BAVINCK ON THE WILL OF GOD BEING BOTH NECESSARY AND FREE

From the great Dutch Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck:

The will in God is neither a formal arbitrariness divorced from all his attributes and from his being as a whole nor a capacity for choice that is bound by all those attributes and that being as a whole and therefore unfree. For us the will of God is often the final ground of things, and we have to acquiesce in it, even though we do not know why God acts thus and not otherwise, for he never acts except in harmony with all his attributes, his love, wisdom, righteousness, and so on. And this agreement of the will of God with all his attributes is not coercive, not a restriction for that will, but precisely the true and highest freedom. To will and to act as his holy, wise, almighty, and loving nature itself wants is for God both the highest freedom and the highest necessity (Sin and Salvation in Christ, vol. 3 of Reformed Dogmatics [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], p. 371).

I know Bavinck read Jonathan Edwards. While he doesn't footnote Edwards here, what he writes sounds very similar to Edwards's argument for compatibilism in The Freedom of the Will. Freedom and determinism are no more at odds than freedom and necessity.

JOEL OSTEEN ON LARRY KING

Tony Felich has posted a clip of Joel Osteen's recent interview with Larry King along with a clear evaluation of it.

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

KING: What if you’re Jewish or Muslim, you don’t accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I’m very careful about saying who would and wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t know …

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong, aren’t they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong. I believe here’s what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person’s heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don’t know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don’t know. I’ve seen their sincerity. So I don’t know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

A classic treatment from Edwards on Christian living is his letter to Deborah Hatheway.

There he writes on doubt and fear in the Christian life:

10. If at any time you fall into doubts about the state of your soul under darkness and dull frames of mind, 'tis proper to look over past experiences, but yet don't consume too much of your time and strength in poring and puzzling thoughts about old experiences, that in dull frames appear dim and are very much out of sight, at least as to that which is the cream and life and sweetness of them: but rather apply yourself with all your might, to do an earnest pursuit after renewed experiences, new light, and new, lively acts of faith and love. One new discovery of the glory of Christ's face, and the fountain of his sweet grace and love will do more towards scattering clouds of darkness and doubting in one minute, than examining old experiences by the best mark that can be given, a whole year.

11. When the exercise of grace is at a low ebb, and corruption prevails, and by that means fear prevails, don't desire to have fear cast out any other way, than by the reviving and prevailing of love, for 'tis not agreeable to the method of God's wise dispensations that it should be cast out any other way; for when love is asleep, the saints need fear to restrain them from sin and therefore it is so ordered that at such times fear comes upon them, and that more or less as love sinks. But when love is in lively exercise, persons don't need fear, and the prevailing of love in the heart, naturally tends to cast out fear, as darkness in a room vanishes away as you let more and more of the perfect beams of the sun into it, 1 John 4:18.

ARE HUMANS BORN IN A STATE OF SIN?

Recently, I was thinking through the subject of original sin. Simply put, original sin is:

(1) The guilty status of Adam inherited by his descendants who are born by ordinary generation.

and

(2) A corruption of nature in the same.

The Westminster Confession 6.3, 4 says this about those two ideas:

3. They [Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind. the guilt of this sin [the first sin] was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

According to Westminster's understanding of original sin, the question "Are humans born in a state of sin?" would be answered "Yes. Humans are born in a state of sin."

My thoughts on this issue centered on an objection to a proof I have heard and held over the years for the view expressed above.

The proof: Humans must be born in a state of sin, because babies die.

The objection: Babies are amoral creatures until they actually reach an age in which they can actively rebel.

I understand that difficulties abound with this objection. First, the precise timing of such a transition (i.e. the proposed "age of accountability) is a huge discussion in itself. Furthermore, the argument could be made that morality is an aspect of the human nature (which I agree with), and, therefore, to strip a baby of its morality is to strip it of its humanity. Moreover, there is the question of when life actually begins. Is it at conception, during gestation, or at birth. I am inclined to believe it is at conception. But notwithstanding the importance of those issues, for the sake of argument let's limit the question "Are humans born into a state of sin?" to the moment of birth in order to focus on what I believe is a more fundamental point.

Let's trace the objection out. The argument is that the moment a baby is born, it is not yet a moral creature. Therefore, it cannot be born in a sinful state. Therefore, if it dies in that moment, it will not die condemnable. It's death would be the same as the death of the amoral creation. Animals and plants die, and that kind of death is certainly the result of sin. But its not the result of their sin. Why could we not think of babies in the same way?

As I was reading Edwards on Original Sin today I had a thought. Assuming a case could be made that morality is not essential to human nature, then the argument above is a reasonable explanation for the death of babies. If accepted, it is also a reasonable explanation of why a baby would not be condemnable at death.

However, the argument for amorality completely undermines the fundamental impetus behind it. Those who might mount this kind of argument are not merely content to demonstrate that a baby is uncondemnable. They want to demonstrate that the baby automatically goes to heaven. But while an amoral creature is clearly by definition uncondemnable, it is also by definition unjustifiable. It is unable to enter into heaven. Only the righteous, the justified, can enter into heaven. Righteousness requires morality. Therefore, we cannot say that babies are amoral unless we are willing to say they are not proper candidates for eternal life. This is a fundamental flaw in the argument for infant amorality and the so called age of accountability. The death of babies is indeed a good proof for the doctrine of original sin.

So what does this say about the eternal states of infants who die? I think it says that they are born in a state of sin (i.e. original sin). They die because they are sinners. What is the only hope of sinners for redemption unto eternal life? The finished work of Jesus Christ. If Christ died for the infant, then that infant will be forgiven, justified, and enter into eternal life. There is no other way of salvation. God is good and he is saving a people out of the world by his gracious covenant in Christ's blood. Our covenant God is faithful and true. He can be trusted to do what is right.

