. Yet, with all of this success and tragedy he experienced, Calvin came to the end of his life never exalting in his success or complaining to God about his tragedy.
Note what Calvin writes in his last will and testament:
In the first place, I render thanks to God, not only because he has had compassion on me, his poor creature, to draw me out of the abyss of idolatry in which I was plunged, in order to bring me to the light of the gospel and make me a partaker of the doctrine of salvation, of which I was altogether unworthy, and continuing his mercy he has supported me amid so many sins and short-comings, which were such that I well deserved to be rejected by him a hundred thousand times--but what is more, he has so far extended his mercy towards me as to make use of me and of my labor, to convey and announce the truth of his gospel; protesting that it is my wish to live and die in this faith which he has bestowed on me, having no other hope nor refuge except in his gratuitous adoption, upon which all my salvation is founded; embracing the grace which he has given me in our Lord Jesus Christ, and accepting the merits of his death and passion, in order that by this means all my sins may be buried; and praying him so to wash and cleanse me by the blood of this great Redeemer, which has been shed for us poor sinners, that I may appear before his face, bearing as it were his image. . . . But alas! the desire which I have had, and the zeal, if so it must be called, has been so cold and so sluggish that I feel myself a debtor in everything and everywhere, and that, were it not for his infinite goodness, all the affection I have had would be but as smoke, nay, that even the favors which he has accorded me would but render me so much the more guilty; so that my only recourse is this, that being the Father of mercies he will show himself the Father of so miserable a sinner” (Tracts & Letters, p. 7.366).
Conclusion
What is incredible is that Calvin not only expounded and articulated the biblical doctrine of providence, but he lived it out. Doctrine was never something for idle speculation or musing; rather, it was life-changing—doctrine that was aimed at teaching others of the truth of God’s desire to conform us to the image of his Son. Doctrine was supposed to reform the way we think and live. It is my hope that we would, with Calvin, learn not only to understand the doctrine of Providence, but that we would apply it in all of its fullness in our lives and that we would promptly and sincerely, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, give our hearts in passionate service of our Lord and our God and desire conformity to Christ above all else. It is also my prayer, that as we run this race we call life, that we would take a look around at those who are cheering the church on, the great cloud of witnesses, that we would stand on the shoulders of the titans of the faith, learn from their wisdom, and be inspired by their passion for Christ. It seems fitting to close, then, with Paul's famous passage from Romans 8, a passage that points us to the Christ-centered nature of our conformity to Christ, something that occurs under the blanket of God's Providence:
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8.31-39).
Ever since the resurrection of Christ, there has been a steady drumbeat of claims denying, in one form or another, the veracity and reality of the resurrection. Over the years theories have been offered--the disciples were confused, they lied, they stole the body, they shared a common hallucination, Jesus actually never died, he swooned on the cross, there was a body-double, and on and on. Well, we can add a new entry. Today on the web there is an article showcasing a soon to be released book about the (in)famous (?) Shroud of Turin. Here are two key claims from the book:
"Throughout most of history images have been viewed as mysterious, metaphysical beings... Before the Enlightenment, images of gods, sains, spirits and ancestors were routinely credited with power, not only affecting the emotions of those who looked at them, but also influencing the course of events. In the premodern world images were perceived to be, in some sense, alive."
"The Shroud's envelopment of Jesus's body would have fostered the idea of the transference of his soul from flesh to cloth... Christ's clothing (like Peter's shadow) contained or conveyed something of his spiritual presence. The Shroud, which clothed Jesus in the tomb, would surely have been infused with similar power - a power focused and increased by its "miraculous" image."
In a nutshell, the claim is that the the disciples didn't personally encounter the risen Christ but rather the shroud. Given the supposed mystical powers of shrouds, this led the disciples to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
With a claim like this, you really have to scratch your head and ask, "Has this person actually read the Bible?" Paul explains that Jesus appeared to 500 brothers at once, to James, the apostles, and then to Paul himself (1 Cor. 15.6-8). Peter had a difficult conversation with the resurrected Christ and even ate a meal with him (John 21). Jesus appeared to the women at the tomb (Matt. 28.1-10). Jesus also appeared to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus and instructed them from the Scriptures (Luke 24.27-34).
I have not read the book, as it is scheduled for release in April. Nevertheless, I wish that critics would be honest about their so-called "theories." If these 500+ people simply had a mystical encounter with a bed-sheet, then why not say they were foolish pre-scientific simpletons who believed in magic, or, that they are liars because they recounted their stories about the magical bed-sheet as if they were interacting with a real flesh and blood person. In other words, we can apply C. S. Lewis's trilemma here; Lewis once wrote that Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. He claimed to be God, which if untrue, he was either a liar on the level of a demon, or he was a lunatic, on the level of someone who would claim to be a poached egg. On the other hand, if he spoke the truth, then he is Lord and we have the obligation to follow and worship him. In other words, Jesus does not leave us any other options. We cannot say that he was a kind teacher or a good man--this is not an option.
Likewise, the disciples are either liars, seriously deluded, or they're telling the truth. There are no other options. If they really had an encounter with a mystical bedsheet, then go out tonight, have a party, raise your glass into the air, toast the meaningless of life, and then get drunk as skunk. Or as Paul puts it, "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'" (1 Cor. 15.32).
The resurrection is a sine qua non of the Christian faith. Again, as Paul writes:
"Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15.12-19).
To borrow and slightly modify a line from J. Gresham Machen, "The resurrection, no hope without it."
Kathryn Tanner, God and Creation in Christian Theology: Tyranny or Empowerment? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 208 pgs., $23.00.
The problem of how to correlate God’s sovereignty and human freedom has been a persistent question throughout the history of Christian theology. Rather than offering a full-fledged constructive solution to the God-world relationship, Kathryn Tanner proposes linguistic rules in this work for coherent Christian discourse about God’s sovereignty and human freedom. According to Tanner, modern theology has been stuck in an irresolvable struggle over the incoherence of its statements concerning the relationship between God’s sovereignty and the dignity of creaturely reality. Rather than attributing the modern breakdown to the infiltration of alien philosophical systems, Tanner suggests that the problem is due to Christian theology’s forgetfulness of its own talk about God. Simply put, Christian theology has forgotten its own rules for coherent talk about God.
Tanner argues that traditional Christian explanations are viewed in modern theology as incoherent because of certain modern assumptions. Tanner insists that modern conclusions and givens must be subjected to scrutiny and viewed as temporally conditioned. Tanner calls into question the modern framework by subjecting it to the Christian discourse of the past. Tanner admits that her approach is colored by the linguistic turn. She is concerned to examine theological language and the work this language performs. Rather than focusing on what theologians say, Tanner focuses on how they say it. In her view, the theologian must pay attention not only to theologians but also to the theological talk of Christian communities. Specifically, the theologian is interested in well-formed Christian statements that make one a competent Christian speaker. By examining both how theologians and competent Christian speakers talk, the theologian is able to produce a map or grammar which outlines the rules of proper Christian speech. Theological reflection on the community’s linguistic practice can also help to resolve problems of Christian practice. Tanner specifically focuses on the problem when there is apparent incoherence between well-formed Christian statements. The task of the theologian is to develop linguistic rules that enable and establish coherent Christian statements.
According to Tanner, theologies that explain the coherence of the God-world relationship share certain rules of discourse. Whereas Plotinus set up a scheme where divine transcendence was set up in opposition to divine involvement, Tanner suggests that the Christian theologian should radicalize both divine transcendence and divine involvement. God’s otherness from the world is so great that his involvement with the world does not identify him or set him in competition with any created reality. Tanner posits two rules which guide coherent Christian discourse concerning both divine transcendence and God’s creative agency in the world. The first rule is to “avoid both a simple univocal attribution of predicates to God and world and a simple contrast of divine and non-divine predicates” (p. 47). The second rule is “avoid in talk about God’s creative agency all suggestions of limitation in scope or manner” (p. 47). In other words, these two rules dictate that God’s transcendence is beyond both simple identity and opposition with created reality and that God’s creative agency is both immediate and universal.
The rules for understanding creaturely agency flow out of the rules for understanding God’s transcendence and creative agency. Tanner argues that creaturely power and efficacy must be seen as grounded or founded in God’s creative agency. The basic rule for understanding the creature’s relation to God is that “created efficacy is grounded immediately and entirely in God’s creative agency” (p. 91). The creature is not to be thought of as independent of God since God is the very source of the creature’s freedom. Discourse concerning the capacity of creatures must always be tempered by emphasizing the creature’s direct dependence on God. Therefore, the freedom of God and the freedom of the creature are not to be viewed as to be in competition with each other. Divinity grounds rather than suppresses creaturely being. To illustrate this point, Tanner suggests viewing created causes and effects along a horizontal plane while viewing God’s founding of creaturely efficacy along a vertical plane. The value of this distinction is that it points out the fact that God is not to be viewed as a finite cause in the creaturely realm but is rather to be understood as the one in whom the creaturely realm is totally and immediately dependent.
In the modern context, the “rules are deformed and their function lost” (p. 160). Tanner complains that modern theologies tend to overemphasize the positive aspect of creaturely power and efficacy or distort a proper balance between divine sovereignty and creaturely integrity. To provide examples of how modern theology violates the rules for proper talk about God, Tanner cites Gabriel Biel’s overemphasis on creaturely independence from God and the de Auxiliis controversy between Dominic Banez and Luis de Molina. Tanner alleges that modern theology operates on Pelagian assumptions of creaturely independence from God. Due to these assumptions, the rules for proper talk are violated and incoherent discourse is the result. Problems in modern theology mount when creatures are ceded an independent reality apart from God. When creatures are viewed as being self-sufficient apart from God, grace can only be seen as an add-on and God’s activity is placed on the same level as finite causes.
My major criticism of this work is that Tanner assumes that competent Christian speakers exist, but she does not indicate explicitly by what standard a Christian speaker is found to be competent. It is almost as if a certain doctrine is correct if the Christian community conforms to it. It is unclear if there is an authority, whether Scripture of tradition or something else, that norms Christian practice. Another criticism is a minor one. I was hoping that a book dedicated to the subject of divine sovereignty and human freedom would address the issue of evil and sin. Yet these issues were not dealt with. It would be interesting to know how Tanner explains evil and sin in the world since she insists that creaturely efficacy is grounded immediately in God’s creative agency.
There are many significant insights in this work. Tanner’s conception of God’s transcendence is especially helpful. She argues that God’s transcendence ought not to be construed negatively as a divine isolation from a self-sufficient world. Instead, God is so utterly transcendent that he can be involved in the world without being confused with finite causes. Neither is God’s agency to be viewed as though it were in competition with creaturely agency. In other words, there is not a direct proportion between God’s working and creaturely working. God’s transcendence prohibits univocal predication between God and creatures. Another strength of this book is that Tanner displays a wide familiarity with the Christian theological tradition and also with American and analytic philosophy. Tanner’s comments on the value of returning to the theologies of the past and learning how previous theologians talked is advice certainly to be heeded. Tanner is also to be commended for her stringent and insightful attack on modern theology’s Pelagian tendency to view created reality as independent and autonomous from God. For the most part, Tanner’s thesis is to be accepted. Coherent discourse about God and the world must constantly assert God’s transcendence, God’s universal and direct creative agency, and the creature’s dependence upon God. The creature does possess real power and efficacy for actions but these actions must always be grounded in God’s sovereign agency. When the rules suggested by Tanner are followed, Christian discourse can properly explain God’s transcendence and involvement in a world where creatures possess their own genuine freedom.
Reviewed by Micah Throop, MAHT Candidate
Dr. Horton has posted three different entries on the problem of antinomianism. He first defines what antinomianism is. Second, he then discusses antinomianism in church history. And last, he discusses antinomianism as it relates to the Reformed Confessions. You can find the posts here, here, and here. Tolle et lege!
If you're interested in learning more about the historic Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms, you can check out an interview with Dr. VanDrunen over at Credomag.org. You can find the interview here.
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. John Fesko to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island. You can find the episode here.
Doctrine Applied
Now, many people might balk at these Scriptural reflections and balk at Calvin’s conclusions. Why? Because, it’s easy to say these things but to live them out is a completely different thing. In fact, some might think Calvin’s comments to be crass and uncaring because he simply couldn’t know the suffering that they have gone through. On the contrary, what makes Calvin’s doctrine of providence amazing is not so much his theological reflections but rather the application of this doctrine in his life. Calvin practiced what he preached.
His Physical Condition
Calvin was plagued with illness all of his life; read the following excerpt from a letter where he describes his physical condition:
As soon as I recovered from [malaria], I was seized with severe and acute pains in the calves of my legs, which after being partially relieved returned a second and third time. At last they degenerated into a disease in my joints, which spread from my feet to my knees. An ulcer . . . long caused me excruciating sufferings, and intestinal parasites subjected me to great pain, though I am now relieved from this parasitic infection, but immediately after in the course of last summer I had an attack of the kidneys. As I could not endure the jolting motion of horseback, I was transported into the country on a stretcher. On my return I wished to accomplish a part of the journey on foot. I had scarcely proceeded a mile when I was obliged to rest, due to great fatigue. . . . As soon as I got home I took to bed. My kidneys gave me great pain from which I only obtained a partial relief by the application of remedies. . . . My sedentary way of life to which I am condemned by the gout in my feet precludes all hopes of a cure. I am also prevented from taking exercise on horseback because of my ulcers. Add to my other complaints that whatever nourishment I take imperfectly digested turns into phlegm, which by its density sticks like paste to my stomach. But I am thoughtlessly tasking your patience, giving you double labor as the reward of your previous kindness, not indeed in consulting you, but in giving you the trouble to read over my vain complaints (Tracts & Letters, p. 7.359).
In fact, this was not the only way in which Calvin had physical challenges. He suffered from frequent migraine headaches; at one point he was blinded by a headache in the middle of a lecture, but continued lecturing. He was debilitated to the point of having to be carried from his bed to the pulpit at St. Peter’s Cathedral to preach; then, after delivering the sermon, being carried back to his bed. From his bed, because of his poor physical condition, he dictated much of his writings, including the final edition of the Institutes. People told him to slow down and rest to which he responded, “What? And have my Savior find me idle upon His return?”
Tragedy in His Life
Calvin’s mother died when he was a child. Calvin’s father was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin’s brother was hanged as a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church. When Calvin first came to Geneva as a Reformer, a short 18 months later he was thrown out of the city by the citizens and the leaders of Geneva because they were unhappy with his theological views. When Calvin married, he and his wife only had one child. His only son died at the age of two. A year later, Calvin’s wife died unexpectedly. Calvin frequently faced death threats from citizens in Geneva. It is recorded that on one occasion there was a riot in Geneva and Calvin, as frail as he was, threw himself in the midst of it to still the crowd. There were also the countless theological debates that he was involved in which undoubtedly did not help him have restful nights.
Part 5 appears next week!
The New Testament has no category for someone who is a believer in Jesus Christ but who is not also a member of a local church. The reason is so obvious that we take it for granted. Since all true believers become members of the body of Christ by virtue of their union with Christ through faith, the New Testament assumes that those who are members of Christ’s body will naturally identify with a local assembly of those who likewise believe in Jesus and confess him as Lord before the unbelieving world. Sadly, many Americans have completely different assumptions.
Given the rugged individualism of American culture and our innate suspicion of authority, many Americans who consider themselves faithful Bible-believing Christians make little connection between their own personal faith in Jesus Christ and membership in a local church. This is one of the most pressing issues of our day and it arises from a general ignorance of the doctrine of the church and the necessity of membership in a local congregation of fellow like-minded believers. In fact, John Calvin writes in his commentary on Isaiah, “We cannot become acceptable to God without being united in one and the same faith, that is, without being members of the church.” These two things, “justification by grace alone through faith alone,” and membership in Christ’s church are inseparable for Calvin, because the Bible clearly indicates that all those whom our Lord justifies through faith, he also gathers together is a visible assembly, a local church.
If it is true that all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ must join with a local congregation of like-minded believers and then submit to the yoke of Christ, then how can we tell which church is like-minded and faithful to the gospel and administers the sacraments according to the word of God? Do we ask ourselves if the people in a church love Jesus and if the church has good programs for our kids? Or do we look to see whether or not the church preaches the gospel, administers the sacraments as commanded in Scripture, and is willing to defend these things through disciplining its members who teach against this doctrine, or who by their lives, demonstrate that they really don’t believe the doctrine taught by the church. The marks of the church are objective (we can see them clearly). These marks do not stem from the piety and sincerity of those who attend (which we cannot determine).
Here is where people often get confused. A church can be a true church–preach the gospel, administer the sacraments and discipline its members–yet still have sinful members and non-Christians within its midst (people who profess the truth, but who don’t believe the gospel). We can think of groups of Christians who call themselves a church, who assemble for worship and to serve Christ, and yet do not possess the marks of a true church. Yet, such a group (while not a true church) may include many people who are truly Christians. The discussion as to whether or not a congregation is a true church or whether it has some of the marks of a false church does not at all imply that all people who attend such a church are not Christians.
The first mark of a true church is the pure preaching of the gospel. This is the foundation for everything else and effectively defines the church’s mission. Get this one wrong and nothing else matters! If this mark is not present then a church cannot possess any of the other marks (since, for example, the sacraments draw their efficacy from the gospel, not from the church or the minister). The pure preaching of the gospel entails what Paul calls the public placarding of Christ (Galatians 3:1). It involves the faithful proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners as defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. To preach the gospel is to speak of God reconciling sinners to himself in the person of his Son (Romans 5:8-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21). It is to proclaim that through the cross, God manifests his love and his justice, satisfying his just anger toward people who deserve his wrath (Romans 3:20-25). According to Romans 10:14-17, faith comes about through the hearing of the proclamation of that gospel. The pure preaching of the gospel involves very specific content: proclaiming Christ’s saving work for sinners through his active and passive obedience, his death and resurrection. To talk about Jesus in some vague way in a sermon is not preaching the gospel!
The second mark of the church is the proper administration of the sacraments. Since we remain sinful, even though we are presently justified by the merits of Christ received through faith alone, we are all prone to hardness of heart and all of us feel the constant pull toward sin. God gives us the sacraments precisely because we are weak and sinful. Since God promises to rescue us from the guilt and power of sin in the gospel, so too in the sacraments God confirms the promise made in the gospel in a visible and tangible way. In fact, so tangible that we get wet. So tangible that we actually hold in our hands and taste with our mouths those same elements (bread and wine) which Jesus gave to his apostles. And these sacraments are based upon the same covenant promise–“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (cf. Matthew 11:28)!
The third mark of a true church is that it exercises church discipline so as to correct and punish sin. The critical biblical text in this regard is Matthew 18:15-17. In this passage, our Lord establishes both the need and procedure for us to deal with our disputes, in which the highest court of appeal is the church. In 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, Paul speaks of excommunicating professing believers whose unrepentant sin brings scandal upon the church. In 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul commands the Corinthian church to expel a wicked man from their midst–a man who had taken his step-mother as his own wife. To ignore such behavior and not deal with it by removing the offending party is to risk bringing down God’s judgment upon the entire assembly. Like church membership, church discipline is also not an option.
These three marks (the preaching of Christ, the proper administration of the sacraments, and church discipline) not only identify a true church (which is faithful to God’s word), these marks define the mission of the church.
John Calvin, Faith Unfeigned: Four Sermons concerning Matters Most Useful for the Present Time with A Brief Exposition of Psalm 87, trans. Robert White (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2010)
The 500th birthday of John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) has passed. Recently, the Banner of Truth Trust has re-published a new translation of a work by John Calvin comprising four of his sermons reworked for publication, an exposition of Psalm 87, and three letters from John Calvin on the necessity of an open and sincere profession of faith (p. ix). This theme of an unfeigned faith, its honest confession evident through practice, is one that permeates all of the texts in this re-published work.
The main thrust of the four sermons is to encourage believers to stand for their faith and practice it despite severe persecution. Believers of Christ at the time of the Reformation, especially those in France (the Huguenots), were severely persecuted and burned at the stake for their faith in Christ. In Roman Catholic France, believers were hated for being “heretics” and daring to question the authority and faith of the Papacy, with such hatred boiling over into massacres and military conflicts with believers. There was no such thing as religious tolerance in those days, and the pressure to conceal or even reject the Christian faith for the Huguenots was very strong. Many believers therefore tried to conceal their faith so as not to attract persecution upon their persons.
It is to this situation to which Calvin spoke. The four sermons preached are meant to call Christians to stand for their faith in practice and not to conceal it for fear of persecution. Calvin called people who hid their faith “Nicodemites,” as they resembled Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night (John 3:1-2) and did not practice faith in Jesus openly. The first sermon, entitled “On Fleeing Outward Idolatry,” based upon Psalm 16:4, shows Calvin speaking against those who follow the Roman Catholic ceremonies outwardly since they have opined in their hearts that as long as they worship God in spirit, what they do in their bodies is not important since they do not mean their outward actions. Calvin replied to this by saying that “to commit, even in pretence [sic], an outward act which is contrary to the true worship of God is, in fact, a form of idolatry” (p. 9). Calvin refuted other excuses they had and called upon them to examine themselves and to live for God’s glory.
The second sermon, “On Suffering Persecution for Christ’s Sake,” based on Hebrews 13:13, continues in the same theme. From Hebrews 13:13, Calvin exhorts his fellow Christians to join Christ outside the camp in standing up as believers in this world. After all, we “should recognize how precious in God’s sight is the confession of our faith” (p. 33). Calvin spoke of the benefits of following Christ and threats of judgment if we fall away (p. 39), exhorting us to follow the example of the martyrs, noting that justice will be meted out on the persecutors of the church at the end.
The third sermon, “On Valuing Membership In God’s Church And the Freedom to Worship Him,” based upon Psalm 27:4, seeks to show forth the joy and desire we should have for Christ’s church, as David desires the one thing of living in God’s house. Believers are therefore to yearn to join Christ’s church which is a “priceless gift and privilege” (p. 53) and to treasure our freedom to worship Him.
The fourth sermon, entitled “On Striving to Serve God Purely in a Christian Church,” based upon Psalm 27:8, shows Calvin dealing with the issue of finding a true church to join especially if there are no churches nearby and thus a move to another city or another country may be necessary. The problem with finding imperfect churches is also discussed (pp. 82-83), with Calvin saying that an imperfect church is better than no church at all although he acknowledges the trials of seeing God disgraced in such a church.
Calvin’s exposition of Psalm 87 is included after the sermons as it deals with the triumph of the church in her Gospel mission in the midst of suffering so that we can be encouraged. This exposition was attached to Calvin’s first letter to King Edward VII calling on him to be an example to his people as a Christian king in “ordering and maintaining the kingdom of Jesus Christ in England” (p. 110). Calvin’s second letter to an unidentified friend deals with the issue of taking part in the rites of and fellowship with Rome, to which Calvin strongly objected. Calvin’s third letter to Nicholas Duchemin, future assistant to the bishop of Le Mans, is his more detailed apologetic for shunning the rituals of Rome, especially the Mass, and to preserve the purity of the Christian religion. To this end, Calvin went into some detail on the Lord’s Supper and contrasted it with the Roman Mass, which is a perversion of the former.
This book with translated sermons and letters from John Calvin is an excellent message for our times. Calvin wrote about the necessity of having a faith which is true and which manifests itself in our practice, thus linking creeds and deeds together. While Christians today may not suffer the same severity of persecution the Huguenots during the Reformation suffered, godly Christians will suffer some form of persecution regardless of where we are and which time period we are in (2 Tim. 3:12). Christianity is a religion of the cross and suffering, not a religion of ease and plenty. Forged in the fires of persecution, Calvin’s sermons and letters speak to us today of living the Christian life amidst our trials and tribulations. We may not face death for our faith, but we will face ridicule and possible loss of social standing for standing up for Christ.
One significant positive of the sermons and letters is the way Calvin “engages with the varied needs of his audience” (p. xii) and offers encouragement to the weak and faint-hearted (p. 24). Calvin’s pastoral tone throughout the sermons and letters is clearly evident, and while it is true that Calvin does not face the same challenges we face, just as he did not face the same challenges the Huguenots faced, he draws from God’s Word how Scripture speaks to us into our situations, thus making the message in these texts pertinent to us.
In conclusion, this book containing sermons and letters from John Calvin is highly recommended reading. We must learn and be reminded to have an honest faith before God, living for Him despite whatever sufferings we may be facing or have to face in the future.
