DEFINING THE ENLIGHTENMENT

In his history of Christian doctrine Dr. John Hannah writes:

Karl Barth (1886-1968) defined the [enlightenment] as "a system founded upon the presupposition of faith in the omnipotence of human ability" (Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, 58).

MORE EDWARDS: On Our Obligation to Acknowledge Difficult Realities

Today I am, in part, reading Edwards on divine providence. He makes a statement in his work on Original Sin that I think is well worth posting.

Edwards is responding to the argument of John Taylor against the doctrine of original sin, more particularly of imputed guilt. He summarizes Taylor's argument writing, "All may be summed up in this, that Adam and his posterity are not one, but entirely disctinct agents" (394).

Edwards first responds by observing that Taylor is arguing against a "most evident and acknowledged fact" (394). In other words, Taylor is arguing against a fundamental fact of reality, a presupposition. From there Edwards offers an argument from effect to cause. Since all mankind clearly exists in a depraved, damnable condition, "God either thus deals with mankind, because he looks upon them as one with their first father, and so treats them as sinful and guilty by his apostacy; or (which don't mend the matter) he, without viewing them as at all concerned in that affair, but as in every respect perfectly innocent, does nevertheless subject them to this infinitely dreadful calamity" (395). Of course Edwards understands God's dealing with fallen humanity to be based on its oneness with Adam. He also acknowledges that this doctrine is attended with some difficulty, but nonetheless, it is true. He then proceeds to admonish theologians saying:

Hence, however the matter be attended with difficulty, fact obliges us to get over the difficulty, either by finding out some solution, or by shutting our mouths, and acknowledging the weakness and scantiness of our understandings; as we must in innumerable other cases, where apparent and undeniable fact, in God's works of creation and providence, is attended with events and circumstances, the manner and reason of which are difficult to our understandings (395, emphasis mine).

Not only do I think Edwards's admonition is true, but I think the way Edwards says it is appropriate. When my three-year old son persists in stubborn defiance, I raise my voice to communicate an apparent seriousness he has not yet perceived. Some Christian doctrines are so apparent and serious that when we see another resisting them we need to raise our voices, so to speak, in the hopes of communicating the gravity inherent in their rejection. If my son runs wildly into a busy parking lot, I do not whisper for him to stop and come back to me. I yell at the top of my lungs with threatenings intended to communicate a fear he should already have.

But it is also so true that many times theologians must simply stop talking and worship the incomprehensible God. My fellow intern Shawn Newsome has said something a few times during the last year as we discussed theological difficulties that reminds me of Edwards's admonition. He said that one of the most important things he learned in the systematic theology classes at Westminster Theological Seminary was that the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is the starting point of theology. We work from faith to understanding not vice versa. I think that is basically what Edwards is reminding us of above. When thinking through theological issues that present special difficulties theologians must be very careful in the process of working out a solution not to deny clear revelation, and if we cannot find a solution, we must be willing to "get over the difficulty . . . by shutting our mouths, and acknowledging the weakness and scantiness of our understandings."

FIRDAY EDWARDS QUOTE: On Dependent Existence

From Original Sin:

All dependent existence whatsoever is in a constant flux, ever passing and returning; renewed every moment, as the colors of bodies are every moment renewed by the light that shines upon them; and all is constantly proceeding from God, as light from the sun. "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (404).

Just priming the pump for my second and final post in the Berkhof vs. Edwards series. In the quote above we see a bit of Edwards's understanding of the relationship between uncreated and created being. Berkhof categorizes Edwards's teaching as implicitly pantheistic. I think he has misunderstood Edwards and am currently focused on studying Edwards's teaching on this and the related issues. I hope to post on it later next week.

BOOK REVIEW: The Wages of Spin (pt. 6)

In part 5 we looked at Chapter 3 "Theology and the Church: Divorce or Remarriage?" Trueman offers four theses for the academy and four for the church toward mending their divorce from one another. The first two theses for the church were:

1. The Church must rethink her emphasis upon experience.
2. The Church needs to revise her worship practices in light of the above.

We continue with the last two theses.

3. The Church needs to acknowledge the role of tradition.

First Trueman points out that all churches have a creed. Even those who claim "No creed but the Bible" have that as their creed. "We've all met them, the no-creed-but-the-Bible guys and gals. What they usually mean is, of course, that, while they have a creed (even if it is 'no creed'), they cannot be bothered to write it down and want to privilege their view of the Bible (the right one) over your view of the Bible (the wrong one)."