MY SCREWTAPE LETTER

In 1961 C. S. Lewis published a book called The Screwtape Letters. The book is a collection of letters from a fictional correspondence between two demons. Screwtape is a senior demon giving advice to his nephew demon Wormwood about one of Wormwood's "projects." The project is very simple. Wormwood is charged to tempt a man so as to entangle him with sin. Ultimately the demons hope to hinder the work of their Enemy (Jesus Christ) and his church for the glory of their Father, Satan. If you haven't read The Screwtape Letters I encourage you to check it out. It is beautifully written and packed with wisdom.

During my seminary days I wrote my own Screwtape letter as a Spiritual Formation project. That was more than 2 years ago now. I just read through it again, and, while I still suffer the same old weaknesses, God has been faithful. Overall, I think there has been significant growth by his grace. Here's my old Screwtape letter:

My Dear Wormwood,

I am glad to hear of your assault against Jay’s conscience. Our Father will surely be proud to hear of your relentless dedication in warring against our Foe. However, let me remind you that our fight cannot be waged with overwhelming force. The Enemy has the high ground. Under our current limitations we must be content with persistently driving small wedges of deception into Jay’s mind, in order to confuse him and draw his attention away from the Enemy. It really makes no difference what his attention is directed toward, because as soon as his eyes are fixed on something else he will surely slip. But I would suggest you lead him into that circus shop of mirrors where he cannot help but focus on his distorted self. Next remind him of images of great beauty so his pride will be provoked to envy and lust. Then he will give himself away to fear and insecurity. He will neglect the ones he loves as he is consumed with anger, hate, and bitterness towards the world. He will look frantically for images of lesser beauty in order to accentuate what he perceives as beautiful within himself. Then he will Lord himself over them in order to relieve the pain. If your warfare is persistent and especially deceptive you can severely debilitate Jay by vacillating him between these two extremes like a piston firing in an internal combustion engine. Pound him up and down until the heat and friction cause burnout. But you must be careful not to take him down too hard, for history is replete with men who have been provoked to look to the Enemy for help and comfort when they are overwhelmed by the severity of our Father’s malice. And the Enemy is always there to help them, what a burden! No Wormwood, you must lead Jay into the fire gradually. Remember the frog in the kettle. Raise the heat slowly enough, and he’ll be boiling before he knows to jump out.

Whatever happens, do not let Jay live in remembrance of our Enemy’s “gospel.” That damned message has caused more trouble for us than you will ever know! It is in the “gospel,” that subjects like Jay are comforted. The Enemy would like his sons to remember His victory over our Great Father, but we must do everything in our power to muddle their thinking. Convince Jay that he must perform certain works in order to merit the Enemy’s favor. Even if those works are prayer and bible study, encourage him to do them, because if he does them under a motivation to earn God’s favor, he’ll be just as much ours as those Pharisees we worked on during our Enemy’s mission on the earth. You must not let him remember grace! The moment he remembers grace all your efforts will become impotent. It is that terrible “gospel of grace” that is unassailable for us. It cleanses the consciences of all those who believe in it, and a cleansed conscience is contrary to everything we fight for. Our goal is a conscience stained with the guilt and condemnation of sin. It is that kind of conscience that sullies the love exchanged between the enemy and his subjects. Remember this: Jay’s comfort hinges on a clear view of his own sin and the Enemy’s gracious work on his behalf. Therefore, convince Jay that he’s not all that bad—after all he is a pastor. Then he will lose sight of the Enemy’s grace. Puff him up with images of success and significance, and he will be of much use to us. Then all he does will be an attempt to exalt himself above the one who calls himself "Most High." That is the true gospel. That is our Father’s gospel. We too can be like God! The Enemy’s kingdom is strong, but our Father’s kingdom still burns in Jay’s breast. Kindle those embers, Wormwood, and perhaps the fires in our Father’s house will burn a little brighter tonight.

GOD MOVES IN A MYSTERIOUS WAY

by William Cowper


God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill,
He treasures up his bright designs
And works his sovereign will.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purpose will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain.

A DISCUSSION ON ARMINIANISM

After my last post on Ben Witherington's response to John Piper's theodicy, TEDS philosophy student and Arminian theologian D. C. Cramer asked some very good questions in the comment section. We have also discussed much in the comments of this post. I encourage you to check out our conversations.

WITHERINGTON ON THEODICY AND THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE COLLAPSE

Dr. Ben Witherington, Professor of NT Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary, posted an article a few days ago in response to John Piper's comments on the Minneapolis bridge collapse. I've posted earlier on that event and the issues of theodicy related to it here and here. It seems very clear that Witherington disagrees with Piper's take. He writes:

John Piper on his website of course recently had a post about the disastrous collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. His view was that however random it might seem to us, that actually this was the will of God, and in essence we should just suck it up. God is sovereign and he disposes things as he will, and according to his sovereign pre-ordained plan. If you just happened to be on the raw end of the deal, so much the worse for you. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, actually God has a right to judge the whole world now, if he so chooses. The fact that he spared some shows God's mercy, according to Piper, but he was under no obligation to spare anyone. 'There but for the grace of God go I", so to speak. This doesn't sound much like an attempt to mourn with those who are mourning.

I wrote my masters thesis on Jonathan Edwards's theodicy, and I am certain that Piper follows Edwards down the line on this issue. So let's examine Witherington's critique and see if he has correctly understood Piper.

First let's look at what Piper posted having said about the event in talking with his young daughter Talitha the night of the collapse:

"God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand." Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills."

So Piper understands that "God could have held up that bridge" and that "God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge." In short God allowed (or permitted) the bridge to fall, and he had a reason for allowing it to fall. In allowing it to fall for a reason, it is proper to say that God willed the fall of the bridge. Witherington reflects a correct understanding of this in his article when he writes:

[Piper's] view was that however random it might seem to us, that actually this was the will of God.

But unfortunately that appears to be where his understanding of Piper's view both starts and stops. Witherington proceeds to ask questions that clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding. He writes:

My question for them would--- is God the author of sin as well?