Reviewed by Daniel H. Chew, MDiv Candidate
If you "LIKE" us on FACEBOOK and / or "FOLLOW US" on TWITTER, you'll be entered in the WSC Bookstore giveaway contest. What might you win, you ask?
There are two chances to win your choice of three books: A New Testament Biblical Theology by G.K. Beale, The Christian Faith by M.S. Horton or Word, Water and Spirit by J.V. Fesko. Three winners will be chosen from Facebook and one from Twitter.
When the Bookstore reaches 300 likes and 600 follows on Twitter, the Bookstore will give away the books!
Click HERE to find out more information on how to enter this contest! Click early and often!
Romans 8.28-29: In all things we should know that we will overcome.
How often do we look at the circumstances in our lives and feel as if God has forgotten us? Perhaps we look to the situation around us and see a corrupt nation, a corrupt government, and wonder how God could be glorified in the midst of this darkness. Perhaps we look back upon our own lives and see darkness and corruption and think our lives are beyond all hope of ever being salvaged. This is when we should think of a passage like Romans 8.28-29:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
On this verse of Scripture Calvin comments:
“Paul now concludes . . . that the troubles of this life are so far from hindering our salvation that they rather assist it. . . . The judgment of the flesh exclaims here that it does not at all appear that God hears our prayers, since our afflictions always continue in the same way. The apostle, therefore anticipates this, and says that although God does not immediately succor His people, He does not desert them, for by a wonderful contrivance He turns their apparent losses in such a way as to promote their salvation” (Comm. Rom., p. 179).
Now, Calvin is by no means saying that we should sin so that we can see the grace of God in our lives. He would answer with the apostle Paul, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it” (Rom 6.1-2)?
What he is saying, along with the apostle, is that no matter what happens in our lives, we can never frustrate the will of God. God is sovereign over our entire lives and our every action. So, even out of the darkest situation, there is a purpose and God’s hand of providence. For example, the terrible sin of David with Bathsheba: God gives David Solomon who ended up building the temple. The greatest example, however, is Christ: had Christ not been crucified, the most terrible crime in the history of the world, we would not have salvation. Hence, we should take solace that all things work together for the good of those who love God and have been called according to His purpose.
Summary
Based upon these three passages of Scripture we see that Calvin believed that
1. When circumstances seem insurmountable—like Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac--we must trust in the Providence of God knowing that He is teaching us to rely less upon ourselves and more on Him.
2. When it feels as if God does not hear our prayers or that He is crushing us with a trial—like the sufferings of Job—we should nevertheless trust in the Providence of God knowing that He is sanctifying us.
3. When it appears as if things are going miserably wrong—perhaps tragically—we must take solace in the Providence of God knowing that He is working out our lives according to His sovereign plan.
For this reason Calvin writes the following in his Institutes:
Hence appears the immeasurable felicity of the godly mind. Innumerable are the evils that beset human life; innumerable, too, the deaths that threaten it. We need not go beyond ourselves: since our body is the receptacle of a thousand diseases—in fact holds within itself and fosters the causes of diseases—a man cannot go about unburdened by many forms of his own destruction, and without drawing out a life enveloped, as it were, with death. For what else would you call it, when he neither freezes or sweats without danger? Now, wherever you turn, all things around you not only are hardly to be trusted but most openly menace, and seem to threaten immediate death. Embark upon ship, you are one step away from death. Mount a horse, if one foot slips, your life is imperiled. Go through the city streets, you are subject to as many dangers as there are tiles on the roofs. If there is a weapon in your hand or a friend’s, harm awaits. All the fierce animals you see are armed for your destruction. But if you try to shut yourself up in a walled garden, seemingly delightful, there a serpent sometimes lies hidden. Your house, continually in danger of fire, threatens in the daytime to impoverish you, at night even to collapse upon you. Your field, since it is exposed to hail, frost, drought, and other calamities, threatens you with barrenness, open violence, which in part besiege us at home, in part dog us abroad. Amid these tribulations must not man be most miserable, since, but half alive in life, he weakly draws his anxious and languid breathe, as if he had a sword perpetually hanging over his neck (1.17.9)?
Rather than worry about the dangers and circumstances in life, Calvin tells that the providence of God is a great comfort:
The Christian’s “solace, I say, is to know that his Heavenly Father so holds all things in his power, so rules by his authority and will, so governs by his wisdom, that nothing can befall except he determine it. Moreover, it comforts him to know that he has been received into God’s safekeeping and entrusted to the care of his angels, and that neither water, nor fire, nor iron can harm him, except in so far as it pleases God as governor to give them occasion” (Ibid., p. 224).
Ultimately Calvin believed that the Providence of God was a great source of comfort for the believer. No matter what happens in the life of a believer, he can rest assured that his life is firmly in the provident hand of God.
Part 4 appears next week!
Closely related to the doctrines of justification and sanctification is the subject of good works. One of the most common objections raised by critics of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone is this: “If we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, what place does that leave for good works?” Even apostle Paul had heard a similar objection from Christians in Rome. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1)”
Questions like this one arise from the concern that if God’s grace is stressed too much, Christians will become lazy and indifferent to the things of God. It is feared that Christians might rely too much upon grace and not demonstrate a sufficient zeal for good works. After all, what incentive remains to do those works God commands us in his word, if our standing before God depends upon the good works of another–Jesus Christ? Even worse, as the critics contend, if the doctrine of justification is true, and we are justified sinners even after we become Christians, then why do good works at all, since they are still tainted by our sin?
Paul’s answer to these questions in Romans 6 is emphatic. In response to the charge that stress upon grace makes Christians indifferent about how they live, Paul writes, “By no means!” The apostle’s explanation is simple. “How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:2-4).
After arguing that sinners are justified by faith alone, and not by works (Romans 3:21-28), the apostle can make the point that those who are justified through faith have also died to sin. Christians no longer desire to live under sin’s dominion because they have been buried with Christ and subsequently raised to newness of life. Instead of destroying the desire to do good works, the doctrine of justification by faith alone establishes the basis for good works. Those who are justified (having died to sin), will walk in newness of life and begin the process of sanctification. The newness of life and our sanctification is characterized by the doing of good works (cf. Ephesians 2:10), and the presence of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26). As Paul puts it elsewhere, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6).
Since this matter became such a point of controversy, Protestant confessions and catechisms all deal with this issue at some length. Take, for example, the discussion of this in the Heidelberg Catechism. After pointing out that good works are those things done from true faith, according to God’s law, and done for God’s glory, not so as to earn a reward (Q & A 91), and then discussing the Ten Commandments, focusing upon how Christians are to understand them as a revelation of God’s will (Q & A 92-114), the Catechism then takes up the question of why we should do good works, when, even as Christians, we cannot obey God’s commandments perfectly. In question 114 of the Heidelberg Catechism, it is asked, “Can those who are converted to God keep these Commandments perfectly?”
The answer given to question 114 in the Catechism gets to the very heart of the relationship between justification by faith alone and good works. “No, but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of such obedience, yet so that with earnest purpose they begin to live not only according to some, but according to all the Commandments of God.”
Because we are sinful from head to toe, and since sin affects us in every aspect of our being (cf. Ephesians 4:17-24; Romans 3:9-20; Psalm 51:1-5), even justified, we remain sinful (Galatians 5:17; Romans 7:21-24). Even those among us who are given much faith, and who earnestly desire to live lives pleasing to God, still remain sinners. Our works remain stained by our sinfulness, so that apart from Christ these works would only serve to condemn us since such a work is corrupted by sin and not truly good.
Since we are created “in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10), every Christian (who is justified by faith alone) will begin to obey the commandments of God, however hesitantly and flawed that obedience might be. This is true not because we have a divine spark within us which responds to God’s grace, but because “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).
Since our sanctification is every bit as much an act of God’s grace as is our justification, all those who have been justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, will (as the Catechism says) live according to all of God’s commandments. Since our obedience (like our sin) is covered by the blood and righteousness of Christ (making even the worst our works truly good), our heavenly father delights in our feeble efforts to do good. And knowing this to be the case creates within us the desire to obey all the more.
Julie Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Xii + 286pp. $32.00.
The title of Julie Canlis’s book is clearly provocative. Yet the title is not a trick. In this work Canlis sets out to show how essential the concept of ascent is for Calvin’s theology. For Calvin, Canlis argues, the possibility for ascent rests in humanity’s participation in Christ rather than in an inherent anthropological capacity.
Although participation is usually bogged down by concepts from Greek metaphysics, Canlis attempts to show that Calvin’s doctrine of participation is based on a “pneumatological anthropology and ontology” (p. 14). Despite the fact that a doctrine of participation is usually given sparse attention in Reformed theology, Canlis suggests that it is a valid Reformed category since it was so integral to Calvin’s theology. For Calvin, ascension is always christological rather than an abstract philosophical idea. Since Christ ascended into heaven it follows that his members, who are united to him, must also ascend into heaven. While Greek metaphysics and medieval Christianity based the possibility of ascent in the individual, Calvin restructures the concept by locating ascent solely in Christ. Through communion and participation in Christ, humanity’s future is ascent to the Father. Yet participation is not to be understood as an ontological mixture. Canlis is especially keen to note that participation in Christ preserves difference, otherness, and the Creator/creature distinction. Participation is not a fusion of essences but a bond of koinonia achieved through the power of the Spirit.
Canlis begins her study by examining the Greek patterns of ascent, the assimilation of these patterns by the early church and the medieval church, and Calvin’s appropriation of these patterns. Canlis argues that even in Calvin’s first work, Psychopannychia, Calvin had a distinct view of ascent and participation. For Calvin, ascent is always bound up with Christ. Instead of understanding participation as the soul ascending the ladder to be united to the divine essence, Calvin argued that humanity’s ascension is through participation in Christ’s ascent. Simply put, Christ is the ladder. Calvin reconfigured Platonic and medieval notions of ascent by emphasizing that ascent must be understood christologically rather than anthropologically.
In order to understand ascent in Calvin, Canlis argues that we must first understand his doctrine of creation. “Communion is the groundwork of creation, the purpose of anthropology, and the telos toward which all creation strains” (p. 54). All creaturely reality is ordered and related to God only through the Mediator. The telos of humanity is communion with God and communion is through the Mediator. Even the nonfallen creature “must constantly be united to the Mediator” (p. 64). Even prior to his fall into sin, Adam required a Mediator. Correlating creation with the Fall, Canlis argues that the Fall too must be understood in light of communion. Rather than a loss of substance or essence, in the Fall, Adam lost communion with God. Only through the incarnation can this communion be restored.
Due to the incarnation, Christ’s descent is the basis for our ascent. Humanity is included in Christ’s ascent back to the Father; this is true through our participation in Christ. Canlis notes that Calvin continually insisted on the true humanity of Christ. Only if Jesus is truly human can we participate in him. Further, Calvin’s innovative theology of the Spirit enables humanity’s participation in Christ. Rather than basing participation on some ontological similarity between divine and human, Calvin argues that the bond between humanity and God is the person of the Holy Spirit. Humanity participates in the life and obedience of Christ through the activity of the Spirit. Christ did not live his life as an isolated individual but “it was lived deliberately for us to share in by the same Spirit available to both Jesus and us” (p. 99). Canlis rightly notes the importance of Christ’s ascension for Calvin’s Pneumatology. The Spirit is not a substitute for Christ but provides humanity access to Christ. Following the Ascension, humanity's participation is through communion by the power of the Spirit. Yet participation ought not be understood as fusion or assimilation but as a relationship that preserves difference and particularity.
In order to broaden the historical credibility of her study, Canlis also engages the thought of Irenaeus of Lyon. For Irenaeus, through the Son of God, humanity can become sons of God. Irenaeus viewed the whole of human life as growth into communion with God. Although Adam broke off this communion, through Christ and the Spirit, humanity is able to ascend to the Father. Against the Gnostic dualism of his age, Ireaneus argued that God receives glory not by dissolving creation but by bringing it into communion with himself.
In the final chapter Canlis correlates the theologies of Calvin and Irenaeus while also offering some constructive proposals for how a robust doctrine of participation can help the church today. Due to the radical alienation and autonomy of the modern self, Canlis argues that the koinonia of God offered to humanity “constitutes a radical alternative (p. 251). Rather than seeking our own self-fulfillment, “participation in the divine life of the Trinity offers to take us out of ourselves in order to find ourselves in truth in Another (p. 257). Since humanity participates in the ascended Christ, the Christian life must be viewed accordingly. Canlis argues that the Christian life must be seen as participation in God rather than response to God. Communion with God is only through Christ and must be viewed according to our participation in Christ by the power of the Spirit. Humanity does not have the capacity in itself to ascend to God and thus it must locate itself in Christ’s ascent to the Father.
On the whole, Canlis’s book is an incisive and fresh reading of the importance of participation in the theology of Calvin. However, this work is not without its faults. Canlis sometimes gives into the Calvin vs. the Calvinists theme on a number of occasions. She specifically picks out Francis Turretin as a Protestant scholastic who distorted Calvin’s insights. Her critique of Calvin’s Eucharistic theology is also curious. She faults Calvin for his recommendation in 1537 that the Supper should only be celebrated once a month. She notes that this implies Calvin’s distrust and suspicion of the goodness of physical creation. However, Canlis fails to note Calvin’s historical context at this time. Calvin preferred a more frequent celebration but since the citizens of Geneva were used to celebrating the Roman mass only two or three times a year, Calvin wisely noted that such a change to frequent communion might cause a disruption. Calvin was also constrained by the civil authority. The Genevan town councils reduced the celebration of the Supper to four times a year. She also criticizes Calvin for his “suspicion of material things as unable to bear the weight of spiritual reality” (p. 170). The curious thing about this criticism is that it seems to run contrary with Canlis’s whole project. In the pages immediately preceding this criticism, Canlis had just correctly noted that for Calvin, the Spirit unites sign and reality. It is only through the Spirit’s power that the faithful are able to eat of the body and blood of Christ. It is therefore remarkable for Canlis to say that the material things have the capacity to bear spiritual reality when the whole point of Calvin’s discourse is to point to the fact that this is only possible through the work of the Spirit. Since Canlis carefully notes throughout the rest of the book that Christ has ascended and therefore humanity’s only access to him is now through the Spirit, it is peculiar that she faults Calvin for not allowing creaturely reality itself to convey spiritual reality.
Yet these minor faults do not detract from the significance of Canlis’s contribution to Calvin studies. Her reading of Calvin is clear, vibrant, and engaging. Especially insightful is the light that is shed on Calvin’s theology of participation in Christ. Canlis recognizes the centrality of Jesus Christ in the theology of Calvin and how communion with God is through the Son by the power of the Spirit. As Canlis rightly notes in the final chapter, participation in Christ has far-reaching consequences for the Christian life as believers ought to locate their identity in Christ rather than in their own inherent capabilities.
Reviewed by Micah Throop, MAHT Candidate
Dr. Johnson will be speaking at a pastor's conference in Uganda this summer. The conference is co-sponsored by African Bible University and Joy to the World Ministries. JTWM was founded by WSC's M.Div. alumnus (from Malawi) Fletcher Matandika, who is now pastor of a church in Vancouver, BC, Canada. While pastoring in Canada, Fletcher continues to lead the ministries of JTWM in Africa. All of the speakers and conference organizers (Fletcher for JTWM, Rev. Tim Hoke for ABU) will be grateful for your prayers, that the Lord will use this conference to equip many African pastors to preach Christ with greater understanding, with greater fidelity to the gospel of his sovereign grace, and with growing, joyful, holy passion.
To find out more about the pastor's conference as well as the different ways you can support it, click here.
You can also find the conference broschure here.
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. Michael Horton to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island. You can find the episode here.
Scriptural Reflections
Genesis 22.7-8: When things are beyond our abilities
When we encounter difficulties far beyond our abilities, our natural reaction is to do our best to fix the problem even when it is beyond our control. Look, however, what Abraham did in such a case:
And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together (Gen. 22.7-8).
Read what Calvin has to say about this verse:
It is important to notice the manner in which [Abraham] unties this inextricable knot; namely, by taking refuge in Divine Providence, ‘God will provide himself a lamb.’ This example is proposed for our imitation. Whenever the Lord gives a command, many things are perpetually occurring to enfeeble our purpose: means fail, we are destitute of counsel, all avenues seem closed. In such straits, the only remedy against despondency is, to leave the event to God, in order that he may open a way for us where there is none. For as we act unjustly towards God, when we hope for nothing from him but what our senses can perceive, so we pay Him the highest honor, when, in affairs of perplexity, we nevertheless entirely acquiesce in his providence” (Comm. Gen., 568).
Hence, when things are beyond our abilities, Calvin encourages the Christian to trust totally in the Providence of God. How often to we fight with and worry about things that we could never possibly change because they are simply bigger than us? This is something, though, that we should not do. We should, rather, turn the situation over to God and trust that God is using these events to conform us to the image of Christ.
Job 13.15: When things go wrong in our lives
How often do we look at our lives and are able to praise God because things are going well? It is easy to praise God and rejoice when life is a bed of roses. How should we respond in the face of adversity? What was Job’s response? “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” Calvin explains Job’s point in a sermon by saying:
“For you see that the faithful are fully resolved on this point; namely, to put their trust in God, and to hope for salvation by His hand, no matter what happens in the world. But this thing they cannot do, unless they have God for their father, and flee to Him for refuge: it is as if they should say, ‘God has been my Father to the uttermost, and the has given me the ability to believe in Him and persevere. Therefore I must call upon Him, put myself into His keeping, and not doubt but remember that he will always be merciful to me. Yes, but He scourges me, and when I try to draw near to Him, it is as if He has not heard me. Truly, this is hard and cumbersome to bear, but I must still trust in God with patience, and give to Him honor and rest myself upon His promises. Oh how the faithful are fully resolved in that point” (Sermons on Job, p. 236).
Note how Calvin encouraged his congregation that no matter how difficult things seemed, and even though it appeared as if God was crushing them with a trial and not hearing their prayers—they were nevertheless to trust in God and in his providence. Hence, we should pray to God that He give us the strength to trust in Him regardless of the circumstances. Calvin believed that we should seek God and trust in His provident hand in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad. Why? Because this is a truth that Calvin also found in other parts of Scripture such as Romans 8.28, a text that rotates upon the axis of conforming us to the image of Christ.
Part 3 appears next week!
It is not until we understand what it means to be justified, that we are in any position to discuss sanctification, which is that life-long process through which the old habit of sin (what we call “indwelling sin”) is progressively weakened and the new nature (given us by virtue of regeneration) is progressively strengthened. Why is this the case? The same act of faith which unites us to Christ so that his merits are imputed to us and thereby provides the basis upon which God pronounces us “not guilty,” also begins the life-long process of sanctification, in which our sinful habits begin to weaken, new Godly affections begin to grow, and we begin to obey (however, feebly), not some, but all of God’s commandments. To put it yet another way, every justified sinner is also being sanctified.
In fact, the moment we place our trust in Jesus Christ, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven. Through that same act of faith which justifies us, Christ’s righteousness becomes ours so that we now rely on the obedience of Jesus Christ crucified which is ours when we believe in him. Because we are justified by the merits of Jesus Christ which we receive through the means of faith (and not through our own good works), our consciences are freed from fear, terror, and dread. Since we are not paralyzed by the fear that God will punish us when we fail, we find ourselves free to obey the law of God, not to earn greater righteousness, nor to become “holier.” Rather, we obey the law of God and do good works because we have already been reckoned as “righteous” and our eternal standing before God has already been settled by the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ. This is what it means, in part, to be sanctified.
The biblical teaching about sanctification is quite extensive. According to Paul, this struggle with sin is the normal Christian life (Romans 7:14-25). In fact, the holiest among us may be those struggling with sin the most. The fruit of the flesh (as depicted by Paul in Galatians 5:19-21) gradually begin to diminish, while the fruit of the Spirit (v. 22-23) spontaneously begin to appear in our lives. It is not the struggle with sin, but apathy to the things of God and indifference to our personal sins which are the real signs of trouble.
The new man (who was dead in sin, but is now alive in Christ) is no longer a slave to sin. The old nature (the flesh) has been crucified with Christ and buried with him in baptism (cf. Romans 6:1-7). The new man (the regenerate nature) comes alive through the resurrection power of Christ and has an entirely different orientation than the flesh. The new nature believes God’s promises, it embraces Christ through faith, it hates sin, and it desires to please God. This is why everyone who is called through the preaching of the gospel and who then comes to faith in Christ (through the operations of the Holy Spirit) is not only justified through the means of faith, but also has a new set of desires and affections which reflect the new nature.
This is why sanctification is the necessary consequence of the once-and-for-all declaration that we have been justified. Whenever someone claims to be justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone but then continues to live in indifference to sin without struggling against it, something is wrong. No justified sinner can remain indifferent about their conduct nor continue on in sin as they did before they were justified.
In the new birth we are made alive with Christ and the power which sin formerly held over us is broken. But indwelling sin (what our theologians call the habitus of sin) remains in us until we die. Romans 7:14-25 and Galatians 5:17 are very clear about this fact. The new nature must struggle against the three enemies of every Christian: the world (the non-Christian way of thinking and doing), the flesh (the sinful desires within us) and the devil (lies and falsehoods about God). This is why the struggle with sin is the necessary fruit of justification and the new birth. Sadly, this struggle has led many to question their relationship with God, when, in fact, the struggle with sin is the sure sign that God is at work, molding us, and conforming us into the image of his dear son.
In Romans 6:6, Paul speaks of us as people who were formerly slaves to sin. But once freed from our slavery, we struggle to stop thinking and acting as slaves, and we struggle to start living like the free men and women that we are. The struggle will not produce victory over all sin in this life as Christian perfectionists teach. But the power of sin is broken so that sanctification and transformation necessarily begin. And yet, the habit of sin (indwelling sin) will remain with us until we die or our Lord returns, whichever comes first.
This is why you cannot successfully argue, as certain Christians attempt to do, that someone can “accept Jesus as their Savior,” but not make him Lord over their lives until a later time (the so-called “Lordship controversy”). If you trust in Jesus Christ through faith, you have been crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, and are now alive with Christ. There is no such thing in the New Testament as a two-tiered Christian life, in which there are people who accept Christ as Savior but have not yet made him Lord, nor are there people who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit but not yet baptized by the Spirit, nor are there people who are saved, but not yet sanctified.
Therefore, as we die to sin and rise to newness of life on a daily basis, we will struggle with sin. But despite the difficulties which this struggle creates, our sanctification is a sure and certain sign that we are Christ’s and that he who has begun a good work in us, will indeed see it through to the day of completion (Philippians 1:6). And this is what it means to be sanctified.
Elyse Fitzpatrick and Jessica Thompson, Give them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011). Paper. 216pp. $14.99.
As parents of young children, my wife and I are interested in parenting books. Thankfully there is no shortage as hundreds are published every year, Christian and non-Christian. The primary theme of many, however, is law: steps to follow to produce better behavior in children. With that in mind, in Give Them Grace: Dazzling Your Kids with the Love of Jesus, Elyse M. Fitzpatrick and Jessica Thompson present something new to parents, or actually old, which is often missing—the gospel of grace.
The first part of the book lays out the foundation of grace. Parents must teach children to obey rules but must distinguish this from true righteousness. Failing to do so leads to moralism, but Christian parents should allow God’s holy law to crush their children and then point them to the gospel of grace provided in Christ, without which they are incapable of offering true obedience. Parenting cannot transform children; only the grace of God can.
The second part builds upon the first. After salvation by grace the law of God is still important. While children will not obey it perfectly, they now have the desire to do so and grace trains them to obey, restores them when they do not, preserves them to the end, and enables them to be discerning witnesses to their friends. The authors provide a helpful acronym for this training: MNTCP—“Mothers Need To Constantly Pray” (92). Parents not only manage their children’s behavior but also nurture, train, correct, and point them to gospel promises. Finally, parents need grace too: even if their children rebel from the truth parents may trust that God is sovereignly working all things to his glory.
A great strength of this book is that the authors believe “Everything that isn’t gospel is law” (36), and show the importance, priority, and use of both in Christian parenting. Therefore, neither legalist nor antinomian, they ground the ability for true obedience in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone. The extras are also helpful: every chapter is followed by reflection questions for parents, and one appendix provides several examples of MNTCP parenting for various scenarios.