Nonetheless, Trueman acknowledges a sense in which it is true that evangelicals have no creed but the Bible. "We acknowledge only one ultimate epistemological source and criterion for judging statements about God: the Bible." The key word in that sentence is "ultimate."

But there is also a sense in which everyone depends on extra-biblical formulations. For instance, there is no trinitarian formula worked out in Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture say that God is one in nature and three in persons. Does that mean Niceno-constantinopolitan trinitarianism is unimportant or any less authoritative? Not at all! To deny trinitarianism is to deny the Christian God.

So Trueman asks a crucial question:

Why the fear of creeds? Well, this is of course part of the wider cultural disposition of modern Western society and is, interestingly enough, one of the key points of contact between the academic world and the evangelical world. While scholars, liberal and conservative, have developed a highly sophisticated biblicism which routinely discounts the thoughts and insights of the church over the centuries into the meaning of the biblical text, so evangelicalism has developed a crude and unsophisticated biblicism which routinely rejects (or, more often, simply ignores as irrelevant) the history of church and theology.

The trouble is that our understanding of God, which comes primarily from our understanding of the Bible, is not to be found in what the text simply says but what it means. "This is where the creeds come in: they are simply summaries of the biblical teaching, using language and concepts which have been publicly endorsed by the church as orthodox throughout the centuries, thus providing an orthodox scheme and vocabulary for theological life."

Also, creeds help give us historical perspective. While this doesn't mean we should accept a creedal formulation on the basis of history alone, and of course every creed should be evaluated against the clear testimony of Scripture, we must beware taking this kind of evaluation to the extreme.

There is a sense, however, in which the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of an automatic hermeneutic of suspicion regarding historic theological creeds and tradition. Nowadays it is more likely to be assumed that the church has generally got it wrong than that she has got anything right. I commented to colleagues just recently in reference to the views on justification and Christology being put forward by a leading British New Testament scholar that I was left wondering if this person, who identifies himself as orthodox, thought the church had managed to get anything right regarding the Bible over the last 1900 years. The attitude of the Reformers was very different: they rejected those traditions which were explicitly rooted in an understanding of the church as having new, revelatory powers after the closing of the canon, but they took very seriously the exegetical, theological, and, above all, the creedal tradition of the church and only modified or, as a very last resort, rejected it at those points where scripture really did make it untenable. The difference is one of attitude and culture, I think: they operated with a basic hermeneutic of trust, albeit biblically critical trust; too often today we operate with a basic hermeneutic of suspicion. Yet, if we take the church seriously and if we take God's promises to the church seriously, such a knee-jerk iconoclasm can only be a bad thing.

Trueman finishes this thesis with a call to a hermeneutic of humility. Notice how Trueman pushes back against the prevailing tendency to absolutise ourselves while relativising everything else.

When some creedal formula or doctrinal position has been held by the church with vigour for some considerable time, then the church of today should think very carefully before deciding to change it in a fundamental way. Our perspective is so limited; our moment in time so insignificant in the grand scheme of things; therefore, we do well to see the church's creeds, confessions and traditions as giving us some perspective by which we may relativise ourselves, our contribution, and our moment in history. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard church leaders declare that 'the church needs to move beyond. . . .' (add your own central tenet of the faith: the cross, the wrath of God, the Trinity, justification by faith, the authority of scripture--I've heard them all cited). Underlying such sentiments are not so much a hopeless naivety but rather a tragic arrogance, an arrogance which implicitly says that the church in the past did not really get the gospel and that only in the present day have we approximated some kind of doctrinal maturity. I would suggest that reflection upon the creeds and confessions of the church might well go someway to overcoming the chronological arrogance (to use C.S. Lewis's phrase) that afflicts the church as it should also do in the academy.

4. The Church needs to realize that not all answers to questions about the Bible are that simple.

Trueman finishes this chapter by pointing out that the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that all Scripture is equally simple to understand.

I well remember giving a lecture on how the Puritans of the seventeenth century established high standards for ministerial education at a British seminary. At the end of my talk, I was challenged by one individual who saw what I said as running counter to what he took to be the basic thrust of Paul's pastoral letters, of the nature of saving faith, and of scriptural perspicuity. Of course, he read the relevant quotation from a translation of the Bible, implicitly conceding that none of these made void the need for somebody, somewhere to have a good grasp of the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and historical context of koine Greek. The certainty of faith and the perspicuity of scripture were never intended to mean that all answers to everything were simple, any more than the idea of scriptural sufficiency was intended to mean that the Bible gives answers to all questions about life, such as what time the next bus arrives. Rather, they pointed to the fact that the Bible's basic message was clear and easy to grasp by even the simplest of minds, a point to which the Reformers and Puritans held while at precisely the same time pursuing theological education and study at the highest level. The church needs to understand this once more. She has always faced complicated questions; once, these focused on the doctrine of God; now perhaps, they focus on the relationship of one culture to another, of how the church in the West, with all of her financial and educational resources, can both learn from and serve the church in the South and the East, with her massive numbers, her signs of great blessing from God, but her economic and intellectual dependence upon the North and the West. These are tough areas which demand careful and humble reflection and which cannot be resolved by simplistic claims to truth on one side or the other, claims which are, of course, more often claims to power than to truth.