First, the question "Is God the author of sin?" is a bit loaded. Piper is in agreement with Edwards in answering this question. Edwards writes:

If by the author of sin, be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin; rejecting such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin, and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow;—I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein is holy, and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature (Freedom of the Will, vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957], p. 399).

So is God the author of sin? It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean, "Does God sin?" or "Does God tempt creatures to sin?" then Edwards's and Piper's answer is an emphatic no! God is NOT the author of sin. If, however you mean, "Does God foreordain (decide beforehand) whether sin should occur in his creation or not, so that it must then come to pass?" then yes! God IS the author of sin. The distinction is important. It is unfortunate that Witherington either isn't aware of it or failed to address it. As we will see, it makes all the difference.

Next Witherington asks:

Is God responsible for all that goes wrong in the world?

Again, Piper understands this issue in Edwardsian terms. If by "responsible" you mean "Is God culpable for wrongdoing?" then no. Of course, not. God is NOT responsible for all that goes wrong in the world. If, on the other hand, you mean "Is God the ultimate cause of wrongdoing?" then yes. God IS responsible for all that goes wrong in the world. Again, the distinction here is of utmost importance. Fundamentally it is a distinction based on the ideas Witherington addresses next. He asks:

Do these folks really have no clear sense of secondary causes which, while we can say God allows them to happen, we certainly would not want to say God causes or ordains them to happen? Is there no such thing in their vocabulary as God's permissive will? And even if there is-- what good is it for them to talk about God's permissive will, if in fact they think that God pre-ordains both what he permits as well as what he does directly?

Of course they do! Piper, along with Edwards, affirms the idea of secondary causation and the permissive will of God. That's why the distinctions above are so crucial. The idea of a second cause fundamentally implies what? A first cause. Every second requires a first. What Piper was trying to explain in his response to the bridge collapse was that God is THE first cause. Nothing happens that God, in the order of causes, is not ultimately responsible for causing. Where Witherington errs is in conflating the concept of order in causation with the concept of efficiency in causation.

The question of culpability is a question of efficiency. It is a question of who actually did the wrong thing. Both first and second causes can be efficient causes. But only second causes are efficient in wrongdoing. Only second causes have wrong motives and do wrong, which is sin. When God permits wrongdoing he functions as a first cause, which means that in the order of causation God is first. In that sense (i.e. that God is the first cause) it is appropriate to speak of God as having willed the wrongdoing. But, we must remember, even though he is first in the order of causation, he is not therefore culpable for actually doing wrong. Culpability is dependent on efficiency in causation. Order does not necessarily speak to the issue of efficiency. Just because God is a first cause that does not automatically make him an efficient cause. God may foreordain and permit a wrongdoing without doing wrong. How? The wrong is done through the efficiency of a second cause. The second cause is the agent who has the wrong motive and actually does the wrong act NOT God.

And finally, on the issue of what Witherington calls pre-ordination, more commonly known as foreordination, in my judgment he seems to be missing a very important disctinction that Piper would make. Foreordination only speaks to order in causation. It does not speak to efficiency in causation. Therefore, it is proper to speak of God as pre-ordaining wrongdoing in the world ,so that wrongdoing must necessarily come to pass. God is THE first cause (i.e. he is responsible) for all that comes to pass. However, that in no way means that God actually does the wrong thing. When God pre-ordains that evil occur, he is, properly speaking, active only in the decision to allow it. Nonetheless God's decision or decree to permit the occurrence of evil is not a "bare" permission. It insures that the actual wrongdoing must then come to pass, and God intends that the evil that comes to pass fit into the history of his creation for an ultimately good end, but God is not active in the doing of it. God's role in the chain of causation with respect to wrongdoing is an inefficient one. Without the evil motive of a secondary agent, the wrong would not come to pass. In other words the agent of secondary causation is the sole efficient cause of the evil itself. The secondary agent is the only causal agent culpable for evil.

Here's how it breaks down when evil occurs in the world:

There are agents involved:

(1) God

(2) Moral creatures

There is an order of causation:

(1) First cause- God; ultimately responsible.

(2) Second cause- Moral creatures; penultimately responsible.

There is an efficiency in causation (speaks to being motivated wrongly and therefore doing the wrong):
(1) Inefficient cause- God; not culpable for evil.

(2) Efficient cause- Moral creatures; culpable for evil.

Unfortunately Dr. Witherington's critique fails to address these fundamental distinctions which leads to a misrepresentation of Piper's Edwardsian theodicy.

IS MATERIAL PROSPERITY PROMISED TO GOD'S PEOPLE?

Yesterday I received an email from a friend with a question enclosed from an acquaintence of his. His friend asked:

I had a question for you about Reformed Theology when you get a chance. In the OT material blessing and prosperity seemed to be promised for the covenant people when as a nation (under the theocratic administration) they were living in conformity with God's Law. If the Church is a continuation of Israel, how do those blessings manifest themselves. Dispensationalists (as you know) would simply explain it in terms of a dispensational change. I know well that Prosperity Theology is not found in Reformed circles (most prosperity guys seem to be dispensationalists after a fashion). Anyway, according to Reformed thinking are the blessings, are all the blessings spiritual now, we're they always exclusively spiritual, or is their some contingency by which they will be manifested today. I assume our reconstructionist brethren would say they'll be awailable as soon as we re-establish the OT theocracy, but what is the mainstream Reformed opinion.

Here was my response to the question:

Your friend asks a good question. While I can't speak to the mainstrean Reformed opinion, I would answer in terms of the change of administration from Old Testament (OT) to New Testament (NT). Westminster teaches one covenant of grace in two administrations, employing the Aristotelian categories of "substance" and "accident (or expression, administration)." The covenant is one in substance and two in administration. The two administrations outlined in WCF 7.5 are "law" and "gospel," corresponding respectively to OT and NT. While there is both law and gospel in each administration , they are marked by different emphases.