However, something else that could have been included is more examples regarding older toddlers beginning to reason. The authors believe that “toddlers don’t need explanations” (102) and should be disciplined only according to the management category (103). Having a two-and-a-half year old, however, I know that explanations are possible, though not quite to the next stages of nurturing, etc., more applicable to older children. Therefore, it would have been helpful to have examples tailored to varying ages of children’s reasoning capabilities.
Overall, this is a refreshing gospel resource that points not to more law as the first measure of parenting success but rather to the grace of God which saves children and then trains them truly to obey his will. For these reasons I recommend that it find a place on any parent’s shelf.
By Brandon Hoffman, MDiv Candidate
I was recently reading my son a book that featured popular talking vegetables. I’m not sure where the book came from, but my son asked me to read it to him. The book was supposed to be about Easter. I thought to myself, “Well, I’m not sure how this will turn out but I’ll give it a read.”
As we read the book together the story begins with what I suppose is a squash (I’m not a big fan of squash myself, though I’ll eat it if it’s placed before me) that was very concerned about making sure all of the details for her Easter celebration were ready. The squash was quickly disappointed and things were not working out. Long story short, the squash realized what the real meaning of Easter was all about: “This is the reason for Easter, she thought, not flowers or trumpets or the hat that I bought! But to worship our Savior who was raised on this day to give us all hope and to show us the way!”
It immediately struck me that there was no mention of who the Savior was. No mention of Jesus. There was no mention as to why this unnamed Savior was raised on “this day.” No mention of what day he was raised on, namely Sunday. No mention of sin, death, the curse of the law. And then the unnamed Savior’s work was characterized as one that was supposed to “give us hope and show us the way.” While I suspect the author and publisher had every intention of writing a theologically sound book for children, this is not the message of the gospel. Yes, the gospel does impart hope, but that is not its chief purpose. And what is especially misleading is that Jesus did not come to show us the way—this is a typical way that heretics such as Pelagius or Faustus Socinius have described Jesus—as a moral example, not as Savior. Jesus does not show us the way but rather he saves us. There is a difference between showing someone the way out of a burning building and picking him up and carrying him out of the building.
In the end, it seems best that we leave instruction in the gospel to Scripture and to catechisms—teach your children the Scriptures and catechize them. Use the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Both were originally written with this very purpose in mind—training children in the knowledge of Scripture and good doctrine. Don’t listen to vegetables for instruction in truth--eat your vegetables.
Years ago I ran my first triathlon. I enjoyed it and was happy that I didn’t drown. But as I emerged from the water and was running towards the beach I could hear the people standing on the beach cheering. At first, I thought they were cheering for someone else because I didn’t have any friends or family there with me. Upon getting closer, however, I realized that they were cheering for me as well as all of the other race participants. It was encouraging to hear these people cheering me on. In fact, the whole race there were people that were cheering the race participants along.
As I was running, I couldn’t help but think of Hebrews 12 and the great cloud of wit-nesses. I couldn’t help but think of the great saints of the church, people whom I had never met, cheering the church militant along in the race of life . . . rejoicing every time God is glorified in one way or another. It is this aspect of the body of Christ, its historical roots, that we do not often think about. Our Christian walk is often occupied with the here and now. However, I think it is often helpful and edifying to look back into the history of the church and learn from one of the titans of the faith. After all, many of the great theologians of the church were brilliant and gifted thinkers with intellectual acumen far surpassing any of us today. Moreover, not only were the giants of the past brilliant thinkers but the depth of their understanding was only matched by the passion and love for Christ. Hence, it behooves us to stand on the shoulders of the giants of the faith and see what in-sights they have to teach us about the Christian faith and life. In this vein exploring Calvin’s doctrine of providence seems like a very worthwhile endeavor.
What is Providence? Westminster defines it in the following manner:
“God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all crea-tures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immuta-ble counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy” (WCF 5.1).
Why reflect upon the doctrine of Providence? Because Providence is something that we seldom that we master. Most of us are able to praise God when Providence is good. What about in the midst of trial and tribulation? Can we still praise God and rejoice in his providence when things aren’t going well? This is why we should look to see what Calvin had to say about providence because it is something, that I believe, that Calvin understood in a number of ways. Understood in what sense? He mastered it in the sense that he truly understood the doctrine of Providence, not only intellectually, but personally.
Let’s therefore: (1) Turn to several passages of Scripture to see what the Word has to say about Providence. (2) Then turn to see what Calvin had to say about these passages of Scripture as well as the doctrine of providence. (3) Then, lastly, see in what ways Calvin lived this truth in his own life.
Stay tuned for part 2, next week!
Reformed Christians affirm without hesitation that the doctrine of justification is the article of faith by which the church stands or falls. Although the oft-cited comment is attributed to Martin Luther, it was actually the Reformed theologian, J. H. Alsted (1588-1638), who first put these words to paper–no doubt echoing Martin Luther in doing so.
The reason why the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, is so important is because it is so closely tied to the gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ. If we do not understand how it is that we as sinners are declared right before a holy God (which is what it means to be “justified”), we may not only misunderstand the gospel–and therefore risk standing before God on the day of judgment expecting that our own righteousness will be sufficient–but we will miss out on the wonderful comfort which this doctrine provides for us.
The good news is that as justified sinners–our sin has been reckoned to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness has been reckoned to us (Romans 5:12, 18-19)–we now possess the greatest gift imaginable, a conscience free from fear, terror, and dread (2 Tim. 4:18). The knowledge that our sins are forgiven and that God is as pleased with us every bit as much as he is with his own dear Son (2 Corinthians 5:21), not only quiets our conscience and creates a wonderful sense of joy and well-being, but it also provides powerful motivation to live a life of gratitude before God (2 Corinthians 1:3-7). In fact, understanding this doctrine is the only way we will be able to give all glory and thanks to God, which is the ultimate goal of our justification.
We need to be perfectly clear here–we are justified by good works. Not our good works, mind you, but Jesus Christ’s good works, which just like his sacrificial death, were done for us and in our place. Jesus Christ not only died for our sins, but through his life of perfect obedience to God’s commandments he fulfilled all righteousness (Romans 5:18-19). In Philippians 3:4-11, Paul speaks of this righteousness of Christ which comes from God through faith. “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
But how is it that our sins are imputed (reckoned, credited) to Christ and his merits are imputed to us? This occurs only through the means of faith, which is why we cannot be justified on the basis of anything we have done or even could do since all of our works are tainted by sin and always done from sinful motives. Faith is the instrument which links us to Christ so that all that his righteousness becomes ours. In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul states “before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.”
It is important to understand that faith is not that one work God expects us to perform. Faith is not something which God sees in our hearts which he then rewards with a status of “justified”–a view widely held throughout American evangelicalism. Rather, as J. I. Packer so helpfully puts it, faith is “an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ.” Paul speaks precisely in these terms in Romans 4:4-5 when he writes, “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.”
Scripture is clear that faith links us to Christ, and through faith in Christ we receive all that he has to give us–namely the forgiveness of sin accomplished by his death, and the gift of righteousness based upon his obedience. Through faith in Jesus, our sin is imputed to him so that he pays for these sins on the cross and through that same faith his righteousness (his merits and holy works) becomes ours. This is what we mean when we speak of being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone. This is the gospel! God freely gives in Christ what he demands of us under the law. In Romans 3:21-26, Paul makes this very point. “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
If we are not clear about this great doctrine, we have no assurance of our salvation, no foundation for living the Christian life, and we have no gospel to preach to the unbelieving world around us. Apart from this doctrine, ours is a fallen church.
Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of The Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010). 384pp. Hardback. $49.95.
Often when a book is greatly needed it is hard to fulfill expectations, but Steven E. Runge’s newest book, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis, definitely realizes many items on the check list. Until this recent work, NT Discourse has largely been a specialist sport with the uninitiated NT students left as spectators, or with such grossly misconstrued ideas that they do more harm than good. Runge does a great job at the first crack at bridging this gap, bringing complex and intricate linguistic concepts down to a more digestible and usable level.
By far the strongest section of the book is Ch.1-4 concerning the Foundation and Forward-Pointing Devices. This section alone is worth the cost and the time of anyone interested in improving their Greek Exegesis. Chapter 1 does a great job of simply and clearly laying out very significant linguistic concepts with which many NT students might be unfamiliar. Runge gives just enough of the big picture to get the wheels turning without overwhelming readers. Ch. 2 is a very solid 40 pages detailing the semantic and discourse contributions of connectives in Greek discourse. And Ch. 3-4 discusses Forwarding-Pointing devices and Point/Counterpoint sets. Throughout Runge is very pedagogically minded. He actually gives 290 Greek examples (with English translation) so that readers are constantly being able to appreciate exactly what he is saying and the real-world exegetical payoff.
But I must say that my favorite section was Ch. 15, the Thematic Highlighting in Overspecification. In a section like this Runge truly shows that he has read widely as he almost effortlessly summarizes a lot of linguistic theory into a functional form for students. His examples easily let the reader appreciate discourse features like Recharacterization and Point-of-View Shifts, and explains how this is significant for exegesis and preaching.
However, like all books which attempt to be introductions to complicated issues, there is one significant weakness. While the book throughout deals with discourse features, it fails to teach the range of pragmatic interworking as Discourse Analysis does. In every section, Runge contrasts what he calls the Conventional Explanation, which is quoted heavily from grammarians, with his Discourse Explanation. But he does not show that discourse features actually interact pragmatically with linguistic items way beyond their own verse, or pericope, or even paragraph. But this critique can’t be levied too harshly as adding these features would have greatly complicated the book and perhaps ultimately then failed to be a practical introduction.
So as the present state of Koine Greek studies is found to be nearly 30 years behind linguistically, it is hard to overemphasize that this book should be read, reread, and then referenced often by every NT student. Whether trying to get at the deep exegetical significance of a text, or the tone and presentational flow of an author, this book is sure to be an immense help.
Chris Stevens, MDiv Student
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. Dennis Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island. You can find the episode here.
I remember that when I received my post-graduate degree I was excited and contacted a number of former professors who sent along congratulatory words. But one of my professors wrote back, “Congratulations, now you have a license to learn!” My professor had given me a new perspective on the ministry with that simple statement. For many, a degree is considered a plateau, a destination, the end of a journey. In fact, in the academy the doctoral degree is called a “terminal degree.” In one sense, this is true. As a budding academic you study a body of literature and you master it. In fact, one of my friends gave me some encouraging words as I prepared for my thesis defense, “Remember, you know more about the subject than your examiners. You wrote the book!” This is true in many ways.
However, one of the things one quickly finds is that the more you read, the more you discover you do not know. You realize how deep the literary ocean is for each discipline and sub-discipline and that there is no way you will ever be able to read it all. The most you can hope to do is snorkel over the literary equivalent of the Marianas Trench. But this does not mean that a minister or young academic should resign himself to snorkeling over the body of theological literature never to plumb its depths.
First, as my professor encouraged me, never stop learning. Never believe you have arrived. This means that one should be marked by a great degree of humility. Chances are there is someone out there who knows more, or there is a rock that has not been overturned, or there are certainly other disciplines about which one does not know. And most importantly, in the end, all that we have and know comes by God’s grace (1 Cor. 4.7).
Second, we have to be willing to invest a lifetime in learning. I was recently reading a book that highlighted this point: “After a decade of research and writing, one will not spend a lot of time identifying the topic. One’s area of specialization and its subthemes become so familiar that the nature and extent of future research projects are easily anticipated” (Muller and Bradley, Church History, 126). Some might balk at such a proposition—ten years?! But if you want to learn something well, it takes time, dedication, discipline, and patience.
Third, all too often people flit about like bees looking for yet another flower and they seldom settle down. They will read a book on this and that and never really try to master a field. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with reading things out of interest or entertainment. But at the same time, ministers should seek to learn a subject well. One way to do this is pick one doctrine or theologian and dedicate yourself to reading regularly on the one subject.
Fourth, and finally, above all else, ministers should always remember their primary objective—to teach and preach God’s word. This means that above all other reading and studying, a minister must and should know his Bible. Dedicate yourself to memorizing, studying, and learning as much as you can about it. Much of this learning will come through sermon preparation. Though, study of the Scriptures can be greatly aided through lectio continua preaching—systematically working through books of the Bible. If you always cherry-pick your favorite passages, you will never deepen your knowledge of large portions of Scripture.
In the end, no matter how many letters follow your name, always remember that you have a license to learn. The best teachers make the best students.
As Americans raised in a democratic republic, we cling tenaciously to the principle “one person, one vote.” It is very easy (and almost natural) to carry over this principle to our understanding of the doctrine of salvation. It is easy to simply assume that God should give everyone a chance to go to heaven, and if people refuse God’s gracious offer, then people, in effect, send themselves to hell by refusing God’s gracious gift. This makes perfect sense on democratic presuppositions because in the political sphere each individual is assumed to be entitled and empowered to determine their own course in life. And if this is true in American political life, then it should be true when it comes to the salvation of sinner. Right? Well, no. The Bible does not allow us to understand humanity’s redemption from sin in such rosy terms.
Because of Adam’s sin, we are all sinners by nature and by choice, and we are born guilty for Adam’s act of rebellion in Eden. The Bible speaks of this as being dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), meaning we are unwilling and unable to do anything to save ourselves. Because we are dead in sin, we cannot even take those first steps toward God that some Christians mistakenly think we should be able to make (John 6:44). It is common to hear Christians describe God’s grace in generic, non-specific and medicinal terms such as, “grace is like a medicine which, if we are willing to take it, enables us to come to Christ,” or that “grace is a life-ring which we must grab and cling, or we will drown in our sins.”
Our problem is not that we are spiritually sick, somewhat impaired by our sin, or that we are morally weak. It is much worse than that. The Bible says we are dead in sin. Dead people do not, and indeed cannot, come to God. God must come to us while we are dead in sin, and then make us alive with Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10). This is where we find the very heart of God’s saving grace. God does everything necessary to save us from our sins, when we are so unworthy of such salvation, and completely unable to do anything about our predicament. Democratic presuppositions simply don’t apply to matters of sin and grace. Humanity’s plight and God’s sovereign grace are the proper categories here. From beginning to end God must save us because we are unable to do anything to save ourselves.
The only reason why any one of us presently trusts in Jesus to save us from our sins is because God chose to save us in Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). God did so, Scripture says, based upon his own sovereign good pleasure and purpose–in other words, for reasons known only to himself, but fully consistent with God’s holiness and justice. When addressing this very subject, Paul spells this out in no uncertain terms. “In love, [God] predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:3-7). God chooses us in Jesus Christ, and he does so for reasons known only to himself. But he chooses us nonetheless.
The critical point here is that unless God chose to save us in Jesus Christ, not one of us would be saved! God did not look down the corridors of time and see who would and who would not trust in Christ as is commonly argued. If that were the case, then God’s election would be a response to a human action (a decision to accept Christ) which people who are dead in sin cannot perform. Those not chosen are left in their original condition in Adam, under God’s curse and just condemnation. It is not as though those not chosen are treated unfairly. Rather, they will be dealt with according to divine justice, not God’s saving mercy in Christ. Those not chosen will get what they truly deserve. They we get what we truly deserve, had God not chosen us in Christ.
The Bible is very clear that God’s election is based upon the good pleasure and purpose of God, that election is “in Christ” (which means that all those who trust in Christ were chosen in Christ), and that God provides the merits of Jesus Christ (through his suffering and obedience) to save those whom God has chosen, from both the guilt and power of sin. Those whom God chooses to save will be saved by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, which is applied to us in and through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is where we find the meaning of sola gratia (grace alone).
In love, God predestined us in Jesus Christ to be redeemed from the guilt and power of our sin.
On February 28-29, 2012, Dr. Richard A. Muller, P.J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary will deliver two lectures to the WSC student body, faculty, and staff. His first lecture is titled, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" and his second is, "Calvin on the Pracitcal Syllogism." We are very excited to have Dr. Muller on campus; he has been invited by the Westminster Student Association. You will not want to miss these lectures. Dr. Muller is author of many books, including The Unaccommodated Calvin, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, and Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (four volumes), Christ and the Decree, Scripture and Worship, and Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.
Dr. Godfrey & Faculty,
I was deeply saddened last weekend to hear of the publication of The Escondido Theology. I have appreciated the firm yet controlled responses posted by Dr. Godfrey at the seminary website and by Dr. Horton at his own website.
As a student from 1992 to 1995 I was present near the conclusion of Mr. Frame’s time in Escondido. I can only say that I do not recognize the campus which he apparently describes. Any theological school, like any church, ought to subject its theology and practice to periodic review. Criticism can be helpful, but only when it is reasonable and charitable. WSC could be criticized in some particulars; I suppose I could have offered a few criticisms of my own. However, to suggest that the school has abandoned fundamental tenets of the Reformed faith defies all reason and common sense.
What particularly disturbs me is the insinuation that WSC is dismissive of Christians who do not hold its particular confessional commitments. During my time in Escondido I was, as I am today, a confessional Reformed Baptist. I am, in other words, deeply committed to the value of confessional statements, but I do not hold yours in all particulars. The most remarkable aspects of my seminary experience were the catholicity of spirit and the simple generosity of Westminster towards students like myself who were of other ecclesiastical backgrounds. I could count on one hand the persons I encountered who looked on non-Presbyterians as second-class citizens, and they were all first year theological students. Such an attitude was unknown in the faculty.
I do not pretend to know anything about Mr. Frame’s departure from Westminster; it happened after I had graduated. I can only say that it does not surprise me that the experience of a faculty member with lagging confessional commitments would be very different from that of a student from another tradition. In fact, I would expect that the standards would be rather higher. No church and no seminary can survive if it fails to hold its leaders to a greater doctrinal standard than the simple profession of faith on which we extend Christian fellowship. It seems evident to me - and no doubt to most of your alumni - that Mr. Frame has confused two very different questions: “What is a biblical Christian?” and “Who is qualified to teach at Westminster Seminary in California?”
Confessional Baptists have long been the poorer cousins of Presbyterians, but that is not at all a bad position in which to find ourselves. Lacking a long history of strong confessionalism in our own churches, we have often relied on your theological heavy lifting for our own strengthening. WSC has played such a role in recent years. My circle of friends and influence is rather small, but we appreciate you. We appreciate your robust confessionalism, your emphasis on the centrality of the cross in preaching, your focus on the place of proper worship within a biblical system of ethics, your insistence on the necessary distinctions between church and culture, and the generosity of your fellowship with other Christians.
Know that my prayers are with you at this time. If I can be of service to you in any small way I hope you will not hesitate to ask.
In Christ’s service,
Tom Chantry, Pastor
Christ Reformed Baptist Church
Milwaukee, WI
When Christians speak of the “ordo salutis” we are referring to the “order of salvation.” While we should qualify any discussion of such an “order” by affirming that an omniscient God does not need to do things in sequential order as we do, nevertheless there is a logical order to the way in which God saves us from sin and its consequences. Since we are described as “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1-5) and unable to do anything to save ourselves from our dire predicament (John 6:44), God must act upon us while we are still “dead” in order to save us from our sins. The ordo salutis is simply an attempt to understand what steps God takes to save us, and in what logical order he takes them.
This is not an abstract concept because Scripture itself speaks of our salvation as being accomplished for us according to a divinely-ordained progression. The first of these passages is the so-called “golden chain” of salvation found in Romans 8:28-30. In that passage Paul writes, “and we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
The passage has been described as the “golden chain” of salvation because Paul not only speaks of an unbreakable order to the plan by which God saves us (the chain), but the apostle is clear that our salvation from beginning to end is the work of a gracious and sovereign God, who having begun the process of our salvation, sees it through the end (the “gold”). There is no sense here that some of those chosen by God are eventually rejected, or that there is something good within the sinner which moves God to have pity on them and then act on their behalf.
Although Paul reminds his reader that God has the power to turn all things to good (v. 28), he quickly goes on to qualify that this applies to only those who are called according to God’s purpose. Therefore, when the gospel is preached to us, God effectually calls his elect to faith in Jesus Christ. And that call involves several important elements (i.e., the ordo salutis).
Paul speaks of those foreknown by God as being predestined. Some have erroneously taken this to mean that God looks down the corridors of time and then chooses to save those whom he knows in advance will believe the gospel when it is preached to them. This is not the case, because Paul has already told us that calling of certain people to salvation is not based upon foreseen faith, but upon the purposes of God (v. 28). Furthermore, foreknowledge does not merely mean that God knows what we will do in advance, but rather that God knows us as individuals in the full sense depicted in Psalm 139–where God is said to know our thoughts before we even think them because it is he who has formed us in our mother’s womb.
According to Paul, all those whom God foreknows, he also predestines. Predestination refers to the particular end for which his elect are chosen–to be conformed to the image of Christ (as spelled out in the final link in the chain, glorification). Those foreknown are predestined, and those predestined are called. Calling occurs when the gospel is preached, and God’s elect respond to that message with faith. Those called through the preaching of the gospel are said to be justified. Justification occurs because the merits of Christ are imputed to those called through the means of faith, and because of Christ’s merits, we are reckoned righteous before God.
The final link in the chain is that those foreknown, predestined, called, and justified, are at last said to be glorified. That is, we are fully restored from the effects of sin on the day when the dead in Christ are raised. Paul’s point is that God begins our salvation and ensures that it is completed.
In yet another passage, Paul lays out a similar “order” of salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11), when the apostle writes, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Although some of the particular elements appear in a different order than in Romans 8:28-30, the general idea is the same. For one thing, all the verbs (in the Greek aorist tense) used here by Paul indicate that each of these elements is already a completed act. And just as in Romans 8:28-30, God accomplishes these things for us. His saving work on our behalf is already finished. All those in Christ are washed, are sanctified, are justified.
Washing refers to regeneration, that divine act whereby we are given new life and are cleansed from the guilt of sin, and when sin’s power over us is broken. All those “washed” are also said to be sanctified. That is, those regenerated by God’s Spirit are now set apart for God’s holy purposes and begin the life-long process of dying to sin and rising to newness of life (sanctification). Those set part by God for his own holy purposes are also said to be justified–that is when we are regenerated, we come to life and place our trust in Jesus Christ. When we place our trust (faith) in Christ, Christ’s merits are reckoned or credited to us, so we are declared righteous before God. Paul ends this particular list of benefits by informing us that all of this was accomplished by the Holy Spirit, who applies to us the saving work of Jesus Christ.
The ordo salutis is one very useful way to keep before our eyes the fact that Scripture very clearly teaches that from beginning to end, our salvation is God’s work, accomplished for us by Jesus Christ. We also see that God doesn’t begin the process, only to quit in the middle of it. All those foreknown (in Romans 8:28-30) are glorified, and all those washed (in 1 Corinthians 6:11), are justified. Our salvation is truly of the Lord, from beginning to end.
All of us on the faculty of Westminster Seminary California are shocked and saddened by John Frame’s book, The Escondido Theology. Several of us were colleagues with John and several had been his students. We have appreciated particularly over the years his teaching of the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, his critique of open theism, and his strong defense of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. (The statement of Andrew Sandlin on p. xxxi of this book claiming that John had been a polemicist against inerrancy is surely a mistake.) We are very troubled, then, to find John so utterly misrepresenting and misstating our views. We do not wish to engage in a protracted discussion of these things with John, but we do find it necessary to set the record straight.
Perhaps the simplest way to do that is to refer to the thirty-two bullet points with which John has summarized our views at the beginning of the book (pp. xxxvii-xxxix). He introduces these bullet points by claiming: “Below are some assertions typical of, and widely accepted among, Escondido theologians. Not all of them make all of these assertions, but all of them regard them with some sympathy” (p,xxxvii). In response all of us on the WSC faculty wish to state clearly that we reject all of these thirty-two points as a fair or accurate presentation of our views. We have the most sympathy with the bullet point which says “There is no difference between being biblical and being Reformed” (p. xxxviii). Yet we would state it differently: we are Reformed because we believe that the Bible is most faithfully understood and taught in Reformed Christianity. In relation to most of John’s bullet points we believe and teach the very opposite of what is attributed to us. We hope that those interested in our work will read some of the many works written by our faculty and see for themselves the inaccuracy of John’s book.
To see our commitment to applying the Bible in preaching and to a wide range of contemporary issues, we list below a few faculty books which illustrate this commitment:
Dennis Johnson, Him We Proclaim
W. Robert Godfrey, Pleasing God in our Worship
Michael Horton, Law of Perfect Freedom
R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (with chapters on the application of the second and fourth commandments)
J. V. Fesko, The Fruit of the Spirit Is and The Rule of Love
David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life
Audio recordings of the faculty conference on “The Law of God and the Christian” and our most recent conference on "The Unfolding Mystery: Reading and Applying the Bible."