WCF 7.6 describes a difference in emphasis between the two administrations, which, while directly speaking to the sacraments, can rightly be understood to apply to the issue of material blessing as well. It says:

Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are . . . administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new Testament.

I think the difference in play here is that of shadow/substance. The OT is a book of shadows that point to the work of Christ who is the substance. It is a religion, under the law administration, in which that work was foreshadowed through visceral images and greater outward glory, as Westminster affirms above. I'm reminded of Hebrews 9:1-10 where the author describes religion under the law administration with particular focus on the tabernacle. He speaks of the lampstand, the table, the bread of Presence, the golden alter of incense, the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, the golden urn, Aaron's staff, the tablets, and "Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat." His focus is on the physical symbols of religious worship. Then he begins in verse 11, "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)." We see the author clearly moving from shadow to substance, from an emphasis on outward glory to less of an emphasis on outward glory, as he moves from OT to NT. It is a theme that runs throughout the book of Hebrews. This shift of emphasis between the administrations helps explain why material blessings are emphasized in the OT.

Also, while it is true that under the law administration Israel was promised material blessing on condition of faithfully following the Mosaic code, it is important to remember that the promise was for the nation and not for individuals per se. We would all affirm that God has maintained a remnant of believers even during Israel's most impoverished times. Therefore, we cannot employ a simple equation of "obedience=material blessing" for individuals in the OT. The most we can say is that God determined to bless the nation in general materially when she was obedient to his law. This point alone undercuts the highly individualistic prosperity gospel movement.

But what about material blessings now? How should we understand the promises God made to his people under the law administration as his people under the gospel administration today? Fundamentally, I would frame everything in terms of the already/not yet state of the "now." Material blessings promised under the law administration were a shadow of the spiritual blessings we have already recieved in Christ and have not yet received in Christ.

We read of the already in the Bible: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Eph. 1:3)."

We read of the not yet in the Bible: "But we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:23b).

It seems that for now the blessings we enjoy in Christ are spiritual blessings, while we await the material blessings, to come at the consummation. Those material blessings are embodied (pardon the pun) in the idea of resurrection.

I hope that's helpful.

Let me know what you think about my reply.

Does anyone out there have any better or additional thoughts on this issue?

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

In a letter to Joseph Bellamy dated January 21, 1742 Edwards writes of his desire that the gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the world and that all nations be converted to Him:

O what cause have we, with exulting hearts, to agree to give glory to him, who thus rides forth in the chariot of his salvation, conquering and to conquer; and earnestly to pray, that now the Sun of righteousness would come forth like a bridegroom, rejoicing as a giant, to run his race from one end of the heavens to the other, that nothing may be hid from the light and heat thereof.

THE HORROR OF THE CONQUEST

Today I read chapters 6-10 of Joshua.

Previously I posted on Joshua 1-5 and pointed out that a common theme begins to develop as we read of Israel's entrance into the Promised Land. That common theme is bloodshed. The first thing the nation did after entering the land was observe the bloody covenant rite (i.e. circumcision). Next the paschal lamb was slaughtered for the covenant meal (i.e. Passover). Both events draw the readers attention to the covenant. The people of Israel, upon entering the land, demonstrated their faith by worshiping their covenant God.

In chapter 6 the theme of bloodshed continues. Beginning in Jericho, Israel proceeds to attack her enemies in what theologians call the conquest. According with the command of God (Deuteronomy 20:16-18), they wipe out all the inhabitants of Jericho--men, women, and children. All are killed by the sword.

The last time I read Joshua was my first semester of seminary, spring 2003. At the time I had only been married four months and had no children. I don't remember being struck by the conquest in quite the same way I was today.

Now I've been married five years. I have a 2 year-old son and a daughter on the way (due Dec. 6). As I read about the conquest a few moments ago, the best word I can think of to describe what I felt is horror. I could see the Hebrew soldiers with swords in hand running through the city slashing down curly-headed 2 year-old sons in the sight of their pregnant mothers just before turning to finish them off as well. The image was sickening. The more I read the more offended I became. In that moment I began to get a sense of how offensive sin is to God.

The only thing that helps me make sense of the conquest is my doctrine of sin. The bloodshed of the conquest was the wages of sin. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a).

There are only two ways in which God deals with sin. Both involve bloodshed. He either deals with sin:

(1) By the blood of a substitute (i.e. the atonement provided by the death of Christ)

or

(2) By one's own blood (i.e. the death and eternal torment of sinners in Hell).

The Canaanite conquest was truly horrible. There is NOTHING good about death, simply considered. Death is the wages of sin. It is the just punishment of offending our holy God.

So how should our understanding of the conquest affect the way we live?

At least two ways:

First, both believers and non-believers should take notice of the horror of their sin and its consequences. Believer, when you are tempted to sin remember the horror of sin in the horror of the Canaanite conquest. Picture that terrible event in your mind. Think of what you are being tempted to do and be repulsed.

Non-believer, take notice of your dangerous position. Do you take comfort in man-made securities like city walls and the strength of armies? Beware. Those things are nothing compared to the power of almighty God! Just as in one moment Canaanite families were going about their normal day-to-day activities and the next moment they were being slashed to pieces, so might you be. What if the next time you get into your car is the last? What if an hour from now a blood vessel bursts in your brain? What if Christ returns in the next moment? The conquest recorded in Joshua is but a shadow. The substance is yet to come. Revelation 19:11-16 prophesies the final conquest just before the last judgment:

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written so that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Are you prepared to meet your God? He will not overlook your sin. Either Christ paid for it or you will pay for it. Trust the finished work of Christ.

Secondly, I think believers can actually find great comfort in the conquest. We can be comforted by the fact that God himself has promised to save his people from such a hellish end by means of his covenant in Christ's blood. The Canaanite conquest was truly horrible. On the cross Christ suffered that horror for his people.

We can and should take great comfort in the atoning work of our Savior Jesus Christ. We should . . .

Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that [we] will not grow weary or fainthearted. In [our] struggle against sin [we] have not yet resisted to the point of shedding [our] blood (Hebrews 12:3-4).

Implication: He did. He resisted sin to the point of shedding his blood when "he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:8).

The Canaanite conquest is a truly horrible event. It speaks to the horror of sin. It gives us a sense of the depth of our offense against God. It teaches us to trust the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. In an act of pure grace, as a willing substitute, he suffered the penalty for his people's sin. He was considered a Canaanite, an enemy of God, so that we might be considered the people of God. He is our only comfort in life and death.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Religious Affections:

If men's affection to God is founded first on His profitableness to them, their affection begins at the wrong end; they regard God only for the utmost limit of the stream of divine good, where it touches them and reaches their interest, and have no respect to that infinite glory of God's nature which is the original good, and the true foundation of all good, the first fountain of all loveliness of every kind, and so the first foundation of all true love (BTT, 168-69).

HE'S GOT THE WHOLE WORLD IN HIS HAND

Sometimes I am overwhelmed by the distance between God and man. God is transcendent. He is infinitely beyond us. There is something wonderful about the concept of God's transcendence and I affirm it wholeheartedly. But the doctrine in isolation can make him seem remote and uncaring.

Tonight I read an excerpt from Irenaeus' work Against Heresies. No doubt, the 2nd century bishop believes in the transcendence of God. But rather than picturing God as distant and unconcerned, he pictures the world as being held in God's hand. God is essentially other than his creation, but there is nothing outside of God, so to speak. God is spirit. Spatial categories fundamentally breakdown when we speak of him. But, analogically speaking, we might say the whole universe is within him. God is both transcendent and immanent. We must confess simultaneously: "How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" and "For all things are from him and through him and to him" (Romans 11:33b, 36a). Irenaeus writes:

The heavenly treasuries are indeed great: God cannot be measured in the heart, and he is incomprehensible in the mind; he who holds the earth in the hollow of his hand. Who perceives the measure of his right hand? Who knows his finger? Or who understands his hand--that hand which measures immensity; that hand which, by its own measure, spreads out the measure of the heavens, and which holds in its hollow the earth with the abysses; which contains in itself the breadth, and length, and the deep below, and the height which is invisible? And for this reason God is "above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named," of all things which have been created and established. He it is who fills the heavens, and views the abysses, who is also present with every one of us (Against Heresies, 4.19.2).

It is good for the creature to be small in the presence of God.

A MEDITATION ON JOSHUA

As I read through the first five chapters of Joshua this afternoon I was struck by the beauty of God's word! The harmony of images it invokes is breathtaking. It is as if every word is meant to point us to the incarnate Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I was especially struck by Chapter 5.

Question: What do you suppose is the first order of business after Israel crosses the Jordan River and enters the Promised Land?

Answer: To spill blood.

But not in the way you might expect. The first blood spilled was not that of their enemies. It was their own blood. Chapter 5 verses 2-9 reads:

At that time the Lord said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time." So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth [hill of the foreskins :-)]. And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the Lord; the Lord swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the Lord had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumsised, because they had not been circumcised on the way. When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed. And the Lord said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal [sounds like to roll] to this day.

Ouch! I am glad I live under the new administration of the covenant. Amen?

Question: And what do you suppose is the next order of business?

Answer: You guessed it, more blood spilling.

Next they spill the blood of the paschal lamb in the observance of Passover.

Chapter 5 verses 10-12 read:

While the people of Israel were encamped at Gilgal, they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening on the plains of Jericho. And the day after the Passover they, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. And the manna ceased the day after they ate of the produce of the land. And there was no longer manna for the people of Israel, but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.

Israel had officially left behind their forty-year wilderness travail. They had entered the blessing of life with God in the Promised Land.

So what is the focus of the text?

The covenant. The text seems to be pointing us to the faithfulness of Israel's covenant God who is delivering on his promise to redeem his people from bondage into the glorious freedom of his kingdom. Everything is occurring because God is faithful to his covenant, which O. Palmer Robertson rightly defines as "a bond in blood sovereignly administered" (The Christ of the Covenants). Israel is not glorying in herself, she is glorying in her God! She is encamped at Gilgal, recognizing her sinfulness in the spilling of blood through circumcision (the covenant sign) and the slaughtering of the paschal lamb. Circumcision was the sign of entrance into the covenant of God. It signified faithfulness, purification, regeneration. Today that sign is baptism. Passover was the covenant meal signifying continued communion with God and his people as well as his deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. Today that sign is the Lord's Supper. By observing the covenant sign and covenant meal, Israel is recognizing her need for forgiveness and redemption by the spilling of blood. She is recognizing and rejoicing in her gracious redeemer God! Interestingly, Gilgal in the Hebrew means rolled back. Just as God rolled back the waters of the Jordan so his people might cross on dry ground, he is also rolling back the sin of Israel. He has pardoned their sin by means of atonement provided in his covenant, and he is leading them into the joy of a justified life with him.

All of these images are shadows. Christ is the substance. They are meant to point us to Him. He is the true circumcision! He is the Lamb of God slain for the people of God! He is the one who has delivered us and is delivering us from the wilderness of death to the land of life! That is the gospel!

Just as Israel was a covenant-remembering, gospel-centered, God-exalting people, so should we be.

John Calvin described the Christian life with one word: repentance. It is a constant turning away from sin and turning to God. It is a Jordan-crossing type of life. And, just as Israel did so long ago, we do today. Every Lord's Day, after a week in the wilderness, the NT church crosses over the Jordan and worships the triune God as he has prescribed. We circumcise covenant members in baptism and observe the Passover in the Lord's Supper. We follow the true Joshua, the Lord Jesus Christ, into the promised land even as we await entering into the fullness of it. Reflecting on what God has done and anticipating what he has promised to do, we worship him in faith, hope, and love.