In light of the potential for this book to confuse our friends and the general public, we wish to restate our Doctrinal Commitment (as is stated in our Catalogue), “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, breathed out by the Spirit of God through human authors, are the very Word of God written—the only infallible and inerrant authority for faith and life. The doctrines of the Christian faith, held by orthodox churches throughout the ages, express the central truths concerning the triune God and his works of creation and redemption, particularly as they confess the saving work of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. The Reformed confessions (Westminster Confession and Catechisms, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort) are the fullest and most accurate summary of the system of doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture.”
Westminster California has been and remains a confessional school. As a whole our faculty supports and promotes the consensus views of the Reformed community as summarized in the Reformed confessions. These confessions express most precisely our theology.
If you have questions about this matter, please contact Westminster Seminary California.
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. Ryan Glomsrud, Associate Professor of Historical Theology, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island.
You can find the episode here.
Although often identified as a Lutheran distinctive, the law-gospel distinction has been recognized by the Reformed tradition as well. Reformed theologians such as Louis Berkhof have spoken of the Bible as containing two parts–the law and the gospel. Although people often assume that this means the Bible has two testaments (the Old Testament being identified with “law” while the New Testament is identified with “gospel”), this is mistaken. In making this identification, the Reformed mean that law and gospel are two different things found throughout both testaments.
A definition or two is helpful at this point. The law is that which God demands of us (cf. Genesis 2:17; Exodus 20:1-18), while the gospel is the good news that in Jesus Christ, God freely and graciously gives to us everything which he demands of us under the law (i.e., Romans 5:9; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). The content of the law is that which God revealed first to Adam in Eden, and then published in the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai when the Ten Commandments were written down on two tablets of stone and given to the people of God (cf. Exodus 24). The gospel, on the other hand, is the content of what God has done in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins. The revelation of this gospel begins in Genesis 3:15 when God promises to rescue Adam from the curse and to crush Satan under the heal of a redeemer, and culminates in God’s promise that no longer will there be any curse (Revelation 22:3). The law is what God commands of us. The gospel is what God has done for us in Christ. The law says “do.” The gospel tells us it is “done.”
When God created Adam and placed him in Eden, Adam was created in a covenant relationship with God (the so-called covenant of works). Adam had the natural ability to obey all of God’s commands, not all of which are made known to us (although we can gather much about them). Although these commandments are written upon the hearts of all of Adam’s descendants because we are divine image bearers (Romans 2:12-16), the commandments are not published for us until God gives these commands to Israel at Mount Sinai. In this particular covenant (the Sinaitic covenant), we see how both law and gospel are found together in the Old Testament.
When God made his covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, that which was inward (written on the human heart) was now made public for all to see and obey. The Ten Commandments are called the “moral law” because they reflect this universal knowledge of God’s will which he has implanted in every human heart. Failure to obey these commandments will bring down the covenant curses upon all those who disobey them. Fail to obey a single commandment and we are guilty of breaking all of these commandments (James 2:10). At the same time, God revealed the plans for a tabernacle (where God would be present in the midst of his people–Exodus 25:9), installed Moses as covenant mediator (Exodus 3:15), and gave the nation a priesthood complete with animal sacrifices, all of which are elements of the covenant of grace and which pointed the people of God ahead to the coming of Jesus Christ, whose death upon the cross these elements prefigured (Hebrews 8:1-13).
Although the Ten Commandments reflect the will of God with blessings promised for obedience, and curses threatened for disobedience, the law is given to Israel within a covenant context in which God provides a means for the guilt of the sins of the people to be remitted, all the while pointing them ahead to the coming of Jesus Christ. The law and the gospel, while to be carefully distinguished, are often revealed together. The commandments serve to show the people of God their sin (Galatians 3:10-14), while at the same time preparing them for the coming of Jesus Christ, their Messiah and redeemer.
As Paul puts it, “for by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20), while the gospel is the message of what Jesus Christ has done to save us from our sins (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The law is to be obeyed, while the gospel is to be proclaimed as “good news”–that is, the gospel is the declaration of all that God has done to save sinners from the guilt and consequences of their sin (Romans 10:14-17). The law condemns and gives no power to obey its stipulations. The gospel declares that the law no longer condemns, and at the same time creates faith in the heart. We do not “do” the gospel. We “believe” the gospel.
The irony here is that because the gospel creates faith, it is the preaching of the gospel which leads God’s people into holy living (Ephesians 2:1-10: Philippians 3:2-14). The law is indeed holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), but because we are sinful, when the law is preached to us, we are incited to even greater levels of sin (cf. Romans 7:5-12). But once we trust in Jesus Christ, and are united to him through faith, we will struggle with our sins, we will realize that we have failed to keep God’s commandments, and suddenly we will find ourselves desiring to obey the law (cf. Romans 7:22-23). The law does not change once we are justified. Rather, our relationship to the law changes. Before we were Christ’s, the law condemns us because we cannot keep it. The law inflicts its curse upon us. But once we trust in Christ and have died to the law and its curse, suddenly we come alive to the commandments of God, which now reveal to us the will of God, and what we may do to please him (Psalm 1:1-2).
This is why the old theologians were correct when they affirmed that the law is both the teacher of sin and the rule of gratitude. If we are not clear about the law-gospel distinction, we will not be clear about the gospel, and the fact that God has done everything in Jesus Christ to save us from our sins.
Book Review: D.A. Carson, The God Who is There (Grand Rapids: Baker Books), 233pp. Paperback. $16.99.
At a time when most popular Christian books are left to question, New Testament scholar D.A. Carson writes The God Who is There to strengthen the believer and educate the non-believer about the God of the Bible. Acclaimed by many hip pastors, this book is well worth the read as the research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School puts aside his weightier tasks of Biblical exegesis and takes the time to write about the story of redemption revealed in Scripture. Carson’s goal is that the reader find his “place in God’s story,” rather than making God just a part of our story.
Though Carson may simplify the grammar of redemption—ever so slightly—the reader by no means gets dumbed-down material. The book begins with the God who creates, the God of the Old Testament. Here, Carson takes the reader through many common misunderstandings about the God of Genesis and brings clarity to the muddy waters. He breaks down concepts of special and general revelation, leaning hard on Biblical passages. Carson simply explains that “God simply is,” yet He is complex. The God who spoke all into existence is a talking God. For the non-serious student of the Word and those hearing it for the first time, these can be challenging hurdles to overcome. However, Carson breaks down these truths one by one, allowing proper digestion to take place for the reader.
In continuing with his description of the character traits of God as well as this redemptive drama, Carson does not let up in educating the reader in the Bible’s covenantal structure. He explains whom God really is, against the common stereotypes of a God that actually does not exist. Breaking down these false outlooks, Carson goes on to explain that man is utterly dependent upon God and not the other way around. Using Acts 17: 25, Carson carefully lays truth to the matter that we need God though we deserve death because of the inherent nature of the Fall. We cannot be reconciled to a Holy God by our good works and we need God to vindicate us. Again, through simple but profound Biblical exegesis, Carson gets at the root of our condition and God’s character.
Working towards redemption, Carson continues on the path of the difference of general and special revelation. He addresses just how God loves in the Bible and how man’s sin affected that love as well as God’s plan to restore that love through his Son’s work on the Cross. In revealing the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection, Carson deals with justification, God’s declaring the guilty just through imputed righteousness, and man’s response in repentance and faith that is necessary for salvation. The implications of faith lead to transformation, all a part of God’s divine providence and sovereign ruling. Carson ends his book with the second coming of Christ and Revelation.
With an extensive bibliography, excellent illustrations, and concluding prayers at the end of each chapter, it is easy to recommend this book to students seeking a deeper glance into the Scriptures as well as small groups who are looking for quality literature to study. Carson’s scholarship here compares to that of his larger volume exegetical works. In agreement with Tim Keller, this book is worth the read.
Ryan Bajan
M.Div Student
For those of you interested in all things 16th and 17th century, you won't want to miss the upcoming Rethinking Arminius Conference being held at Point Loma Nazarene University in downtown San Diego. There is a terrific line-up of speakers including Dr. Richard Muller, one of the chief authorities on Reformed Historical Theology. If you're a student you can obtain a special conference rate. Click here for more information. Also of note, Dr. Fesko, WSC's Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology will be presenting a paper, "Arminius on Justification: Reformed or Protestant?"
In the days prior to World War II, Hitler stunned his generals by suggesting that Germany would invade Poland and France. His generals thought he was crazy and that his plan would fail. In fact, when Hitler’s armies marched into France, many of his top generals secretly devised to arrest Hitler and remove him from power. The problem is, however, that Hitler did not fail. France folded like a cheap lawn chair and the German people were both stunned and elated. The German people believed they had been unduly punished by the terms of the Versailles Treaty and they were happy to see vengeance delivered to their enemy. Whatever reservations the people might have had about Hitler, his success changed their minds. And not only did it change their minds, but his generals believed they no longer had the circumstances to remove Hitler from power. Some of his generals even began to support Hitler in the wake of his victory over France.
Around this time Bonhoeffer happened to be working on what some have called his magnum opus, his work entitled Ethics. In his book Bonhoeffer recalled his days in Barcelona when he would observe the crowds at the bullfights. He noted how the crowd would sometimes cheer for the bullfighter but then turn around and cheer for the bull—their cheers all hinged upon whom they perceived was being successful. All of this caused Bonhoeffer to write:
In a world where success is the measure and justification of all things the figure of Him who was sentenced and crucified remains a stranger and is at best the object of pity. The world will allow itself to be subdued only by success. It is not ideas or opinions which decide, but deeds. Success alone justifies wrongs done. . . . With a frankness and off-handedness which no other earthly power could permit itself, history appeals in its own cause to the dictum that the end justifies the means. . . . The figure of the Crucified invalidates all thought which take success for its standard (363).
We must remember that God never calls his people to be successful. Rather, he calls us to fidelity, to obedience. Whether we are “successful” or not is up to God. If we trade fidelity for success, we can easily turn it into an idol.
As redemptive history unfolds in the Bible, the story of God’s saving purposes takes a number of surprising twists and turns. The New Testament opens with an angel announcing to a young virgin that God’s promised Savior was at long last coming to visit his people with salvation. Jesus was born of Mary, he grows to manhood, and begins his public ministry after his baptism by John (Matthew 3). As we read in Matthew’s gospel, “and [Jesus] went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people” (Matthew 4:23).
Eventually, Jesus’ public ministry took him to Jerusalem, because as Jesus informed his disciples, “The Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death” (Matthew 20:18). As John the Baptist said of Jesus upon first encountering him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Since Jesus came as Israel’s Messiah, the mediator of the covenant, and fulfilled the anointed offices of prophet, priest, and king, the necessity of his death comes as somewhat of a surprise–although this death was remarkably foretold by the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) who predicted that God’s Messiah would also be a suffering servant. When Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph on Palm Sunday, it appeared to all as though he would at long last take his place on Israel’s throne to restore the nation to its former greatness. But by Friday afternoon, Jesus was dead, hanging on a Roman cross, having died an agonizing death. Why did the story of our redemption take such a dark and foreboding turn? Why did Jesus need to die?
Throughout the New Testament, the biblical writers tell us why Jesus died and what his death means for us. First and foremost, Jesus’ death is said to be “for our sins,” (a “substitutionary atonement”) and his death effectually and actually turns God’s wrath away from his people, because Jesus takes God’s wrath upon himself (a “satisfaction”). In a fundamental sense then, Jesus’ death satisfies the holy justice of God by making a full and complete payment for the guilt of our sins.
When we look at the terms which the biblical writers use to explain the death of Jesus, the meaning and purpose of his death becomes clear. Jesus is said to die as a substitute for the sinner, in whose place, Jesus is said to die. In Mark 10:45, we read, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul notes that “Jesus Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:2). In John 10:14-18, Jesus speaks of his death in the following terms: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep....the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Jesus describes his own death as “for his sheep.”
Another term we find in the New Testament is that Jesus’ death is said to be a “propitiation” for our sins, that is, a sacrifice which effectually turns aside the wrath of God toward those for whom he is dying. Paul speaks of the death of Christ as “a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25). John says of Jesus that his death is a propitiation, and that his death shows us the love of God toward sinners. “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
In yet another set of verses, Jesus’ death is set forth as the means through which sinners are reconciled to a holy God from whom they are estranged. Paul tells the Christians in Rome, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Romans 5:10). In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul adds, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).
Elsewhere, Paul describes Christ’s death in terms of redemption–the price paid in the Roman world to purchase slaves, granting them their freedom: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Galatians 3:13). Peter describes the death of Jesus in much the same way–“knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1Peter 1:18-19).
Although the death of Jesus comes as a bit of a surprise as we follow the curse of redemptive history, when we look carefully, we see that this death truly is the “scarlet thread” of redemption. Our Lord’s death for our sins was foretold throughout the Old Testament, and that death fully described and carefully explained in the New. The meaning of the cross is clear. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Brief Review of Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice in Love, Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
This new volume is of interest to the WSC community, and Reformed circles more broadly, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it deals with an issue of perennial importance and debate for Christian theology and ethics: the relationship of love and justice. Another reason for interest is the identity of the author. Nicholas Wolterstorff is one of the most significant Christian thinkers of the past generation, and by background and reputation is Reformed (though he has defended views over the years contrary to Reformed teaching, some of which I will observe below).
Before I get to the substance of the book, it is worth mentioning that Wolterstorff’s new volume is a model of clear writing and lucid argument. Students, pastors, and others who wish not only to think clearly but also to communicate effectively will find here a fine example of someone dealing with profound and difficult matters in an eminently understandable way. The book is practically worth reading simply to see this at work.
Wolterstorff’s main argument is that, contrary to much Christian thinking over the centuries, justice and love are not in tension, but are perfectly harmonious when understood correctly. Since this must be a short review, I can only summarize his case in very brief fashion. In Part One Wolterstorff considers modern day “agapism,” a view popular in many circles over the past two centuries, whose most well-known proponents include Soren Kierkegaard and Anders Nygren. This agapism teaches that the New Testament requires seeking the other’s well-being as an end in itself, without regard for what justice requires. Wolterstorff argues that this view fails for a number of reasons, including the fact that the very notion of forgiveness (a crucial idea for agapists) depends upon an underlying notion of justice. In Part Two Wolterstorff builds a case for his alternative, which he calls “care-agapism.” Appealing to Scripture, he argues that pursuing justice must be seen as a form of love. He concludes that love as care helpfully captures a conception of love as both seeking to enhance a person’s well-being and securing justice for a person (by seeking to ensure that the person’s rights are honored). As part of his case here he examines the Sermon on the Mount. He believes that when Jesus made reference to the lex talionis (“eye for an eye”) and said that people should not return evil for evil he was rejecting completely the notion of retributive justice (i.e., that justice requires a harm to be paid back by an equivalent harm).
These conclusions are foundational for how the argument develops in Part Three. Here Wolterstorff raises the issue of forgiveness and asks whether it is incompatible with justice. He recognizes that many Christians have believed so, and thinks it is probably because they are committed to the idea of retributive justice. That is, if justice requires the punishment of sin, then forgiving sin seems to be unjust. Thus many Christians have embraced the idea that Christ suffered the penalty of retributive justice vicariously, on behalf of others, and that because of this God forgives them. Wolterstorff argues that vicarious punishment and forgiveness are two different things; if sins are punished vicariously, there is nothing to forgive. Because Scripture teaches forgiveness, however, the idea of vicarious punishment should be dismissed. Because Jesus invalidated the notion of retributive justice, says Wolterstorff, justice does not absolutely demand punishment, and God (and we ourselves) can forgive without being unjust. Wolterstorff does defend the use of punishment, but not on retributive grounds.
Part Four consists primarily of Wolterstorff’s interpretation of Paul’s main argument in Romans. Paul, he claims, was writing to defend God’s justice, in his justifying Jews and Gentiles impartially. Wolterstorff’s understanding of Romans is not subject to quick summary, but suffice it to say that he sees Paul’s take on God’s justice as harmonious with his own understanding of justice and forgiveness promoted earlier in the book.
One of the strongest points of Wolterstorff’s book, in my judgment, is his consideration and critique of the modern day agapists. He shows quite effectively the inherent difficulties of claiming that the New Testament requires pursuit of others’ well-being while being indifferent to the claims of justice. Without justice it is impossible to know when one has been wronged, and if one is not wronged, then forgiveness itself is irrelevant. An understanding of justice is indeed intimately tied to a coherent understanding of love. Furthermore, I believe Wolterstorff is on solid ground in concluding (primarily based upon arguments in his previous book, Justice: Rights and Wrongs) that some conception of rights is necessary in order to understand justice (though the language of “rights” is often abused and confusing).
At the same time, I also believe there are problems in the overall argument he builds. For the sake of space, I focus very briefly upon a few interconnected things undoubtedly of crucial moment for his larger case. First, Wolterstorff’s read of the Sermon on the Mount, such that Jesus declares the lex talionis (and thus retributive justice) to be fundamentally invalid, is unpersuasive. For one thing, the Old Testament is filled with commands to exercise retributive justice. The Noahic covenant (Gen 9:6) and the Mosaic covenant (Exod 21:23-25; Lev 24:18-20; Deut 19:19-21), for example, prescribe the lex talionis as a key principle of justice. Unless God was commanding wicked things, the Sermon on the Mount must not be declaring retributive justice inherently invalid. Rather, Jesus is describing the ethic of the kingdom of heaven (not, contra Wolterstorff, an ethic for all individuals), and people are not to pursue retributive justice as participants in this kingdom, but rather to forgive those who wrong them. But if retribution is an aspect of justice, then forgiveness does become a problem of sorts. When God says that he will not justify the guilty (Exod 23:7) but then also says that he justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5), it seems prima facie that he says contradictory things. Christian theologians have rightly wrestled with this issue. The traditional answer—that Jesus bore the penalty of retributive justice on our behalf, so that God could both justify us ungodly people and satisfy the claims of his justice—is not only logically sound, but also taught in Scripture. Christ did bear our sin (e.g., Isa 53:4-6; 1 Pet 2:24) and take our curse upon himself (Gal 3:13). Wolterstorff argues against this view in a way similar to how many Arminian theologians have argued against the Reformed: if there is vicarious substitution then there is no need for forgiveness. This has a certain logical force. But if Scripture teaches that God forgives precisely through the provision of his Son as a substitute, then perhaps Wolterstorff’s assumption about what forgiveness must mean for God should be re-examined.
All of this comes to bear in Wolterstorff’s interpretation of Romans. While I appreciate much of what he writes about this epistle (especially in chapter 20), there seem to be some crucial holes in important parts of his argument (especially in chapter 21). Wolterstorff admits that he does not discuss what Paul means when he says that Christ died for us (because he does not think it crucial to what Paul has to say about God’s justice), though he also admits that the doctrine of Christ dying for us was very important to Paul. He also does not discuss—but in this case actually ignores (unless I missed it)—Paul’s teaching that God imputes righteousness (4:6, 11) and that Christ’s own righteousness and obedience are the basis for our justification (5:17-19). Both of these things are crucial aspects of the Reformed doctrine of justification and, for various reasons, rather at odds with Wolterstorff’s understanding of justification. These doctrines further demonstrate (and enrich) the idea that legal substitution and forgiveness are consistent, and even mutually related, and that the justification of sinners must involve both.
Justice in Love is a very profitable book for thinking about the relationship of these two crucial aspects of any viable theology of Christian ethics. Ultimately, however, I believe Wolterstorff’s rejection of retributive justice offers a harmonization of justice and love that cannot account for the full range of biblical teaching, including its teaching about justification itself. There is something about justice and a forgiving love that stand in tension, which only Christ’s atoning work can bring to harmony. In Wolterstorff’s account the atonement plays no decisive role, and in fact seems to be unnecessary for his conclusions. That itself, I judge, signals that something is not quite right about his conclusion.
Office Hours talks with Dr. Michael Horton about what Eastern Orthodoxy is, why some evangelical and Reformed Christians are
tempted to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and how we should respond. You can find the episode here. Happy listening!
Dr. Godfrey has asked me to write a response to Dordt College president Carl Zylstra’s recent review of my book, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture. Given the very negative tone of the review and the fact that Dordt College and my institution (Westminster Seminary California) both claim to be Reformed institutions and serve overlapping constituencies, I agreed to do so. Zylstra’s review is very disappointing, not because he does not like my conclusions—that is his right and the right of every reader—but because of his complete lack of engagement with the arguments I make in support of my claims, his misleading descriptions of what I say, his ad hominem jabs, and his treating me as an enemy of himself and his institution. I will respond briefly to these features of Zylstra’s review and offer a few comments on an issue he emphasizes: Christian education.
My first point, then, concerns the lack of substantive engagement with my book. Book reviews can take many forms, but some things that every review should do, however briefly, is identify the main claims of the book, describe the arguments by which the author supports his claims, and offer an analysis of the quality of these arguments. Zylstra doesn’t provide any of these. A reader of his review will not learn what the “vision for Christianity and culture” is that I try to provide or why I think this vision is biblical. Zylstra never describes what I mean by the “two kingdoms” doctrine. He does not even mention my detailed discussions of the creation and fall in Genesis 1-3, the successive biblical covenants (with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the church), the significance of Christ as the “Last Adam,” the Sermon on the Mount, and many other biblical themes that are central for questions of Christianity and culture. Likewise, Zylstra does not provide me, as author of the book, any indication of where my extensive biblical arguments have gone wrong. I know that he dislikes my book, but I have no idea where exactly, in his judgment, my interpretation of Scripture has erred. Readers of his review will learn much about Zylstra’s opinions, but exceedingly little about the book he’s supposedly reviewing.
Early on Zylstra states that there isn’t much in my book that is likely to convince “neo-Kuyperians” to give up their views; “rather, they are likely just to get mad.” Is this really how professors, students, and supporters of Dordt College respond to books whose conclusions they may disagree with? As one who received his primary, secondary, and college educations at “neo-Kuyperian” institutions, I think Zylstra is far underestimating his own community. Surely an important part of education at Christian schools and colleges is learning to read texts carefully, considering their claims and arguments carefully and dispassionately (even, and perhaps especially, when one is instinctively inclined to disagree with them), and providing a thoughtful evaluation of these claims and arguments. Surely this is how Dordt College professors seek to train their students. If Zylstra’s “neo-Kuyperianism” is worthy of defense, then it should not be afraid to engage the actual arguments of those it perceives as critics. Such engagement is how knowledge and truth advance in the community of learning. By responding to my book without careful explanation of what I actually claimed and argued, Zylstra has not modeled these central academic ideals.
Second, it is also disappointing to see how Zylstra many times says misleading things about me or my book and even resorts to ad hominem barbs. I mention a few examples of misleading statements. First, Zylstra claims early in his review: “VanDrunen believes it is either his way or Kuyper’s way—explicitly referring to the latter as ‘not biblical’ (13).” On page 13, however, I do not make any mention of Abraham Kuyper. In fact, as Zylstra knows from reading another of my books (Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms), I believe that Kuyper’s views were in many respects much closer to the two kingdoms doctrine than to contemporary “neo-Kuyperianism.” I am sure that Zylstra would like to portray the debate as Kuyper vs. VanDrunen, but that is not how it is portrayed in my book, and Zylstra should not describe it as if it were. Second, shortly thereafter, Zylstra says that I “intend to dismiss as totally misguided the entire enterprise of Christian day school education.” Not just misguided but totally and entirely? Given the fact that I say positive things about Christian schools in the last chapter of my book (and do not attack them at all)—not to mention that my wife and I have sent our child to a local Christian school from Kindergarten to the present (eighth grade)—Zylstra has given me a very tendentious reading. Third, in the very next sentence Zylstra refers to my “explicit rejection of the necessity of biblical norms for vocation and civic engagement.” Did Zylstra actually read the final chapter of my book? In each of its major sections (on education, vocation, and politics) I outline what Scripture says to guide our thinking about these areas of life. With regard to politics, for example, I write (pp.196-97): “Scripture teaches a number of important truths about civil government, and these truths define a Christian view of government and politics. Churches are bound to teach these truths, and Christians should conduct their political lives accordingly.” I have taken these examples—which are at best misleading and at worst patently false—from just the first three paragraphs of Zylstra’s review.
I also mentioned above that Zylstra resorts to some ad hominem barbs. What sticks out to me are his references—not once, but twice—to golf. He apparently picks up on a passing comment I make on pp. 25-26. There I mention a number of broader cultural activities that I enjoy, golf being one among many. I also took a stab at humor, noting that though I could not respond to readers’ legal questions (since I currently have inactive status as a lawyer) I would be happy to accept a reader’s invitation to play golf at a nice club to which he belongs. From this off-handed remark, Zylstra derives the following: “he does make clear that he believes cultural engagement takes place better in a round of golf at a fine country club (25-26) than it does in the local Christian school gym.” Not satisfied with this bizarre remark, he later says: “There may be those who truly believe that Christian discipleship arises, first of all, out of intellectual elaboration of the finer points of systematic theology, following a friendly round of golf.” What exactly is Zylstra trying to accomplish with such statements? A charitable engagement of ideas? If he is concerned that I am an elitist, out of touch with the ordinary Reformed Christian, I can only assure him that I have never been a member of a country club and play almost all my golf on inexpensive public courses. If he has something against golf itself as an activity fitting for Christians, then I wonder why Dordt College has both men’s and women’s golf teams.
Why does Zylstra show this animus? A part of it seems to be that he feels insulted; or more precisely, he seems to believe that I have insulted the Dordt College constituency and what it stands for. At one point he states that my book “derides” Reformed Christians such as those who make up the Dordt community. Zylstra provides no piece of evidence anywhere in Living in God’s Two Kingdoms where I come close to deriding anybody. In this book I tried very carefully to describe accurately the views of those with whom I disagreed. Even people who are not sympathetic with my general conclusions have commented that my book is irenic. Where in my book anybody would feel “derided” is beyond me.
Probably Zylstra is thinking back to a single footnote in my long and earlier book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, which he cites in his review. In the introduction to this volume I wanted to provide a couple of concrete examples of how some contemporary Reformed people use language that is different from that of earlier Reformed theologians, such as John Calvin. One of my examples was a three-word quotation from the Dordt publication, The Voice, which described the attempt to build a football program consistent with the “Reformed Christian worldview.” I have just reread this section of my earlier book. Zylstra is free to disagree with my interpretation of Calvin’s theology, but I do not see why he must take this as an insult, or, in his own words, as an attempt to “pick on a particular college (Dordt College).” This seems strikingly thin-skinned.
Throughout his review Zylstra treats me as an enemy. I hope there is no need for that. I wish Dordt College well, and other schools like it. I have friends and students who are Dordt graduates, and have had many cordial conversations about issues of Christianity and culture with them; they have not responded to me feeling angry or insulted. I would certainly welcome interaction with Dordt students and professors in the future. Though Zylstra suggests otherwise, I share his concern about the obligation of parents to train their children to know the Scriptures and to conduct themselves in all of life in ways consistent with their faith. In the section of my book dealing with education I raise a couple of issues worth mentioning here.
The first is that though Scripture provides guidance for thinking and acting in all areas of life, for most academic subjects Scripture provides only general guidance. The Bible sets certain parameters for approaching the various disciplines, but it does not give us specific or exhaustive information about, say, chemistry or literature or economics. To delve deeply into these subjects requires investigation of the world around us (natural revelation) and a measure of wisdom and good judgment. I imagine that Dordt College professors would agree with this claim, and implement it in their classrooms all the time. My writing on education is not a screed against Christian education, as Zylstra suggests, but wrestles with the implications of facts like this. It is something that every Christian teacher and scholar must take into account.
The second thing is that though Christian day schools (and colleges and universities) can and do play an important role in the education of covenant youth, it is not consistent with Scripture or historic Reformed Christianity to insist that primary, secondary, college, or graduate education must, in every case, take place at specifically Reformed schools. One of the great principles of the Reformation is that Christians may not bind each other’s consciences in things that go beyond the word of God. Rome had placed all sorts of man-made rules and doctrines upon the shoulders of the saints, but the Reformation insisted that Christians have liberty of conscience in matters on which Scripture does not speak. Scripture does obligate parents to train their children—and we certainly may place this obligation upon each other. But Scripture does not require that this obligation be pursued in one particular way. Christians should not insist that parents must send their children to the Christian day school rather than homeschool their children (or vice versa). Neither can they insist that parents may never make use of public education. Would the faculty and board of Dordt College really disagree with this? Dordt has no law school or medical school, and its graduates go on to study law and medicine at the University of Iowa and other state institutions. I imagine that most Dordt professors received their Ph.D.s from non-Reformed institutions. Moses was educated in the pagan court of Egypt, and Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego were trained in the pagan schools of Babylon, and God used such education for marvelous ends. Reformed people are not being unfaithful to the Scriptures if they make use of non-Reformed institutions today. If a Reformed believer can profitably study law at a state university, then surely one might be able to study accounting as an undergraduate at a state university, or study geometry at a public high school. If the first is permissible, then the second and third cannot be ruled out in principle. And the fact is that situations differ. Some families do not have a Christian school in the area where they live. Others do not have a good Christian school available and cannot do anything about it (just because a school claims to be “Christian” does not mean that it does a good job). Furthermore, each of our children and young adults are different. They mature at different paces and become able to interact intelligently with the broader world at different ages. And non-Reformed schools are not all alike. Many of them offer tremendous resources and opportunities that Christian institutions do not have, from which our children and young adults can profit. Are these not legitimate issues for charitable discussion among Reformed Christians?
Authors of books are honored when people care enough about their work to review them, but I do regret the tone and substance of Zylstra’s review. I understand that I have dealt with difficult and controversial issues in Living in God’s Two Kingdoms and that not all readers will agree with my conclusions. But my hope is still that this book would “provide a stimulating and charitable contribution to ongoing debates about the nature of Christian involvement in cultural enterprises” (162).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is well known in Christian circles for his famous book, The Cost of Discipleship. Thousands of Christians have read this book and been impacted by Bonhoeffer’s call to take up one’s cross and eschew what he called, “cheap grace.” But many people also know that Bonhoeffer was ultimately imprisoned and executed by the Nazi government for his role in the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
What perhaps many do not realize is that there was a movement from the days prior to the onset of World War II to remove Hitler from power. At first, many of his generals believed that Hitler was mad and they did not want him to bring about Germany’s demise. So a number of Hitler’s generals were looking for reason to arrest and remove him from power. There were others, however, who saw the genuine evil of Hitler’s regime. Hitler saw to the systematic persecution of the Confessing Church in Germany, those churches and ministers who broke away from the German state church. The German state church had in effect sworn its allegiance to Hitler and his policies, which included, among other things, the systematic persecution and murder of Jews. Beyond this, Hitler oversaw the methodical murder of those who were deemed a burden upon the German people, such as those who were physically or mentally challenged.
Initially Bonhoeffer took an admirable stance by risking his own well-being and livelihood. Bonhoeffer wrote a book entitled, Prayerbook of the Bible. This book was on the Psalter and its importance in the life of the Christian for prayer. It might not seem all that controversial, but at the time Bonhoeffer wrote it and published it at great risk. The German government had vigorously promoted a campaign to rid the German state church of any connection to the Old Testament because of its connections to the Jewish people. So for Bonhoeffer to write a book on the Psalms and argue for its centrality in the life of the Christian was a bold rebuke of Nazi policy (367). Bonhoeffer’s chief point was that Christ was the subject of the Psalms and that Christianity, therefore, was inescapably Jewish. Bonhoeffer’s book, however, was no mere pretext for arguing against Germany’s policy but rather genuinely demonstrates that the Psalms center upon Christ. Few know that this book earned Bonhoeffer the penalty of being banned from publishing anything again (369).
Beyond this, Bonhoeffer decided that he had to do more to stop Hitler and so he took up a position working with German intelligence. Bonhoeffer’s friends, who were also interested in bringing down Hitler, assisted him in getting his position as a spy with German intelligence. The pretense was that his cover as a pastor enabled him to travel abroad and learn about Germany’s enemies but all the while he was really going around trying to gather international support for a coup against Hitler (370). But Bonhoeffer’s actions were not ultimately confined to garnering support but rather participation in plots to kill Hitler.
Here’s a crucial question: should “minister of the gospel” and words such as “deception,” “conspiracy,” and “assassination,” appear in the same sentence (370, 380-93, 423-27)? These are the same words that are used to described the tools of the Nazi government. And make no mistake about it, Bonhoeffer was executed, not for his preaching of the gospel, but for his involvement in the assassination plot; the order for Bonhoeffer’s execution was likely given by Hitler himself (529). So what does this all mean?
The Scriptures are clear, that as ministers, the weapons of our warfare are not of this world (2 Cor. 10:4). Ministers wield the sword of the Spirit, the word of God—they herald the gospel of Christ. To be sure, there were scores of Confessing Church ministers who were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for preaching the gospel. When a minister, therefore, is taken to the gallows, should it be because he has a Bible or a sword in his hand? Some might think that preaching means nothing in the face of violent evil, but the gospel is the aroma of life for those leading to life and the aroma of death for those leading to death—it is double-edged—it brings either salvation or condemnation (2 Cor. 2:14-15; Heb. 4:12).
To the outside world, it may seem like the preaching of the gospel is resignation to evil. Instead, we should recognize that, yes, to the natural man the gospel is foolishness—such is the cruciform wisdom of God. When in the face of evil ministers herald the gospel, they follow Christ in the Via Dolorosa and take up their crosses. This means that ministers who do this will likely suffer for their fidelity to Christ. As tempting as it might be, ministers should never trade the sword of the Spirit for the sword of steel.
The diagnosis is not very good: we are ignorant, guilty, and corrupt. But the prognosis is far worse. We are under the curse and face certain death. As fallen sinners ravaged by a threefold consequence of our sins, our hearts are darkened (Romans 1:21) and our thoughts are continually evil (Genesis 6:5). Our minds are clouded by sin and ignorant of the things of God (Ephesians 4:17-18). We labor under the tremendous weight of our guilt–the penalty for our many infractions of the law of God. We may delude ourselves into thinking that we have sinned against our neighbors only; David knew that this was not true. “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:4). But we also suffer from the destructive pollution of our inherited sinful condition, which infects every part of us from the moment of conception. Born in sin as the Psalmist declares (Psalm 51:5), there is no good residing in us (Psalm 14:1-3). Our bodies, which are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), become instruments to act out the wickedness that would otherwise lie hidden in our hearts (Romans 6:13). The bad news is very bad. Sin leaves us ignorant, guilty, and polluted, and therefore miserable.
But there is a glorious and miraculous cure from this disease: The good news of the gospel is that while “this is impossible with men,” nevertheless, with God, “all things are possible!” (Matthew 19:26). It was John Calvin who brought the so-called “threefold office” of Christ into prominence. Utilized by many in the subsequent Reformed tradition, the threefold office presents Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, and king, who in his saving work fulfilled all the anointed offices of the Old Testament. As Calvin pointed out, the threefold office of Christ is one of the best ways to explain our Lord’s redemptive work, which by design overcame our ignorance, our guilt, and our corruption, and which even now provides us with illumination, redemption, and hope in the present.
We start with Jesus’ prophetic office in which he represents God to humanity. Jesus is the light of the world (John 1:4-5), who comes to show us God the Father (John 14:9). It was Moses who foretold of a great prophet that “the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deuteronomy 18:15). And it is Peter, who immediately after the birth of the church, applies this passage to our Lord (Acts 3:22-23). Jesus speaks of himself as such a prophet (Luke 13:33), and our Lord expressly claims to speak only what his father has told him to say (John 12:49-50; 14:10, 24; 15:15; 17:8, 20). Jesus speaks of the future (Matthew 24:3-35), and speaks with an amazing authority unlike all others (Matthew 7:29). Indeed, our Lord's words are backed by the power of God, for his mighty works serve to confirm the truth of his message (Matthew 21:11, 46; Luke 7:16, 24:19; John 3:2, 4:19, 7:40, 9:17). In John 6:14 we are told that “When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”
The priestly office of Christ occupies a major place in the New Testament and includes not only a discussion of the office itself, but also of Christ’s sacrificial death to redeem sinners from their sin. The key passage in the New Testament, Hebrews 5:1 and following, lays out the characteristics of a true priest. First, “for every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (v. 1). Second, such a priest is appointed by God (v. 4). Third, the high priest offers “gifts and sacrifices for sins” (v. 1). In addition, the priest makes intercession for the people (Hebrews 7:25), blessing them in the name of God (Luke 9:22). Clearly, Jesus Christ is the high priest par excellence. Although he is the only New Testament writer who applies the term to Jesus, the author of Hebrews repeatedly speaks of Jesus as a priest.
As for the kingly office of Christ, the Scriptures declare that “the Lord has established his throne in heaven and his kingdom rules over it” (Psalm 103:19). Unlike those who argue that Christ delays the full manifestation of his rule in this present age until a millennial age yet to come, Jesus presently exercises full dominion over all things. Jesus is King of kings, and his kingdom is a kingdom both of grace and of power. In his ascension, Jesus Christ ascended to the right hand of his father and even now rules over all of creation as sovereign Lord (the civil kingdom) and over his church as covenant mediator (Christ’s kingdom).
The New Testament repeatedly speaks of Christ as “head of the church” (Ephesians 1:22, 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:19). Christ’s rule over his church is closely related to the mystical union formed between Christ and the church, which the Scriptures describe as his body (1 Corinthians 12:27). Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, so it has no flag, no world headquarters, and no catchy logo. But it is present wherever Christ’s people gather to hear God’s word proclaimed and to receive the sacraments (Romans 14:17). This kingdom is identical to that which the New Testament repeatedly calls the “kingdom of God.” This kingdom is a conquering kingdom (Matthew 12:28), but is not tied to cultural, economic, or political institutions (John 18:36). The wicked will not inherit this kingdom (Galatians 5:21), though our own children, seen by the world as “the least of these,” are already members through baptism (Luke 18:16). It is a glorious kingdom (1 Thessalonians 2:12), and despite what some may say, it is a present reality (Matthew 3:2). It is a kingdom, which as the Creed declares, “has no end” (cf. 2 Peter 1:11).
In his threefold office as prophet, priest, and king, Jesus cures our ignorance, he removes our guilt, and he deliver us from our corruption. It is here that we find some of the specifics of what it means for Jesus to be the only mediator of the covenant of grace.
Michael Sudduth, The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology, Ashgate Philosophy of Religion Series (Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009). 238 pp. $99.95.
Is there a place for theistic arguments and evidences in the Reformed theological and apologetical enterprise? Michael Sudduth, in The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology, answers in the affirmative in an irenic, clear, and cogent work devoted to dispelling myths, clarifying positions and salvaging the project of natural theology, which he considers to be a helpful component in Reformed theological and apologetic endeavors.
The book is broken up into four parts. In part one (chapters 1-2), Sudduth treats natural theology in the Reformed tradition. Though by no means monolithic on the function of natural theology, Sudduth argues that there has been a historically continuous commitment in the Reformed tradition to both the natural knowledge of God and the project of developing theistic arguments.
In chapter 2, Sudduth distinguishes two different types of natural theology. The first is natural theology A (nta) which he defines as natural knowledge of God (or “intuitive”). Nta may be culled from the created order without labored inference, reasoning, or formal argumentation. The second is natural theology B (ntb) which he defines as rational proofs or arguments for the existence and nature of god (i.e., “theistic arguments"). Sudduth explains three common objections to ntb and concludes that none of them constitute an insurmountable objection to the project of ntb.
In part two (chapters 3-5), Sudduth takes up the specific objections to natural theology that focus on the alleged innate or immediate character of the natural knowledge of God and again shows that none of them constitute a prohect objection to ntb since knowledge of God is both immediate and inferential.
In part three (chapters 6-8), Sudduth takes up the objections to natural theology that focus on sin and its ramifications for any construction of natural theology. In chapters 6-7 he examines objections to ntb based on Reformed anthropology, specifically the alleged noetic effects of sin on the reasoning process. Utilizing insights from contemporary epistemology, Sudduth finds such arguments wanting since, among other reasons, there could be no propositional, natural knowledge of God for fallen, unregenerate persons.
Then in chapter 8--as a further response to such arguments--Sudduth explores the nature and plausibility of Christian natural theology which he considers to be the dogmatic model of ntb.
In part four (chapters 9-11), Sudduth deals with the logic of natural theology by evaluating objections to ntb from their alleged deficiencies as pieces of logical argumentation, that is, the failure of the arguments to prove, demonstrate, or rationally support their conclusions about the existence and nature of God.
Michael Sudduth has rendered a great service to the Reformed world in moving the discussion forward on the efficacy and place of natural theology. Whether or not one agrees with Sudduth’s conclusions, it is obvious that he has sought to stimulate discussion with serious questions that bring historical, philosophical, and theological reflections to the table. Specifically, I see benefit in what Sudduth has done in the following areas:
First, Sudduth has shown that contemporary philosophical considerations, specifically epistemology, can shed light on natural theology’s relation to revealed theology. A glance toward sub-disciplines of philosophy can be helpful when seeking greater clarity in philosophical-theological doctrines. Though Scripture’s sufficiency permeates most theological categories bringing substantial clarity, one must rely on reason to tease out the details to which Scripture does not speak. In such areas, philosophy may be a maidservant to theology (e.g., the divine timelessness of God).
Secondly, Sudduth’s clarity in conceptual distinctions is very helpful and leaves fewer excuses for people talking past each other in apologetic discussions. So often the project of natural theology is written off as invalid because either a particular theistic argument is bad, or it is assumed that it is the foundation for revealed theology or that the intent or function of such an argument is to convert the unregenerate. Such misconceptions may be clarified by considering natural theology in one of three model-specific categories: pre-dogmatic, apologetic, or dogmatic. Each model has different intentions behind its use of natural theology.
I have two modest and guarded criticisms of Sudduth’s work. First, it would have been helpful had Sudduth done some substantial exegesis of the relevant texts foundational to the whole discussion (e.g., Ps. 19, Rom. 1:19-20; Acts 14, 17). I understand that his discipline is not biblical studies, but it is quite possible that tracing the context of such passages, both immediate and canonical, would have clarified some issues directly. At the same time, it was not within Sudduth’s particular scope to do so.
Secondly, some committed Van Tilians will take issue with Sudduth’s treatment of the noetic effects of sin. Sudduth sees the noetic effects of sin as metaphysically affecting the scope of knowledge in unregenerate man. That is to say, Sudduth wants to see unregenerate knowledge as being impaired. What he may truly know about God is less reliable because of sin, but it is not unreliable. Van Tilians will object that the scope of knowledge is not the main issue when considering the noetic effects of sin. Rather the main issue is the ethical hostility that the unregenerate mind has towards God, such that he/she actively suppresses the truth that he/she does have. Van Tilians will argue that the fundamental, moral, absolute antithesis is missing in Sudduth’s analysis. But even if Van Tilians are right on this score (I’ll leave it for the readers to decide), such an understanding of the noetic effects of sin would still only constitute a model objection to ntb and not a project objection. Having said this, Sudduth must be commended for even dealing with the noetic effects of sin since many, if not most, epistemological analysis of natural theology does not address the bearing it has on the Reformed doctrine of sin.
Joshua B. Henson
M.Div. candidate
In our day people are used to getting immediate results on a number of fronts. You go through the drive-thru to get your fast food in a matter of minutes. The longest minute of the day can be when you punch in “6-0” on the microwave and slowly watch each second tick by. You can now file your taxes and get your money instantly. We live in a world where waiting is considered a liability. This type of mentality often affects ministers in the church.
Newly minted ministers show up at the churches and want to see instantaneous results. If the church is small, they want to see it grow quickly. If people are struggling with sin, they want to see them sanctified immediately. We want instant results. The problem is, God may have other ideas; he does not work according to our schedules but according to his own.
Case in point: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, like many freshly graduated doctors of theology, sought to get his dissertation, Sanctorum Communio, published. He secured a publisher, and then, like most publishers, the clock ticked very slowly. The publisher moved with glacier speed and released his dissertation three years later! Not only did they take three years to publish the book, but they also sent Bonhoeffer a bill because printing costs exceeded the planned budget. As a young and cash-strapped minister, Bonhoeffer could not afford to give any copies of his book to his friends. No one in the academy noticed the book and therefore it was ignored in the scholarly literature of the day. And theology professors did not use the work as a textbook (98). In a word, there were no instantaneous results. Some might have deemed Bonhoeffer’s work a failure and a waste of time. But as time has passed things have changed; one can see by perusing the book at Amazon that it now is purchased quite frequently. Oh sure, it does not sell as well as It Takes a Village by Hillary Clinton, but the point still stands: sometimes it takes a while for the bread to bake.
In other words, in the ministry, or in theological writing for that matter, if you are looking for instantaneous results, you are on a fool’s errand. We have to be prepared to be faithful to what God calls us to do and then leave the results up to him. Sanctification does not happen quickly—it is a life-long event. Churches that grow overnight might not be rooted in fertile soil. Sometimes churches grow like oaks—they take a while but once they have grown they are sturdy and large. And when you preach that sermon or write that book, it may very well be that God will use it tremendously to his glory . . . after you are dead. Our calling is not to success but to faithfulness. And while it may seem as though God’s timing may be late, he is always right on time.
With the language of the eighth Psalm clearly in mind (“you have made [man] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” v. 5), Reformed theologian Cornelius Van Til once declared that Adam was created to be like God in every way in which a creature can be like God. These words sound rather shocking when we first hear them. And yet as Van Til goes on to point out, because Adam is a creature, he will never be divine. Adam will always be a creature. Therefore, Christians cannot talk about the creation of humanity without first being clear about the fact that God is distinct from his creation, and cannot be identified either with the world around us or its creatures.
That said, the biblical account tells us that Adam was created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), which indicates that Adam is neither divine, nor the product of some unspecified primordial process. Adam was created by a direct act of God in which Adam’s body was created by God from the dust of the earth, while his soul was created when God breathed life into the first man (Genesis 2:7). The divine image extends to Eve as well (Genesis 2:4-24). To be human then, is to be male or female and to bear God’s image in both body and soul, which exist as a unity of both spiritual (the soul) and material (the body) elements. To be a divine image bearer is to be an ectype (copy) of which God is archetype (original).
Because all men and women are divine image-bearers we are truly like God, and we possess all of the so-called communicable attributes of God–albeit in creaturely form and measure. This is what constitutes us as “human” beings, distinct from and superior in moral and rational capabilities to the animal kingdom. In fact, the creation of Adam and Eve marks the high point of the creation account (Genesis 1:28-31), as God pronounced the first man Adam to be “very good.”
The ramifications of the fact that we are divine image bearers are multifaceted and profound. First, the creation reveals that Adam is both the biological and federal head of the human race. To put it another way, Adam was the first human being, and all humans are his biological descendants. This speaks directly to the question of the unity of the race (despite our different skin colors and physical appearances), and to the equality of persons before God. Second, as the biological head of our race, Adam represented the entire human race before God during the period of probation in Eden when Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Adam was assigned the role of acting for and on behalf of all those who are his descendants. What Adam did in Eden, he did on our behalf, as our representative. This fact alone implies a number of additional considerations, including the fact that Adam was created in righteousness, holiness, and possessed true knowledge of God (cf. Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10), which means that Adam was righteous before God as created. Adam was not merely innocent before God, but holy and upright, possessing the natural ability to obey all of God’s commands and to fulfill the cultural mandate (Genesis 1:28).
The spiritual nature of Adam (as seen, for example, in the fact that the soul lives on after the death of the body) further reflects this element of human nature. Our souls are invisible, indivisible, and immortal. In addition, we are created as rational beings with great intellectual abilities, as well as the moral ability to determine right from wrong (Romans 2:12-16). This also indicates that all men and women are capable of receiving the revelation that God gives through the created order (general revelation) and through his word (special revelation). Reformed theologians have long argued that our bodies are fit “organs” of the soul. And it is especially through the body-soul unity that these communicable attributes are manifest.
As the divine image-bearer possessing such original righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, Adam was given dominion over all of creation as God’s vice-regent. Not only did God make all things good, he assigned his unique divine image-bearer the role of ruling over the world and all of its creatures. Adam was given all the plants and animals for food, and was assigned the task of naming the animals over which he was given dominion (Genesis 2:19). It is because Adam was a divine image-bearer that he was fit and equipped for this task.