The church is even now encamped at Gilgal as she awaits the fullness of her redemption. You are encamped at Gilgal remembering the covenant faithfulness of God and anticipating the consummation of your redemption. No doubt, Christ has finished his redeeming work. He has freed all those who trust him alone from the sin that once held them captive. However, we have not yet seen that work brought to its eternal consummation. So we also wait. We wait with the rest of creation for our ultimate restoration, our glorification when we shall know him even as we are known and see him face to face.

Let me ask you a question: During this in between time, having crossed the river but not yet having entered into the fullness of the Promised Land, encamped at Gilgal, what sort of camper will you be? Will you be a naysayer? There were naysayers in Israel. Will you be one who is afraid to move forward, yearning after your former sinful ways, yearning for the joys of your earlier days, and always doubting the faithfulness of the God who has saved you? Will you abandon the sanctifying work of God in your life to go out and make a way of your own? Or will you be one of the faithful, heeding the One who has promised: "I will not leave you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous" (Joshua 1:5b-6a)? What sort of camper will you be? Why not leave Egypt behind? Worship God for his covenant faithfulness in delivering you from sin. Look forward in anticipation of an eternity with him.

May the Lord grant his people lives of true repentance! May he lead us again and again to cross over the Jordan, mortifying the sin that remains, so that we might live unto Him forever!

WOUDSTRA ON OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

Today I've been reading in the book of Joshua (Biblical Studies: Historical). I picked up Marten Woudstra's commentary in the NICOT series. In the introduction, under heading I. Title and Purpose, he writes:

It is the sincere belief of the commentator that as one reads the Former Prophets, including the book of Joshua, a resolute effort should be made to avoid putting mankind in the center. "Bible stories" tend to be weighted too much on the anthropocentric. Biblical narrative all too often is searched for moral examples that can be followed or shunned, as the case may be. Biblical history thus is dissolved into a number of instances of human conduct, moral or immoral. The historical context within which the events are placed by the biblical author tends to be ignored. When a straight line is drawn from the "then" to the "now," the uniqueness of the biblical events as instances of God's self-revelation is in danger of being overlooked. The nuances of meaning placed in the biblical account by the inspired authors fail to get their due, for everything turns around the supposed "lesson." Biblical events tend to be lifted out of their redemptive-historical context by being made into timeless paradigms of moral behavior. . . .

. . . The common "Bible story approach," replete with moral lessons taken out of context, inevitably leads to widespread moralism. The example method is also found in current Liberation theology, where the Exodus motif is considered to be the mainspring for change. But in the Bible the Exodus is viewed as redemption, not just in the sense of physical deliverance from oppression, but also in the sense of freedom from the bondage to sin. When God triumphs over Pharaoh, he also manifests his superiority over the gods of Egypt. Words used to describe the Exodus release of enslaved Israel enter the vocabulary of redemption in its more comprehensive, Christ-effected sense.

Thus the example method effectively cuts us off from the true scriptural meaning of books such as Joshua and the other Former Prophets. Morality becomes a watchword. But morality as such cannot save. Only when it is woven into the fabric of redemption and flows from the redemptive work which God accomplishes for his people can morality receive its due.

I couldn't agree more.

HERMAN BAVINCK ON THE SCIENCE OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

From my readings in systematic theology yesterday (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena, "The Science of Dogmatic Theology"):

Dogmas are only those truths properly set forth in Scripture as things to be believed. A truth confessed by the church is not a dogma because the church recognizes it but solely because it rests on God's authority. Still, religious dogma is always a combination of divine authority and churchly confession.

God cannot be known by us apart from revelation received in faith. Dogmatics seeks nothing other than to be true to the faith-knowledge given in this revelation. Dogmatics is thus not the science of faith or of religion but the science about God. The task of the dogmatician is to think God's thoughts after him and to trace their unity. This is a task that must be done in the confidence that God has spoken, in humble submission to the church's teaching tradition, and for communicating the gospel's message to the world.

The power of the church to lay down dogmas is not sovereign and legislative but ministerial and declarative . . . Therefore, just as wood does not burn because it smokes but smoke nonetheless signals the presence of fire, so a truth confessed by the church is not a dogma because the church recognizes it but solely because it rests on God's authority.

People may regard the genuine core of a dogma as being ever so small and sharply restrict the element of truth concealed in it (say, to the religion of the Sermon on the Mount, to the personal faith of Jesus, to the "essence of Christianity" distilled into a number of abstract generalities, or to religious feeling or religious experience), but one who clings to the truth of religion cannot do without dogma and will always recognize in it an unchanging and permanent element. A religion without dogma, however vague and general it may be . . . does not exist, and a nondogmatic Christianity, in the strict sense of the word, is an illusion devoid of meaning.

In theology and hence in dogmatics much more is considered than only the things pertaining to God; angels and human beings, heaven and earth, indeed all creatures are considered there. But the question is: From what viewpoint and with what aim are they treated in theology? After all, all these things are treated also in other disciplines. The unique feature of their treatment in theology consists in the fact that they are viewed in their relation to God as to their source and end.

From a Christian viewpoint, dogmatics is the knowledge that God has revealed in his Word to the church concerning himself and all creatures as they stand in relation to him.

A dogmatically free theology, or dogmatics, is a self-contradiction.

STUDY SCHEDULE

I've never been very organized. Recently, with lot's of study time in the office, I've realized that I need to lay out some sort of schedule for the coming year. Yesterday I did that. Here it is:

Monday

Biblical Studies (Pentateuch)
Historical Theology (Ancient)
Systematic Theology (Prolegomena)
Philosophy (Ancient/Medieval)

Tuesday

Biblical Studies (History)
Historical Theology (Medieval/Reformation)
Systematic Theology (God/Creation)
Philosophy (Early Enlightenment)

Wednesday

Biblical Studies (Wisdom/Poetry)
Historical Theology (English Reformation/Puritanism)
Systematic Theology (Humanity/Sin)
Practical Theology

Thursday

Biblical Studies (Prophets)
Historical Theology (Modern)
Systematic Theology (Christ/Salvation)
Philosophy (Late Enlightenment)

Friday

Biblical Studies (New Testament)
Historical Theology (Owen/Edwards)
Systematic Theology (Ecclesiology/Eschatology)
Philosophy (Modern)

As a way of holding myself accountable, I hope to post a brief thought from at least one of the four areas per day.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO PRAY

An Assistant Pastor at PCPC, Patrick Lafferty, found out recently that his unborn daughter, Bella, has severe, life-threatening complications. He has begun a blog with more details called exit strategy. Please take a moment to pray for the Lafferty's.