This is what the Psalmist means when he says that man is but a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5). The creation of Adam was the high point of all of God’s creative activities, not an after-thought. As the divine-image bearer, Adam is to rule and subdue the earth in the name of his creator. He possesses true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, and his task is to build the temple garden of God on earth in Eden. And he is fit for the task in every way.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion, and Authorship, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Human talk about God takes effort. God talking to us takes revelation. In this newest entry from Kevin Vanhoozer, the Wheaton professor guides his readers from God’s revelation in Scripture through the primacy of the Triune God as Author to the speaking back of humanity as Heroes, both fallen and Firstborn, faithless failures and faithful Christ.
Vanhoozer’s most recent foray into ‘theodrama’ (his term; referring to God’s speaking and acting) is split into several sections. After a general introduction outlining his intent to ‘remythologize’ theology, in the first part of the work Vanhoozer strikes at two schemes he believes characterize poor theology.
Both of these systems begin erroneously—what Vanhoozer labels as “classical theism” is more akin to Cartesian projections of perfection onto a divine being than revealed knowledge of the Triune God from Scripture (105). The second adversary (and the major foil to Vanhoozer’s proposal) arrives in the garb of panentheism, under Vanhoozer’s catchy title “kenotic-perichoretic relational ontotheology” (139ff). This phrase refers to the current trend among some theologians towards emphasizing the self-emptying (kenosis) and interpenetration of the Trinity in all actions of God (perichoresis), ending with a definition of love that is “mutual, reciprocal, and inclusive” (144). Vanhoozer’s analysis of the attraction of this relational model and his criticism of its flaws is not only trenchant, but also immensely helpful in light of its current prevalence. In the space of two chapters he attacks these rival claimants to divine action, with vivid one-liners such as “what is more mutual and reciprocal than ‘an eye for an eye’?” (173).
In the second section of Remythologizing Theology Vanhoozer begins the constructive phase of his argument, dissecting the need for Triune communication, not just God-talk. Vanhoozer then proceeds to some of his most provocative statements in the entire book, utilizing the insights of Soviet linguist Mikhail Bakhtin. In his attempt to articulate the thorny relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom, Vanhoozer takes Bakhtin’s division between the two Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Bakhtin argument distinguishes between a Tolstoyan monologic Author and a Dostoevskyan polyphonic Author; in other words, between the great King ruling over his characters (as in Tolstoy’s typical epics) and a Presidential author who listens to his characters as serious dialogue partners (such as Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov).
What does Vanhoozer do with this literary distinction? In line with historic Reformed understandings of human will, he does not assert that God overrules human will, but works through and by it (Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2, 9.1). This forms the basis for Vanhoozer’s reliance on God as polyphonic author—an author who lets his characters speak back to him. As he states, human individuality is “more a matter of answerability (‘Here I am’) than of assertability (‘I think, therefore I am’); however, Vanhoozer does not strip God of his transcendence nor of his ability to intervene as ruler, creator, and provider of all (317, 319).
Finally, as his work reaches its climax, Vanhoozer descends from general discussion of “Triune communicative action” to working out the particulars, choosing theology proper and the attributes of God to display his proposal. For pastors this section is the most constructive of the entire project, as Vanhoozer defends the impassibility and impeccability of God with such phrases as “Divine patience is not a sign of helplessness but of grace. It is God’s gift of time” (463).
The overall effect of his work, though beneficial, is muted by two concerns. Vanhoozer’s proposal, significant as it is, requires a similarly substantial investment of time, money, and interest which places it strictly in the sphere of knowledgeable academics and theologians. Though this is likely intentional, it is unfortunate that Vanhoozer’s thoughts are limited in this way. The second danger of Vanhoozer’s recent book comes with his terminology—the seasoned reader, wearied by what at first glance appears to be yet another theological proposal created with strange idiosyncratic labels (theodrama, triune communicative action, etc), may become disenchanted with Vanhoozer. Perseverance is needed and desired for the reader to gain the myriad benefits from Vanhoozer.
In short, Remythologizing Theology gives a helpful understanding of the dangers of creating God in our own image (Vanhoozer’s “re-myth-izing” foe, represented by Ludwig Feuerbach) or of questioning whether God actually talks (Rudolf Bultmann’s demythologizing). For Vanhoozer, as for Christians, we speak because God spoke, we act because God acted, and we love because God loved us first.
Reviewed by
John Stovall
M. Div. student
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Joel Kim, Assistant Professor of New Testament, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island. You can find the episode here.
When a young seminarian first crosses the threshold of the hallowed halls of seminary, I suspect that he is impressed by his professors. The freshly minted seminarian goes to class, hears the profound truths flow off the professor’s lips and over the lectern, and he watches his peers soak up every last drop. In one sense, this is perfectly normal and understandable. I can remember sitting at the feet of one of my professors in awe. There seemed to be no fact of historical theology of which he was unaware. Maybe it was the fact that he had been teaching for over forty years and had two PhDs? Nevertheless, as common as such a scenario might be within the context of a seminary, it is utterly extraordinary within the broader context of the church. How so?
I think that far too many seminarians walk away from seminary with the idea that they want to reproduce the seminary experience in their own churches. They therefore drift towards the more serious theologically minded people in their churches. I find few seminarians, for example, who want to invest in ministry to children.
While Dietrich Bonheoffer certainly has some questionable doctrinal beliefs, one thing that cannot be denied is his brilliance. When you read his Sanctorum Communio, his doctoral dissertation written at the age of twenty-one, you quickly get the impression that you are reading the work of a brilliant man. The same can also be said of his second doctoral dissertation, Act and Being. If there was ever a minister who could have floated away to the upper limits of the white tower of the academy, it was Bonhoeffer. Interestingly enough, Bonhoeffer never purposefully ascended to such heights.
Early in his ministry he took an assistant pastorate in Barcelona, Spain, ministering to expat Germans. One of the reasons he did this was because he wanted to communicate his theology to the church—“whether to indifferent businessmen, teenagers, or younger children”—Bonhoeffer believed such an activity was as important as theology itself (85). In fact, when Bonheoffer arrived in Barcelona, he was given the responsibility of the children’s service. When he started, there was only one little girl. He nevertheless continued and the next week there were fifteen children. He visited the homes of each of the children later that week; the following week there were more than thirty children (77). In a word, Bonhoeffer invested himself in the life of his church and God’s people, regardless of their age.
One of the most important things to remember is that one’s time at seminary is unique. It is a blessing and a privilege to devote several years of your life to the full-time study of God’s word. But once that time is complete, chances are it will never be duplicated. Once you finish, it is not time to float up, up, and away. Rather, it is time to descend the mountain and take up the labors of ministry and pass on to the church what you have learned. The true mark of a good theologian is the desire to teach all of God’s people—not just the learned.
In the follow-up to Dr. Horton's recent interview on Christ the Center about union with Christ and justification, he has offered this series of historical observations regarding claims about union with Christ. It's well worth the time to read it!
“Union with Christ is finally getting its just place as a central dogma in organizing the Reformed view of how we are saved.” “Charles Hodge, among others, placed the forensic (especially justification) at the center, rather than union.” “Reformed paradigm: justification and sanctification have their source in union; Lutheran paradigm: minor role for union, if anything, and sanctification has its source in justification.” To read more, click here.
Much indeed can be known about God from creation. We know that God is eternal, all-powerful, and good (cf. Romans 1:20). Yet, whatever we learn about God through nature (general revelation), will always be limited by the very nature of revelation through finite created things. In addition, such revelation is inevitably corrupted by human sinfulness (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, whatever sinful people learn about God through nature will be grossly distorted, and ironically, ends up serving as the basis for all forms of false religion and idolatry–a theme developed by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-32. John Calvin was absolutely right when he spoke of the minds of sinful men and women as “idol factories” (Institutes, I.11.8).
Since sinful human curiosity often leads finite men and women to speculate about God’s hidden essence, it is important to remind ourselves that God condescends to reveal himself to us in his word (i.e., Scripture), in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the word of God, we find a number of divine “attributes” (or perfections) ascribed to God. So, rather than speculate about God’s hidden essence, we must worship and serve the God who reveals himself to us through his word.
Christian theologians have long struggled to explain how it is that certain of these divine perfections belong to God alone, while others are also ascribed to humanity since we are created in God’s image. The former attributes are most often identified as “incommunicable” attributes because these particular attributes cannot be “communicated” by God to his creatures, precisely because we are finite creatures. The latter are called “communicable” attributes because they are in fact communicated to humanity, though in finite measure due to creaturely limitations, and only by analogy. As we take up these divine attributes, we must keep in mind that these are perfections which God alone possesses in all their fulness, and they reveal a great deal to us about God’s divine being.
When we speak of God’s incommunicable attributes we may think of things such as divine simplicity (God is an infinite spirit and not the sum of different parts–cf. John 4:24). Because God is “simple,” his attributes can be said to be identical with his being. God is also self-existent (aseity). He is in no sense dependent upon anything outside himself for his existence, his glory, or his purposes. We can also speak of God as “eternal.” He alone is without beginning nor end. God now is. God always was. God forever will be.
One way Christians have spoken of a number of these attributes is to use the “way of negation.” That is, since we are finite and sinful creatures who depend upon God’s revelation of himself to truly know anything about him, it is much easier (and safer) for us to say what God is not, rather than struggle to state what an infinite and eternal God truly “is.” These are attributes with which every Christian is familiar.
God is said to be “immortal,” because he, unlike us, is not “mortal.” This is but another way to say that God is eternal. He does not live or die as we do–he is life itself. We may also speak of God as “invisible” because he (unlike us) is pure spirit and not visible to the human eye. But this also means that God fills all creation with his perfections. We speak of God as “immutable” because he does not change–as to his essence, or as to his purposes. And then we may speak of God as “impassable.” Unlike his creatures, God is independent from the world he has made, and his divine essence is not subject to external influences (like suffering or passions), although the persons of the Godhead are indeed affected by the actions of his creatures. Take, for example, the fact that we know that God loves us because his Son Jesus suffered and died for our sins (1 John 4:10).
The so-called communicable attributes are important to mention as well. These perfections include those attributes which begin with the prefix “omni” to distinguish the way in which we as creatures possess these attributes from the absolute fulness in which God possesses them. These include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, as well as other attributes designated without the “omni” prefix, such as goodness, love, mercy, holiness, righteousness and jealousy.
Although our knowledge is finite and limited (because we are finite and limited creatures), God is said to be omniscient–he knows all things. Although we exercise creaturely power and freedom, God alone is properly said to be all-powerful and therefore sovereign over all things. Although we occupy both time and space, God transcends all such spatial and temporal limitations. He alone is omnipresent. Men and women can demonstrate goodness, love, mercy, etc., as a reflection of being created in the image of God, who possesses these same attributes without limits or measure, unlike the way these attributes are manifest in us.
Since this is how God has revealed himself to us in his word, it is vital that we not speculate about these divine perfections, nor attempt to ignore them when they expose our creaturely limitations. Rather, we worship and adore the God who reveals himself through such wonderful perfections.
Oliver D. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology. New York: T&T Clark, 2009, 200pp. $34.95. Paper.
In God Incarnate, Oliver Crisp continues his program of pursuing an analytic theological method in addressing questions of Christology. Crisp employs the analytic method in order to discover the logical interconnections of specific doctrinal points. He insists that reason is used as an instrument and as a handmaid to theology.
In chapter one, Crisp addresses the issue of a Christological methodology. He argues that Scripture has the highest authority as the norming norm, followed by the ecumenical creeds which have a binding authority. He surveys the modern Christological tendency to speak about “high” and “low” Christologies as well as Christologies “from below” or “from below.” Insightfully, Crisp notes that he does not find the concept of a “high” Christology helpful as unorthodox Christologies, such as those of the Docetic and Arian variety, can be counted as “high” Christologies. Thus, this distinction is found to be not particularly useful. On the whole, Crisp complains that it is often difficult to know exactly what each of these distinctions mean. Therefore, he pleads for theologians to make their assumptions explicit.
The election of Jesus Christ is the topic of the second chapter. In his Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth famously argued that Jesus Christ is the “electing God” and the “elected man.” Crisp is careful to point out that there was also a lively discussion during the Post-Reformation period among the Reformed Orthodox on this very issue. Crisp first conducts a historical survey in order to show that there is not a monolithic and unanimous “Reformed view” of the relation between Christ and the doctrine of election. Using a twofold typology, Crisp notes that there were two Reformed construals for understanding the doctrine of election. The first, espoused by the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession, proposes that election is based on the sovereign good pleasure of God and that Christ’s work is the means whereby election is brought about. The second, espoused by the theologians at Samur, argues that the election of Christ, understood objectively, is the grounds for the election of humanity and not merely a consequence of the decree to elect. Next, Crisp examines the theology of Francis Turretin, a theologian who attacked the notion that Christ’s merit is the ground of election. Crisp then offers his own constructive proposal for understanding Christ and election. He suggests that the decree to elect is based on the good pleasure of triune divine will, and that the decree has two aspects: the election of Christ and the election of a particular number of humanity. The election of a particular number of humanity is subsequent to the election of Christ. Most importantly, Crisp is at pains to point out that due to the opera ad extra principle, all Persons of the Trinity are involved in the decree to elect. Thus, the Son is intimately involved in the cause and the foundation of election. Crisp is careful to point out that the cause of election is the divine will rather than the foreseen merits of Christ. To close this chapter, Crisp compares his proposal against Barth’s doctrine of election. He distances himself from Barth’s doctrine of Christ as the Reprobate One and the ambiguities of a perceived universalism in Barth’s doctrine of election.
In the third chapter, Crisp examines the pre-existence of Christ. Focusing specifically on Robert Jenson’s account of pre-existence, Crisp argues that the view offered by Jenson is incompatible with traditional views and deeply problematic. Jenson is suspicious of Greek metaphysics and he rejects the Aristotelian idea of time as a linear sequence and the Platonic notion of eternity as a-temporal. Due to this aversion, Jenson constructs his notion of Christ’s pre-existence without a dependence on Greek metaphysics. Instead of following the more traditional idea that God is a-temporal, Jenson suggests that God must be understood as temporally infinite. God exists in time by projecting his future backwards from his future to his past and present. One of Jenson’s moves is to deny that the Word is ever asarkos. Jenson also claims that Old Testament Israel is in some sense the pre-existent Christ. Crisp rejects much of Jenson’s account by stating that it is unclear and “perhaps downright inconsistent” (p. 67).
In the next two chapters Crisp investigates the relation between Christology and biology. In chapter four he addresses the issue of the “fittingness” of the Virgin Birth. Crisp notes that the Virgin Birth is not necessary for the Incarnation. That is, God could have brought about the Incarnation through natural generation. On this view, the Holy Spirit intervenes to assure Christ is born without original sin. However, Crisp thinks there is no theological reason to reject the Virgin Birth. The Virgin Birth is clearly set forth in Scripture and the ecumenical creeds of the church. In chapter five, Crisp examines the relationship between Christology and bioethics. Crisp posits that an orthodox Christology can provide theological answers to the question of when a person exists. Crisp suggests that at the Incarnation, there was no lag between conception and personhood. Due to the rejection of Apollinarianism, orthodox Christology insists that there is no time in which Christ did not have a human soul. Therefore, since the Word assumed a fully human nature at conception, this should help to give bioethicists a theological account of when human personhood begins. I think Crisp is right here. As all theology is necessarily practical and has ethical implications, there is no reason to not apply Chalcedonian Christology to bioethical issues.
In the sixth chapter the question of the impeccability of Christ is addressed. Crisp finds no reason to embrace the sinlessness view over the impeccable view. He argues that the adoption of the sinlessness view, a view which holds that Christ was without sin but was still able to sin, undermines an orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. The motivation behind the sinlessness view is the attempt to take the temptations of Christ, and thus Christ’s true humanity, seriously. To provide a woefully inadequate summary of all the ground covered in this chapter, Crisp’s main argument against the sinlessness-only view is that the by virtue of the hypostatic union, Christ’s humanity is made incapable of sinning. Further, Crisp’s impeccable view can still account for the fact that Christ had a true capacity for being tempted.
Space prevents me from discussing chapter 7, which deals with materialist Christologies, and chapter 8, which deals with multiple incarnations, in detail.
My major critique of this work is that it seems that the analytic method is given to speculation and mild rationalism. In other words, at points, Crisp’s method is prone to consider abstract possibilities that have little bearing to the data of revelation. My worry is that analytic theology is prone to give priority to logical consistency rather than what is revealed in Scripture. I will cite one example. In the last chapter, Crisp entertains the question if it logically possible for there to be more than one incarnation. Rather that starting with the actuality of revelation, the question of the chapter is whether it is metaphysically possible for there to be more than one incarnation. Crisp answers in the affirmative by stating that it is not logically impossible for one divine person to assume more than one human nature. Although Crisp rightfully accepts the fact that there are good biblical and theological reasons for believing there is only one incarnation, this is just one example where the analytic method betrays a tendency towards speculation.
Despite these criticisms, in God Incarnate Crisp shows himself to be one of the brightest and most talented younger theologians working today in the field of Christology. His work is well-written and carefully argued. Crisp’s stated goal is to use analytic theology to develop a theological method which will shed light on the internal logic of certain doctrinal questions. In this task he succeeds.
Reviewed by Micah Throop, MAHT Candidate
Christianity Today has announced their annual Book of the Year Awards. And this year, Dr. Horton's systematic theology, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way, has won the book of the year under the "theology / ethics" category. Christianity Today writes: "Averting his gaze from the kind of popular evangelicalism that is nondenominational in style and never quite confessional in ethos, Horton delivers the Reformed goods to a new generation." Congratulations, Dr. Horton!
What does it take to be successful? For many in the church the assumption is that great preachers are born, not made. One of the reasons that likely feeds into this assumption is that the Scriptures speak about the office of pastor as Christ's gift to the church (Eph. 4.11-12). True enough. One of the requisites the church looks for as it seeks to ordain a man to the gospel ministry is whether he has the requisite gifts--can he preach? Another important question to be asked is whether the man is called. Does the man have a sense of the internal vocation of the Spirit--the desire to pursue ordained ministry? But a second question is, Does the church recognize the man's gifts and believe he should be in the pulpit? However, is that all? Once the giftedness of the man is established, has he arrived? Perhaps he needs a few pointers from reading a book or two on the subject of preaching, perhaps he needs some classes at seminary, but in the end, how can he improve upon what God has given him, right? Perhaps not.
In Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers he identifies a pattern that separates excellence from average talent. Time. Among a group of musicians, the truly gifted and superbly talented began playing their instruments at the very early age of five and were practicing several hours a week. Less talented musicians began playing much later and practiced a bit less. In general, Gladwell identifies the ten thousand hour rule. In order to become truly proficient at something, you have to invest ten thousand hours. Galdwell mentions the Beatles as an example. I suspect that most people think that it was simply raw talent, creativity, and a lucky break that made the Beatles. But Gladwell points out that in their early days as a band, they played in Hamburg, Germany, for a year and typically played music for as much as eight hours a day. This forced them to practice, learn new material, expand their repertoire, and it also gave them time in the saddle--they put in roughly ten thousand hours of practice.
When it comes to gifted preaching, one has to be willing to put in hard work. Yes, the gifts of the Spirit are essential, but this does not mean that a gift cannot be honed, sharpened, and exercised. For churches who want to participate in shaping and molding men for the ministry, do not hire interns to do busy work. Give them the opportunity to hone their gift--let them preach under the careful supervision of the pastor and session or consistory. For men who want to become better preachers, not for their name's sake but for the edification of the body of Christ, preach. Understand that the only way a minister will get better is by faithful study and plying his craft.
Whether for ministers, or Christians in any vocation, we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that competency and proficiency comes naturally. There's a cliché that seems apropos, "If something looks easy, it's hard, and if something looks hard, it's impossible." In pursuit of excellence, Christians need to be willing to be disciplined--put in their ten thousand hours so they can truly become proficient at their vocations. In the end, chances are the world will never notice, though perhaps in some instances it will. Nevertheless, for the Christian, the only one for whom and to whom we do all things is the triune Lord--for his glory, not our own.
In what way is the Bible a unified document? Come to our annual faculty conference on January 13th and 14th, 2012, to hear the lectures offered by our faculty. Dr. Dennis Johnson, former professor of New Testament, and now Professor of Practical Theology, as well as the author of numerous books, including Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ From All the Scriptures, will address the unity of the Scriptures. Here's a preview of his lecture:
When the risen Christ appeared to his disciples and "interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27), he revealed the climax of God's covenant of grace, the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, Israel, and David--the great shift in the history of redemption from shadow to substance, from ancient hope to the "last days" arrival and achievement of the Savior himself. The Christocentric interpretation of Scripture that Jesus taught his apostles had been anticipated in the Old Testament prophets and would find expression throughout the New Testament writings.
For more information about the conference, click here. We hope to see you there!
Daniel C. Timmer, A Gracious And Compassionate God (2011, Nottingham, InterVarsity Press). 201pp. Softback. New $14.95.
Daniel Timmer, the Canadian theologian, just finished his volume on Jonah called, A Gracious and Compassionate God, from the New Studies in Biblical Theology series. Timmer attempts to give a biblical theological account of the book of Jonah through the lenses of three themes: Mission, Salvation, and Spirituality.
The theme of Mission is found in two chief characters, namely Israel and Jonah. Israel has a mission that is twofold, explains Timmer. It is centripetal--moving in toward the center--and it is centrifugal--moving outward. Despite these terms being horrendously confusing, they do illustrate important aspects of Israel’s mission as the people of God. Centripetal refers to Israel’s exemplar nature. This aspect is called centripetal because it refers to Israel’s ingrown nature, how if a foreigner wanted to be part of Israel he would have to take on Israel’s customs (Ex 19:5-6). This was their passive role in bringing the gospel to the nations with Jerusalem as the center.
By centrifugal Timmer refers to the promise given to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) where he would be a blessing to all the nations. At the beginning of this discussion Timmer is also careful to include that God has always had a plan for the nations rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. This promise is related to Jonah and the conversion of the heathen during the theocracy. Naaman and Ruth are examples of the centripetal theme because they both had ‘conversion’ ideas but were outside Israel geographically and ethnically. The Psalms are riddled with imperatives to make God known to the nations, and not only that but the Psalms are eschatological in looking toward an end goal for all nations.
These two themes, centripetal and centrifugal, are important to Jonah because he was sent on a mission by God to preach to the heathen. But, in both of these aspects he fails. His centripetal witness is nullified when he hides on a boat going away from where God called him. And his centrifugal witness seems blunted when he only speaks only of judgment for Nineveh. Yet by God's grace the Ninevites repent.
Salvation plays an important theme because the sailors and Ninevites seem to repent in the book of Jonah. Timmer takes note on how ironic this salvation is. The people of God, typified in Jonah, have God's word, but don't follow him. While the pagans, hearing of this God who rules the earth and the sea, repent and follow him.
This leads to the next theme of Spirituality. Ironically, the pagans, shows Timmer, understand what God requires by their repentance. Jonah and his hard heart only serve to further the planned obsolescence of the Mosaic Economy.
A few things in this book need to be brought to attention. On a lighter note, Timmer fails to mention that the Hebrew word for sailor is lexically related to salt. So the author, when he speaks of the sailors, is actually calling them “salties.” On a heavier note (perhaps it's my inner Kline leaking out), Timmer fails explicitly to put Israel in its redemptive historical context. At least I wanted to hear how this book related the Covenants of Works and Grace to Israel.
This book, despite the critiques, is a good introduction and overview of the biblical theological motifs in Jonah and to the greater missiological themes in Scripture. Additionally, the book was a very easy read.
Reviewed by Nic Lazzareschi
MDiv Candidate
These days Apple is the premier tech company, if such things are measured by corporate ledgers. But what many might not know is that Apple was once a faltering company on the precipice of bankruptcy. Steve Jobs was one of the original founders of the company but was pushed out. He was eventually brought back in and positioned himself to take the reigns at Apple. One of the problems he immediately identified was that the company had no sense of mission—they were all over the map. For example, Apple had nine different versions of their Macintosh computer. Jobs uncovered the lack of product focus by asking his engineers what the differences were among the variants. The engineers were unable to tell him the reason why they had so many models and what differentiated them.
Jobs made everything come to a screeching halt:
“‘Stop!’ He shouted at one big product strategy session. ‘This is crazy.’ He grabbed a magic marker, padded to a whiteboard, and drew a horizontal and vertical line to make a four-squared chart. ‘Here’s what we need,’ he continued. Atop the two columns he wrote ‘Consumer’ and ‘Pro’; he labeled the two rows ‘Desktop’ and ‘Portable.’ Their job, he said, was to make four great products, one for each quadrant. ‘The room was in dumb silence . . .’” (33).
Even though board members were calling for more products and to diversify their product line, Jobs was calling for massive simplification. In the end, Jobs’ strategy worked—shortly thereafter Apple turned its first profit in years, $309 million.
In a number of ways, this is the mentality WSC has behind our philosophy of a seminary education—we keep things very simple. We have two degrees: a Master of Divinity and Master of Arts (this degree has three different concentrations, Biblical Studies, Theological Studies, and Historical Theology). There have been times in the past when we have offered other degrees, but the president and seminary leadership recognized the need for simplicity. Our primary task is to train ministers of the Word of God. Our secondary task is to train people to serve the church in various capacities through our Master of Arts programs. Other institutions have a number of other degrees and specialties, and these programs can sound appealing when compared to WSC’s apparent slim offerings.
What many people do not realize, however, is that all accredited seminaries work with a specified number of degree hours: approximately 100 semester hours for an MDiv and 60 hours for an MA. Our philosophy of education here at WSC goes back to J. Gresham Machen’s original plan for Westminster Theological Seminary—to train specialists in the Bible. We believe that the degree-plan hours should be dedicated to knowing and studying the Bible (exegetically, theologically, and through a communal reading of the Bible in concert with church history and historical theology). Whatever specialties other seminaries might offer, they usually have to rob Peter to pay Paul—they have to take hours away from other portions of the curriculum to make room for the other courses.
There is certainly room for specialization, but it should never come at the expense of the fundamentals, never at the expense of knowing the Bible well. Hence, for the person who wants to be a missionary, study the Bible and know it well. Then, upon graduation, pursue an internship as a missionary associate in the specific region where you feel called. There is nothing like total immersion in a culture to learn its ethos, language, and mores. Cultural immersion can never be obtained in a classroom.
At WSC, we do not want to promise to give more than we can. Hence, we keep things simple—we strive to educate and train experts in the Bible, nothing more, nothing less.
Do you love to read the Bible but sometimes find yourself challenged by its message? Do you struggle to understand how the New Testatment relates to the Old? If so, give thought to attending our annual faculty conference on January 13th and 14th, 2012. Here's a preview from the lecture that Dr. Steve Baugh, professor of New Testament, will deliver:
Following the New Testament Model
The Bible presents itself as one continuous story from beginning to end. Like a good story, though, the end is not fully disclosed in the beginning, but only hinted at. From that point on, the story evolves slowly from beginning, to middle, to end as it progresses inexorably to its climactic finish. One helpful way to describe this movement in Scripture is with the phrase “the organic development of redemptive revelation,” or more simply, “organic development,” which is a way of describing the Bible’s essential unity maintained within its unfolding story of redemption. There is true development in redemptive revelation, because it is tied to an unfolding history of redemptive accomplishment. But this divine revelation’s essential unity is never lost as it revolves around is true core, the disclosure of the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the heart of what we in Reformed circles call “Biblical Theology.”
There are a host of biblical passages we could examine to verify and illustrate this organic development of both redemptive revelation and of redemptive history, many of which constitute very long passages and even the bulk of whole books of the New Testament. For time’s sake, in this lecture we will briefly explore two short passages in the New Testament, one from Hebrews and one from Galatians, to make our points. In the end, understanding Scripture’s majestic, diverse unity in Christ may very well transform your reading of both Testaments.
For more information about our annual conference, click here. We hope to see you there!
When people look at a successful company there is perhaps an unspoken assumption that whatever they do is loved by all. Like the golden touch of King Midas, everything that they touch turns to gold. When you look at products such as the iPhone, many people probably think that it is beyond criticism given its widespread acceptance and use. For example, in the second quarter of 2011 Apple sold over 18 million iPhones! Yet, when the phone was first released it was greatly criticized. It was criticized because it was $500, then the most expensive phone in the world. Microsoft’s CEO panned it because it did not have a keyboard. Yet by the end of 2010 Apple sold ninety million phones and collected half of the total profits generated by the world’s cell phone market (474).
A similar pattern marked the release of the iPad. Jobs recounts the initial negative reception:
“I got about eight hundred email messages in the last twenty-four hours. Most of them are complaining. There’s no USB cord! There’s no this, no that. Some of them are like, ‘[expletive], how can you do that?’ I don’t usually write people back, but I replied, ‘Your parents would be so proud of how you turned out.’ And some don’t like the iPad name, and on and on. I kind of got depressed today. It knocks you back a bit” (495).
In spite of the criticism, Apple sold three million iPads in the first 80 days, and as of June, 2011, they have sold approximately twenty-five million. What accounts for the apparent initial failure of these products, given the volume of criticism, but then the subsequent success? The answer lies in the fact that Jobs never gave people the device they wanted.
Jobs was notorious for never using market research. He famously told his employees, the consumer does not know what he wants until I show him what he wants. Jobs’ biographer quotes him as saying:
“Some people say, ‘Give the customers what they want.’ But that’s not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they’re going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, ‘If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, ‘A faster horse!’’ People don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page” (567).
There is a lesson for the church here in Jobs’ marketing and product design principle.
Far too often the church goes about trying to meet perceived needs. Churches even go as far as to do market and demographic research to determine what people want. They then tailor the ministries of a church to meet these perceived needs. But how many people will tell you, “I need someone to preach to me the condemnation of the law”? The church does not need to do market research. And because of sinful humanity’s fallen state, they will always be ready to tell the church what they need. The problem is, however, that they will never tell you they need the law’s condemnation and the redemptive power of the gospel. The church, therefore, must never give the world what it wants. Rather, the church must preach the gospel because it is what they truly need.
Make no mistake about it, when you preach the gospel, you will find rejection, criticism, and derision. As Christ has told us, we will be persecuted on account of his name (Matt. 5:11). However, the church’s success has been promised and guaranteed. People will hear the message of the gospel and by God’s grace they will repent and believe. At the same time, people will hear the gospel, reject it, and they will be condemned. Unlike a company’s product, even a successful one, there are always millions of people who do not purchase it, but the preaching of the gospel is always successful: “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:15-16).
Hence, the church’s strategy should never be altered, even in the face of severe criticism—we preach the gospel of Christ. We never give people what they want. Instead, we give them what they need.
If you haven't already signed up for our upcoming faculty conference, please do so! One of our conference speakers is Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Josh Van Ee. Here's a brief glimpse at what Prof. Van Ee will cover in his lecture:
Why is the Old Testament so Different?
In much of the Old Testament we read about various battles, kings, food laws and sacrifices. It seems so unrelated to our present life in the church. Why is the Old Testament so different? It is not because God had a different plan back then. Instead, God's unified plan of redemptive history is broken up into different periods, times in which God shapes his revelation and his covenant community for his particular purposes. Therefore, for example, we need to ask how the food laws operated in Israel, what God was teaching Israel (and us) through them, what role they played in furthering the history of redemption. We should not look to them to provide a model Biblical diet for us. Thus, when we study a passage of the Bible, we need to interpret it in light of its period in redemptive history or we end up ignoring the unfolding nature of God revelation to us and wrongly applying it.
The conference is January 13th and 14th, 2012. You can find out more information about the conference here. We hope to see you there!
Recently, Dr. Horton was interviewed on the audio program Christ the Center, hosted by Reformed Forum, on the topic of Union with Christ. This interview was given in response to a recent episode with WTS Professor Lane Tipton which discussed various dimensions of the doctrine of Union with Christ, including reference to Dr. Horton’s work, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ.
The audio of the discussion with Horton is embedded below, and the audio for the interview with Professor Tipton to which he is responding can be found here.
Imagine yourself on a beautiful desert island. You've unplugged from the digital world. No cellphone, no Twitter, no Facebook, no radio, and no TV. With you on the island you have your Bible. In addition, you can only take with you five books. Which five books would you choose and why?
In this episode Office Hours talks to Dr. Bryan Estelle, Associate Professor of Old Testament, to find out which five books he would take with him to the desert island.
You can also listen to all of the episodes here.
Steve Jobs was responsible for many of the technological revolutions that we now use on a regular basis. While Jobs did not invent e-mail or video chat, his products greatly facilitated their expansion and use. Apple computers were some of the first machines, for example, to incorporate built-in cameras into monitors, laptops, phones, and tablets. On numerous occasions I have found such devices incredibly useful—its been a way for me to see my family when I am traveling on the road. E-mail is also an efficient way to communicate and disseminate information quite quickly. Given that Jobs was a key trafficker of technology like e-mail and video chatting, it may come as a surprise that he believed that face-to-face meetings were important. Jobs’ biographer recounts:
“Despite being a denizen of the digital world, or maybe because he knew all too well its isolating potential, Jobs was a strong believer in face-to-face meetings. ‘There’s a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by e-mail and iChat,’ he said. ‘That’s crazy. Creativity comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what they’re doing, you say ‘Wow,’ and soon you're cooking up all sorts of ideas’” (431).
Such an observation is certainly an important one, not simply for business, but also for the church and ministry. Facebook may be an appropriate venue for sharing that you just bought a “half-caf decaf mocha-choca ya-ya,” to quote a famous comedian, at Starbucks and that everyone should know about it, but can a tweet or e-mail really convey the gospel and the attending physical presence of an ambassador of Christ? Jesus did not merely phone or tweet his ministry in. He physically came and walked the dusty roads of Israel with his disciples—he ate, rested, traveled, discussed, and lived with his disciples.
In an age where many institutions are taking greater and greater leaps to on-line education, the church may be embracing trends that might have a crippling effect upon it later down the road. Would we be willing to go to a surgeon with an on-line degree? I suspect we would want a surgeon who was trained properly and did a number of surgical internships under a seasoned surgeon to operate on us. Why are we so insistent about embodied medical care but not so concerned when it comes to matters of the soul?
J. Gresham Machen once observed, much to the consternation of fundamentalists, that oranges and cigars were some of the best aids to hearty fellowship. After Sunday worship he would bring oranges and cigars to the dorms at Princeton and he and the other young men would sit around, eat, smoke, and fellowship. In such a venue ideas, struggles, laughter, and theology were undoubtedly exchanged. It takes a while to smoke a cigar, which means that Machen’s friends sat down for long periods of time. Cigars aside, people inherently know this. When a baby is born, family travels great distances to meet the newest member of the family. When a couple is married, people physically gather to watch the ceremony and celebrate. When someone dies, people pilgrim to console the family who has suffered a loss. Facebook, e-mail, Twitter, and video chats are no substitutes for physical presence.
Such is the nature of ministry. The pastor must be physically entrenched in the life of his church—talking with his congregation, fellowshipping, and showing them hospitality. And if such is the nature of the ministry, then should we educate our ministers any differently? There is no substitute for learning in community, sharing ideas, listening to others, and spending time with your classmates and professors. It is often outside the classroom where a lot of learning goes on, where you run into someone and ask them what they’re doing, reading, or thinking about.
In Jeremiah 31, when God promised to bring a “new covenant” that will be better than the “old covenant,” that old covenant was God’s compact with Israel forged at Mount Sinai, delivered through Moses, Sinai is not the first time that “covenant” appears in the Bible. In Genesis 12 God made a covenant with Abraham, to bless him with children, give his descendants a homeland, and make him a blessing to all nations. Even earlier, in Genesis 9 God made a covenant with Noah, his family, and all living things, promising never again to wash the world clean of human filth by water (Gen. 6:18; 9:9-17). So the theme of covenant shows us “the lay of the land” in the Bible not only en route from Sinai to Calvary, but even further back in history. How far back?
Though the word “covenant” does not appear in the Bible before Noah, the reality of a covenant bond uniting God the Creator and his human creatures existed. We have reason to believe that God created Adam and Eve into a covenant bond with himself from the start. There were the parties: the Creator and the creatures whom he specially fashioned in his own image. As they stood before him in Eden, innocent and unfallen, he had created an ideal environment for them to express their exclusive trust in and loyalty toward him. His blessing and commission to multiply and to rule entailed both commands to obey and the promise of success as they did. His prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and his warning that death would ensue if his edict were defied showed the consequences that would follow, if his servant failed to fulfill the obligations. Moreover, their disobedience deprived them of access to the tree of life—a hint of the positive consequence that would have resulted had they stayed loyal. So the key components of a covenant were present.
Later Scriptures confirm this conclusion. In Hosea 6:7 God compares Israel’s violation of the covenant at Sinai with Adam’s first sin: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” In the New Testament, the comparisons and contrasts between Adam and Christ that we saw in Romans 5 presuppose that God’s original relationship with Adam was covenantal in character. Paul mentions the components of the covenant: parties (Adam and Christ as the human servants), commitment, obligations, and consequences (condemnation or justification, death or life).
There is a biblical basis, then, for the way in which the Westminster Confession described God’s original arrangement with unfallen Adam as a covenant: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (7.2). It was a “covenant of works,” because Adam’s avoiding the curse of death and receiving the blessing of life was directly dependent on Adam’s own complete and unswerving obedience as covenant servant—exclusive commitment to the Lord, expressed in continuous and comprehensive fulfillment of the Lord’s commands.
As Genesis, Hosea, Paul, and the whole history of the human race reveal, Adam broke that original covenant at creation. The consequence of covenant curse—alienation, decay, death—began to eat like slow cancer into Adam’s and Eve’s relationships with each other and with God, into the rest of the created world, and into their own bodies.
Yet God was not finished with his covenant servants. Immediately after the fall into sin God gives our guilty human family a ray of hope in his word of curse on Satan the tempter who spoke through the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). The first hint of post-fall covenant, brief as it is, brings into view the participation of both parties to the covenant, Lord and servant, to undo the damage done through Adam’s failure. The restoration of mankind to God’s favor, the reestablishment of covenant communion, will be God’s work—and man’s. We see God's initiative: “I will put enmity between the serpent and the woman." But we also see a crucial role for the woman's seed, the faithful covenant servant, who through his own suffering, his “bruised heel,” will crush the evil one's power, bruising the enemy’s head.
On January 13th and 14th, 2012, join us here on campus for our annual faculty conference! This year's conference title is The Unfolding Mystery: Reading and Applying the Bible. Dr. Godfrey, our president, will be giving the opening lecture. Here's a brief glimpse at what he'll address:
Are the ABCs of biblical theology really Arius, Briggs, and Cocceius? Is biblical theology a slave or tyrant in relation to systematic theology? Hear Godfrey’s provocative answers to these and other pressing questions in his introductory lecture at the faculty conference.
In a nutshell, Dr. Godfrey's lecture will explore the at times uneasy relationship of biblical and systematic theology in the history of the church. You don't want to miss this!
You can find out more about the conference here.
For those of you who have enjoyed reading Dr. Riddlebarger's series on Basics of the Reformed Faith, fear not! There are more posts to come. We have a dozen or more posts scheduled to run after the new year. So, stay tuned!
When faculty essays are published, they often appear in journals or books, which sometimes can be hard to obtain. If you don't want to shell out for the whole book to get one essay or you don't have access to the journal where the essay appears, then it's tough to get to the piece. But in this case, you can find Dr. Fesko's essay on Machen and the Gospel here. It was recently published in Pro Rege. Tolle et lege!
Steve Jobs, the technology visionary and acclaimed genius, is famous for changing the way people live. Jobs was part of a team that created Apple Computers, which in many ways, birthed advent of the personal computer. I can remember using an Apple II in middle school—putting the 5 ¼ floppy disk (for you youngsters out there, think of a floppy disk like a really big flash drive), turning on the computer and listening to it whirl to life—I can still hear the distinct noise of the boot-up in my mind. The list of things that Jobs has been credited with is amazing: the implementation of GUI (graphical user interfaces)—or the use of a mouse. I think few people these days know what a C: prompt is. He was CEO of Pixar, which revolutionized the animation industry and brought us the wildly popular and successful Toy Story movies. He was behind the Apple store. He led the development of the iPod, which literally changed the music industry and the way people listen to music. He led Apple to invent the iPhone and the iPad. To say the least, Jobs was definitely aggressive and innovative. How was he able to accomplish so much?
While there are many different reasons, one of them lies behind what Jobs’ co-workers called the “reality distortion field” (a term borrowed from Star Trek). Jobs was famous for pushing his employees far beyond the limits of what they thought they could do. Software engineers told Jobs that it would take 18 months to develop a piece of software—Jobs rejected their claim and told them they had until the end of the week. Surprisingly, the engineers got the task done. It is said of Jobs that he simply bent and conformed reality to his will. Jobs’ biographer recounts: “As Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘The spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers the world.’ If reality did not comport with his [Jobs’] will, he would ignore it, as he had done with the birth of his daughter and would do years later, when first diagnosed with cancer” (119). Other evidence of Jobs playing by his own rules surfaced throughout his life—he refused to use license plates on his cars and parked in handicapped spaces—rules simply did not apply to him. It seems that Jobs’ approach to business was the way he went about life, even his interaction with religion.
When Jobs was a child he saw the cover of Life magazine, which featured the picture of a pair of starving children in Biafra, Africa. Jobs went to his pastor to confront him about this: “If I raise my finger, will God know which one I’m going to raise even before I do it?” Jobs’ pastor answered affirmatively. So Jobs showed his pastor the cover of the magazine and asked, “Well, does God know about this and what’s going to happen to those children?” The pastor responded: “Steve, I know you don’t understand, but yes, God knows about that.” Jobs then proclaimed that he did not want to have anything to do with worshipping a God that allowed such things and never darkened the doors of the church again. When Jobs’ biographer later inquired about his practice of Zen Buddhism, Jobs explained his antipathy with Christianity: “The juice goes out of Christianity when it becomes too based on faith rather than on living like Jesus or seeing the world as Jesus saw it . . . I think different religions are different doors to the same house. Sometimes I think the house exists, and sometimes I don’t. It’s the great mystery” (15).
As brilliant as Jobs was, his objections to Christianity are not unique or incredibly insightful. One of the repeated mantras of liberalism is more deeds and less creeds. But here is where one’s reality distortion field runs into trouble. Jobs was insistent that one of Apple’s early computers, the Macintosh, not have a internal fan. Jobs hated fans—he believed they robbed the computer of its aesthetics—it is an annoyance to hear a fan whirring in the background. So he refused to let his engineers place fans in the computer. The absence of the fan allowed the computer to overheat and it quickly picked up the name of the “beige toaster.” As one of Jobs’ employees noted, “The reality distortion field can serve as a spur, but then reality itself hits” (186).
One cannot simply ignore the objective claims that Christ makes concerning his identity. As much as some people want to bend reality and “live like Jesus” or “look at the world like Jesus,” we cannot ignore his claims. Jesus claims, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Jesus did not appear and do a bunch of deeds; he also made claims, and those claims form the basis of our creed. Jesus makes an absolute claim that leaves us three choices—he claims to be the only way to God. Hence, as C. S. Lewis once wrote, Jesus is either a liar, because he lied about being the only way to God, or Jesus is a lunatic, on the level of someone who thought himself to be a poached egg, or he is Lord, and we have to fall on our faces and worship him as such. Jesus is either Lord or someone we would hardly want to emulate.
Another element of humanity’s efforts to ignore God surfaces in the rejection of Christianity and embracing another form of religion. Jobs embraced Zen Buddhism, for example. Yet, if people choose to worship another so-called deity, is not this other deity still responsible for all of the ills in the world? Either the deity is incapable of stopping all of the evil in the world or s/he refuses to intervene in the world. Either way, why should people worship a god who is powerless to intervene or indifferent to humanity’s suffering? I suspect that the lion’s share of people who reject Christianity on supposed moral grounds and then turn to other religions want to conform God to their own image—they want a defanged and neutered deity that fits their own desires and ideas. They do not want a god they cannot control, one who is sovereign over them. And in case some might think that the same criticism of false religions applies to Christianity, i.e., that God either is powerless or indifferent, one only need to look to the cross and behold the crucified God-man.
Try as we might to bend reality around us to conform to our will, the objective reality of God’s existence and self-disclosure in Christ confronts us. The reality of the triune God is inescapable.
The Components of Biblical Covenants
“Covenant” is the biblical way to say “relationship.” But “covenant” refers to a particular kind of interpersonal relationship. There are all sorts of interpersonal relationships in society: superficial acquaintance, business contracts, employment agreements, international treaties, friendship, casual dating, marriage, and more. Biblical covenants between the Lord and human beings are like some of these in some respects, and radically different from others. To pick up the clues to “the lay of the land” that the covenant-focus of the Bible provides, we need to identify the components that come together in biblical covenants. Although the covenants in the Bible differ in some details, I believe that this simplified description captures what they have in common:
A biblical covenant is a bond of interpersonal commitment and exclusive loyalty between the Lord and his servants, sovereignly instituted and structured by the Lord, expressed through mutual obligations, and enforced through life-or-death consequences (adapted from Robertson, Christ of the Covenants).
A covenant is, first, a committed relationship, a relationship of exclusive loyalty. The bond between the Lord and his people is intimate and affectionate, so it is compared to marriage. And like a good marriage, the covenant partners are committed to be faithful to each other exclusively. The Lord is jealous for his people, wanting them to love and trust him alone, not wandering after any other master and protector. In the first of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:3), the Lord insists: “No other gods in my presence! No rivals for your affections!”
This bond is also legal and structured, so often biblical covenants have formal features that make them resemble international treaties among Ancient Near Eastern. Words—written words—are crucial to God’s covenants, for through his words God binds himself in promise to his people and binds his people to himself through command.
Biblical covenants are bonds that are sovereignly instituted and structured by the Lord. They are not negotiated contracts between equals, but commitments imposed by the Lord whose powerful prior actions make the covenant possible in the first place. Covenants begin with what God has done (creation, exodus, cross), and from God’s actions flow the motive, rationale, and form for our response as his servants (Exod. 20:1-2).
Finally, the responses of the parties to the obligations of the covenant have consequences. Shed blood in covenant ratification ceremonies graphically represents the life-or-death consequences of covenant loyalty or treachery (Exod. 24:3-8; Jer. 34:17-20). Not surprisingly, we see the consequences most graphically from the servant’s side of the relationship. Because the Lord is faithful and true clear through, he always keeps his commitments. Therefore he always deserves his servant’s complete trust and allegiance. Yet, in Genesis 15 the Lord secures his promise by putting his own life on the line, invoking judgment on himself in the (impossible) event that he should fail to keep his word. As for the human servants bound in covenant to their divine King, alternative consequences are real possibilities and they are severe: loyal obedience will lead to unimaginable blessing and life, but rebellion will lead to unbearable cursing and death (Exod. 20:5, 7, 12; see Deut. 27-28).
The Bible’s “lay of the land”—the slope that directs the flow of Scripture’s every stream (every event and individual, every book and theme)—is the story of God’s covenant with humanity (its initiation at creation, disruption by sin, restoration through grace, and future consummation in glory). So how does this help us find our bearings as we try to read and preach Christ from all the Scriptures in a way that handles every text with integrity and fidelity?
In every text, look for the roles, responsibilities, and actions of the two parties to the covenant, the covenant Lord and the covenant Servant.
Among the most prominent themes associated with Yahweh’s role as covenant Lord are: Creator (Gen. 1:1), Provider (Isaiah 25:6-9), Rescuer and Protector (Exodus 3:1-6, 13-15), Commander (Deuteronomy 6:4-6), and Judge (Daniel 7:9-14). Among the prominent themes associated with the role of God’s human covenant servants are:
a. Primacy and privilege (Adam among the animals, Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15, 19-20; Israel among the nations, Exodus 19:5-6; the Son above all creation, Col. 1:15-22)
b. Provision (Adam in the garden, Genesis 2:8-14; Israel in Canaan, Exod. 3:8; Deut. 6:10-14; Christ by his body, Heb. 10:5-10 and the Spirit, Luke 3:21-22, Heb. 9:13-14)
c. Probation (Adam with respect to the tree, Gen. 2:16; 3:1-7; Israel with respect to the Law, Exod. 24:3-11; Deut. 6:20-25; Christ in the wilderness, Gethesemane, Golgotha and every moment in between, Luke 4:1-13; 22:39-46)
d. Product of probation:
- For Adam and his descendants, and for Israel: disobedience leading to banishment and death
- Adam, Genesis 3:8-19; Romans 5:12-14;
- Israel [exile], Deut. 11:26-29; ch. 27-28
2. For Jesus and all who are in Christ: obedience leading to resurrection life! (Acts 2:24-28; 1 Cor. 15:20-26; Rom. 8:8-11, 22-24)
Dr. Mark Futato, formerly my colleague at WSC and now professor of OT and dean of RTS Orlando, suggested a threefold way of viewing Jesus’ role as the ultimate Servant of the covenant, and our union with him in his covenant-service:
- In our place Christ fulfilled the kept the conditions of the covenant: devoted loyalty, dependent trust, eager obedience. He obeyed all God’s commands on our behalf (his “active obedience,” ground of our justification as the declaration of righteousness). Therefore he can claim by right all the blessings promised by God to the faithful covenant-keeping servant…and he shares these blessings with us!