ACTS 2:38-39 AND THE PROMISE OF GOD

Today I was asked by my friend, fellow DTSer, and fellow PCPC member Jared Nelson (see his blog Dead Theologians) this question (cited here with permission):

What is "the promise" in Acts 2:39? Salvation? Or merely covenantal relationship? If salvation, does that seem to make baptism regenerative? Can covenantal baptism be said to be "effectual," but just in anticipation of the child's faith or is that too Lutheran?

Here was my answer:

Covenants include three aspects principally:

(1) Parties
(2) Promises
(3) Stipulations

So let's look at Acts 2:38-39.

In response to the question asked by the crowd in verse 37: "Brothers, what shall we do?", Peter replies first with the stipulations of the covenant saying, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Then he moves to the promise of the covenant saying, ". . . for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He concludes with the parties of the covenant saying, "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Each of the fundamental elements of covenant are there. Faith is assumed to accompany repentance as the stipulation of the covenant. The promise is salvation--including forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit--which boils down to the initial promise given in the Abrahamic covenant: "I will be your God and you will be my people." And the parties are "you and your children" (believers and their children), which, in the new administration, is extended in an accelerated way to the nations "and all who are far off." Also, notice that Peter is careful to qualify the extension of the promise administered through the New covenant to the nations with "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." It is not for everyone in an absolutely universal sense. It is for everyone regardless of nationality whom God calls to himself.

Part of your question, however, assumes that if the promise is for a person then it must come to fruition in that person's life. Here's where the concept of covenant clears things up for us. Thinking in terms of covenantal arrangements, it is proper to speak of the promise being for another person in a way that it is not for all people--though it should be preached to all people--while not requiring that the promise come to fruition in that person's life.

For instance, was the promise for Esau? Yes, in a sense it was for him insofar as he was a party of the covenant. Did that mean that Esau was elected to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant by grace and, therefore, see the promise come to fruition in his life? No, in that sense the promise was not for him.

With those categories in mind, let's answer the questions one by one.

(1) What is "the promise" in Acts 2:39?

The promise is salvation, which includes forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. These elements boil down to the initial promise stated in the Abrahamic covenant: "I will be your God and you will be my people."

(2) If salvation, does that seem to make baptism regenerative?

One could interpret the text that way, but given the canonical witness I don't think that's the best interpretation. While baptism symbolizes regeneration and is used by God as a means of regeneration when it is married with personal faith, we don't have sufficient warrant to interpret the intiatory rite as necessarily conveying regeneration in the moment it is performed. Covenant theology, which typically includes the distinctions I outlined above with regard to who the promises are for, helps us understand how one might become a party to the covenant, receive the initiatory rite, and in that way, recieve the promises while not necessarily being guaranteed that those promises come to fruition in his life. The promises are indeed for him in a way that they are not for all people universally. But they are for him in a way that does not require that they have come or will come to fruition in his life.

(3) Can covenantal baptism be said to be "effectual," but just in anticipation of the child's faith or is that too Lutheran?

I am fine with saying baptism is effectual in a sense and anticipates the child's faith. The Westminster Confession of Faith uses the language of efficacy with respect to baptism:

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (XXVIII, 6).

And the Westminster Shorter Catechism reads:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments [Baptism and the Lord's Supper] become effectual means of salvation?

A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

So baptism is effectual as a means of salvation for the elect. However, it is not effectual in itself but only through the blessing of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit within those who believe. Also, the efficacy of baptism is not strictly tied to the moment in which it is administered.

Anyone out there have any other or better thoughts on these issues?

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

From Edwards's personal resolutions:

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and to let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occassion of my confessing my own sin and misery to God.

This resolution really made me think last week about my own attitude toward those who suffer through moral failings. Typically, I am happy to look down on these people and, in a way, glory in the fact that I am not like them. But how arrogant is that!!?? The Scriptures say: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18). Ironically, gloating over the fall of another may be the quickest way to one's own fall. The edge of a canyon is a slippery perch from which to stomp one's feet in confidence.

Remember the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector?

[Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14).

May God cause all his children to be humbled in heart. May he continually provoke within us a deep awareness of our sin, so that we might beat upon our empty chests and cry out to Him for mercy. May the cross of Christ be ever before us and the world ever behind us. As Paul once wrote, may it be true of us: "But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).

A HYMN FROM JOHN NEWTON

My friend and fellow DTSer Jared Nelson has posted a hymn from John Newton I've never heard or read before over at Dead Theologians. It is entitled "I Asked the Lord." What an excellent hymn!

IS BAPTIST THEOLOGY FUNDAMENTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH COVENANT THEOLOGY?

Today I read Justin Taylor's interview of Steve Wellum on baptism. Wellum, a professor at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, discussed at length some of the differences between baptist theology and covenant theology. He made one point in particular that got me to thinking.

And what about the change in the nature of the covenants?

This change of “structure” also means that there has been a change of “nature.” Under the old covenant, Israel was a “mixed entity,” namely a community of believers and unbelievers (not all Israel was Israel to use the language from Romans 9).

According to Wellum, Baptist theology understands there to be a change of nature between the Old and New covenants. This change of nature is with regard to the parties of the covenant. In the Old covenant God covenanted with believers (i.e. those who profess faith whether regenerate or not) and their children. In the New covenant, God covenants with true (regenerate) believers only.