- In our place Christ endured the consequence of our violation of the covenant: God’s righteous wrath inflicted on Jesus the condemnation, forsakenness, and death that he (Jesus) did not deserve—but we did. He endured the curses of the covenant on our behalf (his “passive obedience,” ground of our justification as the forgiveness of sins and the reconciliation of our relation to God—from hostility to peace). God the righteous judge has pronounced our debt to his justice “paid in full”—no charge or crime remains on our record—and welcomes us as beloved children (our adoption).
These are the two dimensions of the forensic, legal, objective, extrinsic aspect of our salvation—the dual ground of our justification: Christ’s flawless keeping of God’s Law and Christ’s endurance of the Law’s curse against its violators. They are grounded in our representative union with Christ Jesus.
But there is more. Christ’s saving work conveys a dual benefit, not only addressing our objective guilt before God’s righteous tribunal (in the act of justification) but also addressing our subjective defilement (in the ongoing work of sanctification) (Clark, Duplex Beneficium). As Augustus Toplady prayed in “Rock of Ages,” “Be of sin the double cure: cleanse me from its guilt and power.” The Spirit of God unites us to Christ vitally, applying his resurrection life to begin and maintain, as Paul wrote in Phil. 1:6 “a good work in you”: the subjective, internal transformation of our allegiance, values, affections, and ultimately actions, to conform us to the image of Christ :
3. In our hearts Christ enlivens, renews, and transforms us through his Spirit so that we begin to live for God’s glory by obeying the Lord’s commands, out of gratitude for grace and love for the Lord who first loved us (our regeneration and sanctification).
Only Jesus can free us from curse and give us title to blessing! Still, salvation is more than justification; and it is more than justification and adoption. It also includes sanctification (freeing us from the tyranny of sin) and ultimately glorification (freeing us from the very presence of sin, and its result in death).
This perspective helps us see the deep substructure that unites the apostles’ proclamation of Christ’s redemptive achievement from the Old Testament and their appeal to those same Scriptures as moral warning and example to the new covenant people of God—the aspect of apostolic hermeneutics and homiletics to which Jason Hood called attention in his recent essay.
Questions to ask in order to “get the lay of the land” and so proclaim Christ from all the Scriptures:
- Does this passage show me the Lord (as creator, provider, protector, commander judge)? How does Jesus fulfill those roles?
- Does this passage show me the Servant (preeminence, provision, probation, product of probation)? How did Jesus fulfill the Servant’s role for me? How does his Spirit remake me to be a faithful servant in Christ?
Remembering that the Bible, as a covenant document, is always two-sided—addressing the relationship between the divine Lord and his human servants—will help us keep our balance as we preach the diverse texts in the Bible:
- The Lord of the covenant reveals his majesty, power, purity, mercy—revealed through his initiatives in creation and redemption—as grounds for the response he expects from his servants.
- The commanded response of the covenant servants is never presented as a mere “categorical imperative,” a bare duty. Our obligation to obey is always a genuine and fitting response to the self-disclosure and the prior action of the Lord of the covenant. So then,
For texts that stress the servant’s responsibility, we will want to scan the contexts to discover the Lord’s initiative and activity, the basis of our obligation and fountain of our motivation. For texts that stress the Lord’s activity, we will scan the contexts to discover the response expected from the servant.
Apostolic Christocentric preaching is big enough to encompass not only redemption accomplished but also redemption applied. Christ-centered preaching announces redemption accomplished: what Jesus did for us once-for-all in history, fulfilling all the Father’s promises as covenant Lord, and all our obligations as covenant servant—and, more than that, enduring the covenant curse that our treason so richly deserve! But it also announces the benefits of redemption applied, the death-to-life difference that Christ’s once-for-all accomplishment effects in those who are united to this new covenant mediator by faith, And those redemptive benefits applied to us by the Spirit of Christ are wide enough to embrace both his rectifying of our sordid record and the renovation of our corrupted hearts: regeneration, forgiveness, vindication, reconciliation, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.
Next Wednesday is the final post of "Him We Proclaim": an appendix on broader covenant structure.
The Old-Fashioned Way
WSC is old-fashioned in other ways as well. Unlike many seminaries, we still require students to learn to read God's Word in the original languages. This was the vision of our founder, J. Gresham Machen, that Westminster would produce men who are experts in the Bible. For this reason, students spend much of their first year learning Greek and Hebrew. They're expected to attend their other classes in Systematic, Practical, and Historical Theology with their Greek and Hebrew Bibles open as well. They also attend more advanced courses in exegesis—that is, the explanation of the biblical text. More than just biblical study, they learn what to do with the Bible in the Church. They learn the biblical theology of the Church, her offices, and the theology and practice of pastoral ministry.
The new technologies cannot and should not replace face-to-face seminary education. What they can do, however, is extend the seminary's ability to help pastors continue their education. Just as lawyers and physicians are required to continue their education, so congregations should give prayerful consideration to sending their pastor(s) back to seminary for a time of study and renewal. This small step might reduce ministerial “burnout” significantly. Having laid the foundation of life-long learning in the classroom, we can help pastors keep up with theological, intellectual, and academic trends via email discussion lists, web pages, interactive seminars, and the like.
Our seminary has been entrusted with a tremendous responsibility. At WSC the faculty takes this responsibility with utmost seriousness. No seminary (or any human institution) is perfect, and we are profoundly aware of this fact. Nevertheless, the Lord has given us this ministry of training men for ministry. Our slogan (as expressed in the Greek text on our school seal) declares, "The whole counsel of God." That is the mark we aim to hit: to train men to preach all of God’s Word. It is no easy task, but it is a joyous one. Please pray for us as we pray for you and the prosperity of Christ’s church.
This is the final post of the series.
First published in Evangelium, Vol. 5, Issue 3.
Office Hours talks to Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California and Professor of Church History, about why evangelicals and other Protestants become Roman Catholic and how we should respond. You can find the episode here. To listen to all of the Office Hours episodes, click here.
3. Getting the Lay of the Land: The “Covenant Terrain” of the Scriptures
Picture yourself lost in a forest on a cloudy night—no road signs or trail markers, no landmarks to be seen. What seemed, when you set out on it, to be a well-worn path disappeared into a thicket, or perhaps forked in two different directions. But you are an experienced hiker, and you have come upon a gently flowing creek. Knowing that every stream in those rolling hills eventually wends its way down to the river, and beside that river is a town that offers shelter from a coming storm, which direction will you head? Upstream, against the current of the creek? Of course not. Across the creek at a 90-degree angle from its flow? No. You will head downstream, following the flow the water. Although you cannot foresee the creek’s every twist and turn, you know that gravity is pulling its waters down to the river, and thus to the town. It shows the lay of the land.
This scenario illustrates the importance of paying attention to how a specific passage fits into the big, overarching theme of the Bible. In all the Bible’s diversity and details, at its heart Holy Scripture is about the relationship of God the Creator to his human creatures. It traces the unfolding history of that relationship from (1) its pristine joy at creation, through (2) its disruption by our fall into sin, to (3) its restoration through God’s merciful rescue, first (a) anticipated in the promises and previews in the Old Testament and then (b) accomplished by Jesus (in his obedient life, sacrificial death, and triumphant resurrection), now (c) applied to our lives by the Holy Spirit, and finally (d) to be consummated, when he returns, in the new heavens and earth. The biblical way to say “the relationship of God and humankind” is “covenant.” To “get the lay of the land” that shows how all roads (even faint footpaths) lead to Scripture’s “metropolis,”—to “follow the current” of each biblical stream—we need to see the Bible as the book of the covenant, the book of the bond between our Creator-Lord and us, his creature-servants.
When I teach this point in churches that may not be as attuned to “covenant” as, I expect, we are here, I asked folks to open their Bibles to the page just before Genesis 1, and then to the page just before Matthew 1. On those two pages I expect they will find the words “Old Testament” and “New Testament.” Those terms are so familiar that we may ignore their significance, filtering them out like “white noise.” But we should notice what the terms “Old” and “New Testament” signal about the structure and content of the Scripture.
“Old” and “New” draw a distinction in time, between what came earlier and what has come later. They signal that the Bible’s “lay of the land” is historical. The Bible is the self-disclosure of the God who does things in history, who does not “keep his place” as an aloof, safe, super-spiritual abstraction that we can admire or discuss from afar (as the Deists of the 18th century thought he should). This is a God who “meddles” in the affairs of individuals and nations, who creates and calls and judges and rescues. The God who speaks in the Bible has an agenda, and he is on the move to direct history toward his good goal for his creation.
Secondly, consider the word “Testament.” In our day “testament” appears in the term “last will and testament,” the document by which an individual directs how his or her property is to be distributed when he or she has died. As a term designating the two subdivisions of the Bible, testament does designate a legal document, in which one individual unilaterally issues directives that affect others. It comes into our English versions “testament” from the Latin word testamentum, which in turn represented the New Testament’s Greek word diathēkē. The New Testament authors used diathēkē in passages that referred to the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31—Jesus’ words instituting the Lord’s Supper, Paul’s discussion of old and new covenant ministry in 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 7-10—because Jewish scholars of the Dispersion who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (Septuagint) had used diathēkē in place of the Hebrew word berith—which we now see rendered “covenant” in our English versions. The secular sense of the Greek diathēkē (and Latin testamentum) as “last will and testament” lacked one crucial component of the Hebrew berith: a covenant is a solemn, legal commitment between living persons—husband and wife, a dominant king and a weaker king, and of course the Lord and Israel. The berith, covenant, obligated both parties to keep their respective “ends of the bargain.” But the Lord set the terms through his promises and commands, and he announced the consequences for “breach of contract.” His servants’ role was simply to say, “Amen!” to God’s promises, and “Yes, Sir!” to God’s demands…and, from that point on, to trust and obey.
So we should understand “Old Testament/New Testament” as “Old Covenant/New Covenant,” and see these terms as reflecting God’s promise in Jeremiah 31 to establish a new, unbreakable covenant, not like the covenant of Sinai that Israel had violated (Jer. 31:31-34; see Heb. 8:6-10). That covenant promise encapsulated the historical structure of the Bible: God’s promise and its fulfillment in Jesus distinguished the two major epochs of God’s speaking to humanity: (a) the Old Covenant, beginning with the books of Moses, read in synagogues each Sabbath (2 Cor. 3:14-15; see Acts 15:21); and (b) the New Covenant, established by the sacrificial blood of Christ and announced in the apostolic gospel (Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:21; 2 Cor. 3:6).
Next Wednesday's post will break down the components of biblical covenants.
A number of years ago a young boy had a near death experience, which is recounted in the best-selling book Heaven Is For Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story Of His Trip to Heaven and Back. This book is ranked number one under Amazon’s “religion and spirituality: occult” category and number three in “Christian books and Bibles: Christian living” and “theology” categories. It has an amazing 2,241 reviews and ranks at 4.5 out of 5 stars. The book’s description explains that it recounts this little boy’s “mystic visions of heaven” as he told his father about them. Keep in mind, at the time, this boy was four years old.
Today, a story appeared on the Internet where the Today Show interviewed this little boy eight years later. The interviewer asked him a number of questions about his experiences. The boy’s father, a Wesleyan minister, explained that his son saw deceased family members, Jesus, and God. You can find other links to interviews with this boy here.
There are two observations about this. First, it is understandable how desperate people are for information about the afterlife. From a this-world perspective, death certainly seems like an exclamation point at the end of life with nothing but silence and many questions to follow. However, what amazes me is that people are willing to flock to the supposed mystical visions of a four-year-old child rather than seek the truth from the Scriptures. In one sense, such a pattern is to be expected from unbelievers—they will seek answers from everywhere but God’s revelation. But what is befuddling is that this book is published by a Christian publisher. How many Christians, therefore, have flocked to this book looking for answers and run right past the Bible? Moreover, I have a four-year-old son—I would never seek knowledge about the afterlife from him. Why would I accept the purported testimony of a preschooler over the word of God?
The second observation is the original context where I found a link to this story. The story was recounted in the context of a recap of recent TV stories—including a cockatoo that feeds a dog spaghetti, Whoopi Goldberg’s banana peel shoes, and TV hosts playing with nerf guns. In other words, serious matters about theology and the afterlife got the same amount of time and billing as the inane, mundane, and silly. Is TV a suitable means to communicate serious truth? As Neil Postman has observed in his trenchant study, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the means of communication inherently shapes the communicated content. Case in point, a bird that feeds a dog spaghetti was deemed as noteworthy as eternal life.
Our only source of our knowledge of salvation is Scripture and the chief means by which this knowledge is diffused is the foolishness of preaching. We should be dubious about preschool mystics and TV as a proper means to propagate the gospel. In the face of doubts and fears only the Word of God and its proclamation can assuage our troubled hearts.
George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century by Arnold A. Dallimore
“God give me a deep humility, a well-guided zeal, a burning love and a single eye, and then let men or devils do their worst.”
This prayer from Whitefield as he boarded a ship that would take him to begin his missionary work in America captures the great evangelist’s life.
Arnold A. Dallimore’s George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century is a condensation of his larger two volume work on Whitefield. This book recounts in a moving pace the life of this incredible eighteenth century preacher.
Prior to reading Dallimore’s book, I knew little of George Whitefield and his place in history. This short book remedied that situation. From its opening pages, this book captures the reader’s attention and holds it throughout the duration of the tour it gives of Whitefield’s amazing life. Dallimore’s writing style is unobtrusive and clear, moving the reader through the life and work of George Whitefield. The reader is taken from Whitefield’s youth and pre-conversion zeal (where something of Whitefield’s character and disposition is revealed), to his intense and driven singular passion for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of special interest to the seminary student is the description of Whitefield’s devotion to study of the Bible. We are told that Whitefield would at 5am be on his knees before his English Bible, his Greek Testament, and Matthew Henry’s commentary and
“with intense concentration he reads a portion in English, studies its words and tenses in the Greek, and then considers Matthew Henry’s exposition of the whole” and then praying over every line and every word in both the English and the Greek, feasting his mind and his heart upon it till its essential meaning has become a part of his very person.” (pg 22)
Another interesting fact that must surely bring a smile to the face of Westminster Seminary’s own Dr. Hywel Jones is that “the idea of preaching out-of-doors did not originate with Whitefield. It came to him through correspondence with a tireless, fearless, dynamic Welshman, Howell Harris” (pg 44). Included in Dallimore’s book is a wonderful nugget of how Whitefield and a Moravian were unable to communicate because Whitefield did not speak German and the Moravian did not speak English—so they conversed in Latin! (pg 80)
Whitefield’s life exhibits feats of mythical proportions from the incredible number of people that gathered to hear him preach (60-80 thousand), to the sheer number of times he preached (40 or more hours per week). Dallimore notes that the people who gathered to hear him in a pre-amplification age were “undoubtedly the largest ever reached by a human voice in all history” (pg 56). The equally astounding danger and violent harassment endured by the movements at the time (Whitefield’s, Harris’, and Wesley’s people as well as the Moravians) were also staggering.
Describing the mob’s violent behavior in Whitefield’s day against his close friend and colleague Cennick and the Welshman Harris, “the mob fired guns over our heads, holding the muzzles so near to our faces that we were made as black as tinkers with the powder…[they] broke all the windows [of a friend’s home]…cut and wounded four of his family, and knocked down one of his daughters” (134) . Other encounters with the mob against Whitefield and his colleagues included attacks, bodily thrashings, severe stonings, and other harsh injury and assault. These kinds of things are difficult for those of us in America in 2011 to comprehend.
Especially moving and significant for the student preacher are the descriptions of Whitefield’s preaching and its effect on the multitudes that heard him. His preaching is described as being not only heard but felt (53, 54). And so as the Holy Spirit worked through Whitefield’s preaching on the people of a coal mining town, we have this account:
“Having no righteousness of their own to renounce, they were glad to hear of a Jesus who was a friend of publicans and sinners, and came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. The first discovery of their being affected was to see the white gutters made by the tears which plentifully fell down their black cheeks, as they came out of their coal pits. Hundreds and hundreds of them were soon brought under deep convictions, which, as the event proved, happily ended in a sound and thorough conversion. ” (46)
I highly recommend this short volume to all. It is a great and accessible biography. Anyone interested in history, from the high school student to the retiree, will count the small investment of time and money more than worthwhile. It is very encouraging and inspiring for the aspiring and the already minister and a must-read for those working on the mission field or in evangelism. The only warning I have about the book is that it may stir within the reader the desire to obtain the larger work.
Reviewed by Tony Garbarino, MDiv Candidate
Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel’s Worship (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2001). 228pp. Paper. $13.00
Tremper Longman’s book is a must read. For biblical scholars and pastors, it is a great review. For those who may find Meredith Kline a daunting read, Longman's book is simpler. For anyone interested in facilitating a Bible study on how to see Christ in the Old Testament, this book is sufficient. It is a popular read, on many levels, even as the series editor suggests, but that does not mean this work is void of profound truths. Sometimes the most profound truths come in simple packages and Longman’s book exemplifies this.
Longman covers a lot in nineteen chapters, but he provides a good bibliography in the endnotes and questions for consideration at the conclusion of every chapter, which pushes one to deepen his or her biblical understanding. In particular, most of his connections are fairly standard and are not too controversial. It is not until you reach chapters 15 and 16 that you may find your envelope being stretched. Chapter 15 is titled, “The Sabbath: The Focus of Sacred Time,” and chapter 16 is titled, “Christ and Sabbath: Sacred Time Reconfigured.” Any person who has adopted a view regarding the Sabbath will read these chapters wondering where Longman will end up. Is the Sabbath something to be continually obeyed? At some points it seems that Longman would agree (169); yet, at other points one is not quite so sure (179-182). Whatever his position is, he clearly demonstrates Christ’s relation to the Sabbath and how he fulfilled it.
Longman’s approach is relatively simple. Part one explores the notion of sacred space and how it relates to worship in the Old Testament. He begins in the Garden then moves on to discuss the idea of worship in certain locations after the Fall. He explains how worship occurred at altars, the tabernacle, and the temple. At the conclusion of chapter 6, he explains how Christ was the fulfillment of these Old Testament types. He opened chapter 6 by asking the question, “Where do we go to be in the presence of God?” (63). He later answers the question by saying Christians no longer require the temple or any other Old Testament type “because we have Jesus, who is God himself” (69). He then spends several pages explaining that, while Jesus was the true temple (69), Christians are also temples (70-72). Then he seeks to answer the question of whether heaven will have a temple after the final consummation.
In part two, Longman outlines the details regarding the sacrificial system. He next takes some time to explain how Jesus fulfilled those shadows. In particular, he wants to demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled each type of sacrifice. Admittedly, he notes that in some places in the New Testament, a distinction is not made; however, there are places where the New Testament authors provide enough information to make a direct link to Jesus’ fulfillment of a specific type of Old Testament sacrifice. This section of his work is particularly neat, as many Christians seek to lump Jesus’ sacrifice into a general mold without noticing the nuances of his death and how it pertains to a specific sacrifice in the Old Testament.
Parts three and four cover the notion of a sacred people and a sacred time. In these sections, Longman explains how Christ, as the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizadek, fulfills the priesthood of the old dispensation and how his work enables Christians to be priests today. Briefly, he discusses the priesthood of every believer before moving on to discuss “sacred time.” It is here where he covers the idea of the Sabbath, Sabbatical Year, and several of the other Old Testament festivals.
All in all, this is a great book and one that should be on your shelf. If there is any constructive criticism, it is minor. In some places Longman makes claims that he does not substantiate biblically (133). In other places, as has been mentioned, you may wonder what his stance is on the Sabbath. However, these things are minor and should not prohibit you from purchasing and reading this excellent work.
Leon Brown, MDiv
The latest faculty publication is an essay by Dr. Horton, "Ephesians 4.1-16: The Ascension, the Church, and the Spoils of War." The essay is part of Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives, edited by R. Michael Allen and published by T & T Clark. Dr. Horton's essay is a great piece on the significance and importance of Christ's ascension (note, not the resurrection, as important as it is) for the doctrine of the church. It's definitely worth a read.
The book itself is a contribution to the growing trend of theological commentaries on Scripture. For far too long theology has been quarantined from the process of writing biblical commentaries. The New Testament guild has decried bringing one's theological presuppositions to the exegetical task and has wanted to wrestle with the text alone. All the while the same scholars who have decried bringing theology to the exegetial process have hypocritcally brought their own theology through the back door. It is therefore refreshing to have theologians offering exegesis and organically based theological observations in the interpretive task.
The book's contributors include, among others, Michael Allen, Kelly Kapic, Daniel Treier, Kevin Vanhoozer, Scott Swain, Henri Blocher, D. A. Carson, and Andrew McGowan, Ryan Peterson, and Walter Moberly. You can buy a copy of the book here. Enjoy!
Follow the Money
In the discussion over the question, "Why seminary?" a frequent objection is that seminary is too expensive. The assumption here seems to be that professional training for our ministers could be done less expensively by frugal pastors who know what they are doing. Well, the administrative overhead at WSC is quite low. Some of our staff have given up lucrative careers in order to advance God’s kingdom serving at the seminary. The cost of seminary at WSC is ranked almost exactly in the middle of seminaries in the USA. Given the quality of the education at WSC, we think that the tuition is quite reasonable. Costs do rise, but some of them are uncontrollable, such as the cost of books which have risen considerably over the years. What should the seminarian-pastor do? Go without books? Would you visit a mechanic who had no tools?
One should not assume that the proposed electronic alternative is cheaper. Electronic, distance education does not promise to be any less expensive, in the long-run. Darryl Hart, in the October 1997 issue of New Horizons, noted that there are hidden costs to distance education.
Then we must consider the seminary facilities. Each distance-learning student must have a suitable computer and the associated software, which will need regular up-grading. More than that, the long-distance seminarian will need his own seminary library, since the equivalent does not yet exist online. A decent library for such an enterprise could easily cost thousands of dollars even with use of free, online, resources such as Google books or archive.org which usually offer only older books on which the copyright has lapsed.
Thus, even in the distance-education scheme, one has made a substantial investment, but there are less tangible costs as well. When, in this scenario, will the stay-at-home seminarian study his Greek and Hebrew? Who will evaluate his sermons? With whom will he compare notes? Will he really memorize his Greek and Hebrew vocabulary or will that also be too much bother? Will he really spend the late hours necessary to do the reading and writing for class? A computer terminal or video screen is wonderful, but it is not the kind of human fellowship or genuine community that is so vital to the adequate preparation of pastors.
All this is to point out that there is no easy route to the ministry and we delude ourselves if we say that there is. It is the Church’s obligation to make certain that the seminaries to which she sends her young (and older!) men are worthy. What constitutes a worthy place? One which continues to confess the historic Reformed faith, one that not only keeps up with the questions and criticisms offered by the culture, but also offers biblical and intelligent answers to those criticisms. That is, a worthy seminary is one which understands the times in which we minister and who equips her students to face those times and to stand in the pulpit week after week and tell the truth, all of it, regardless of the consequences. WSC, was, is, and shall, by God’s grace, remain such a worthy place.
More next Thursday!
First published in Evangelium, Vol. 5, Issue 3.
S. M. Baugh
R. Scott Clark
Bryan D. Estelle
Michael S. Horton
Hywel R. Jones
Joel E. Kim
Robert B. Strimple
Joshua J. Van Ee
David M. VanDrunen
W. Robert Godfrey
Kim Riddlebarger
J. V. Fesko
Iain M. Duguid
John G. Bales
Dennis E. Johnson
Danny Hyde
Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton, Part 1
The End of the World According to Harold Camping: Part 1
The End of the World According to Harold Camping: Part 2
Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton, Part 2
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Populi
RSS
Podcast
Email