For this reason, I think baptist theology is fundamentally inconsistent with covenant theology. In other words, one must redefine covenant theology in order to align it with baptist theology.

A defining characteristic (i.e. an aspect of the nature) of covenant theology is the everlastingness of the one covenant of grace, which was first explicitly revealed to Abraham. "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you" (Gen. 17:7).

Covenant theology teaches that, in order for the covenant to be everlasting, the Old and New covenants must be continuous in nature (i.e. defining characteristics, e.g. parties, promises, stipulations). Each redemptive covenant administration is a further fulfillment of the one covenant of grace.

Contrarily, as Wellum says, baptist theology teaches a change of nature between the Old and New covenants.

But, interestingly, Wellum goes on to describe the New covenant in terms that are inconsistent with a change of nature between the covenants.

How do you define the “new covenant”?

The new covenant is the covenant which our Lord Jesus Christ has inaugurated by his life, death, resurrection, and glorious exaltation to the right hand of God. It must be viewed as the culminating covenant in the sense that all of the previous covenants have been leading to it and anticipating it, in a variety of ways. Like the other covenants, it is part of the one plan of the Triune God to save a people for himself, but viewed vis-à-vis the previous covenants, it is the covenant which has now brought to fulfillment all that God promised and all that the OT anticipated and longed for, all the way back to the initial promise of Genesis 3:15.

Here is the problem:

It is technically imprecise for a baptist to speak of the New covenant as a further fulfillment of the Old. Wellum doesn't say it that way explicitly--maybe because he knows the problems it would emphasize in the baptist system--but he certainly implies as much when he says the New covenant "has now brought to fulfillment all that God promised and all that the OT anticipated." In my opinion, this is an unfortunate imprecision in baptist theology that leads to an unnatural separation between the theological concepts of promise and covenant.

Covenant theology teaches that the New covenant is a further fulfillment of the Old based on two ideas: (1) the discontinuity in redemptive covenant administrations, which allows for movement (i.e. the "further"), and (2) the continuity of nature between the covenants, which allows for development (i.e. the "fulfillment").

Granted, baptist theology allows for movement. There can be a "further." But if the covenants are fundamentally discontinuous, as baptists teach, the New covenant cannot be a "fulfillment" of the Old in any sense. How can anything be a fulfillment of something from which it is fundamentally different? In other words, how can the New covenant be the fulfillment of the Old when it is fundamentally different from it?

It would be more precise for the baptist to say that the New covenant is a further replacement of the Old. In other words, baptist theology teaches that the New covenant is not only a change in adminstration from the Old, but a replacement of it as well.

Covenant theology teaches a discontiuity in administrations of the covenants while maintaining a continuity of nature between the covenants, thus understanding the progressiveness of biblical revelation in terms of movement/development.

Baptist theology, on the other hand, teaches a discontinuity in the administrations of the covenants as well as a discontinuity of nature between the covenants, thus understanding the progressiveness of biblical revelation in terms of movement/replacement.

CANNONBALL!

Proof that it is more expedient to baptize by sprinkling.

(HT: JT)

MORE DISPATCHES FROM HELM'S DEEP

Paul Helm has posted another couple of wonderful articles over at Helm's Deep. One article is entitled Charles Hodge & the Method of Systematic Theology. Helm examines the charges contemporary theologians like Kevin Vanhoozer have leveled against Charles Hodge and the Princeton theological method. Many who have called for a "postmodernizing" of contemporary evangelical theology (e.g. the emergent church, the emerging church, etc.) have found Vanhoozer's thought compelling on this issue. Helm's article is excellent! He concludes with:

Unfortunately, Professor Vanhoozer's negative comments about Charles Hodge's systematic theological method are not novel. As we have seen they are part of the retail trade of disparagement of Hodge and Princeton theology occurring more generally within current evangelical and Reformed theologising. But that does not excuse their inadequacy. The comments are inaccurate at numerous points and unbecoming a serious scholar. Vanhoozer is of course fully entitled to develop his novel view of systematic theology as ‘theodrama’, a triangulation of Scripture, church and world, but it is wrong to use a distorted and partial account of Charles Hodge’s theological method to aid him in that task. Hodge is not an untouchable icon: he shared in our common infirmities. But he is entitled to have his views fairly presented .

Another article is entitled Analysis 6 - John Calvin's Stroke of Genius. Helm analyzes Calvin's understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification in light of his polemical context. It is excellent! He concludes:

This way of coupling justification and sanctification, as a double gift of the Saviour, is a stroke of genius, the genius of insight. In one bold move, grounded in the Pauline teaching of union with Christ in Romans 6, Ephesians 4, Philippians 3, and especially I Corinthians 1.30, Calvin sees that justification and sanctification are the one gift of the King, a gift with two aspects, a two-fold grace. Justification does not cause sanctification. Sanctification does not follow in time after justification. Justification is not sanctification. Sanctification is not justification. Each is given directly by the King. One is a status-matter, the other is a matter of subjective renewal. Yet they are inseparable gifts, two gifts wrapped together. In fact, one gift with two inseparable halves.

This stroke of genius makes apparent a biblical idea of wonderful simplicity. The risen and ascended King gives gifts – chief among them free justification, and free sanctification, bound inseparably together. Once it is pointed out to us, how obvious it seems! Even a child can understand this.

This way of thinking preserves the Reformation and biblical teaching of the forensic character of justification, the imputation of an 'alien righteousness'. But it also retains what is the essential truth behind the medieval misunderstanding of justification, that subjective renewal is essential; not essential to justification, but an essential consequence of it, bound inseparably to it, not something which is simply tagged on. The one gift is of two graces in parallel, though the way each gift blesses the recipient is very different.

So in considering the logical relations between justification and sanctification as Calvin teaches them we may think of 'four points’.

Justification is not sanctification, and is logically before sanctification
Always sanctification when justification
Whenever sanctification then justification
Sanctification is not justification

Thus giving us the acronym ‘JAWS’. (Not as good as ‘TULIP’, I know.)