This is the final part in this series of posts. Special thanks to Nathan and Mark [at CRM] for offering their keen observations and critiques. I apologize to you both if I have been overly defensive of Trueman's work. In my own defense, I think his assessment and suggestions are correct.

If I haven't convinced you yet, I hope you will read The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historic and Contemporary Evangelicalism. Trueman's critique of issues in contemporary evangelicalism is superb, and there is much more that I haven't covered. For instance, one of his last chapters is entitled "The Marcions are Coming!"

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE: The Dispositional Nature of God

In The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards Sang Hyun Lee writes:

Edwards makes a new beginning in Christian theology by conceiving the nature of God as at once fully actual and also dispositional. God is perfect in actuality and also inherently disposed to further actualizations--that is, to repetitions of the prior actuality (245).

This dispositional nature of God is most prevalent in Edwards's treatise The End for Which God Created the World. In chapter 1 section 3 he writes:

This propensity in God to diffuse himself, may be considered as a propensity to himself diffused; or to his own glory existing in its emanation. A respect to himself, or an infinite propensity to and delight in his own glory is that which causes him to incline to its being abundantly diffused, and to delight in the emanation of it. Thus, that nature in a tree, by which it puts forth buds, shoots out branches, and brings forth leaves and fruit, is a disposition that terminates in its own complete self. And so the disposition in the sun to shine, or abundantly to diffuse its fulness, warmth, and brightness, is only a tendency to its own most glorious and complete state. So God looks on the communication of himself, and the emanation of his infinite glory, to belong to the fulness and completeness of himself; as though he were not in his most glorious state without it. Thus the church of Christ, (toward whom and in whom are the emanations of his glory, and the communication of his fulness,) is called the fulness of Christ; as though he were not in his complete state without her; like Adam without Eve. And the church is called the glory of Christ, as the woman is the glory of the man.

Anticipating the objection that his view militates against divine self-sufficiency Edwards writes:

Nor do these things argue any dependence in God on the creature for happiness. Though he has real pleasure in the creature’s holiness and happiness, yet this is not properly any pleasure which he receives from the creature. For these things are what he gives the creature. They are wholly and entirely from him. His rejoicing therein is rather a rejoicing in his own acts, and his own glory expressed in those acts, than a joy derived from the creature. God’s joy is dependent on nothing besides his own act, which he exerts with an absolute and independent power. And yet, in some sense, it can be truly said, that God has the more delight and pleasure for the holiness and happiness of his creatures. Because God should be less happy if he were less good: or if he had not that perfection of nature which consists in a propensity of nature to diffuse his own fullness. And would be less happy, if it were possible for him to be hindered in the exercise of his goodness, and his other perfections, in their proper effects. But he has complete happiness, because he has these perfections, and cannot be hindered in exercising and displaying them in their proper effects. And this surely is not, because he is dependent; but because he is independent on any other that should hinder him.

From this view, it appears, that nothing which has been said is in the least inconsistent with those expressions in Scripture, that signify, “man cannot be profitable to God,” &c. For these expressions plainly mean no more, than that God is absolutely independent of us; that we have nothing of our own, no stock from whence we can give to God; and that no part of his happiness originates from man.

I read a bit from Edwards's Freedom of the Will this week. Inside I found a piece of paper in which I had scribbled some thoughts my last time through. What I wrote down was a thought on how Edwards's doctrine of the human will might be applied to God, particularly with regard to the doctrine of election. As I reflect on that reflection in light of this reflection, I see another connection. Here's my thought:

According to part 2 section 4 of Freedom, a choice cannot be made from indifference. Applying this to the doctrine of election, there must have been something that influenced God's choice of some for salvation. He could not have been indifferent about choosing (i.e. electing) some, or he wouldn't have chosen anyone.

There are only two possible influences:

(1) Something inherent to the creature
(2) Something inherent to God

It could have been (1), if the creature had something that pleased God unto salvation. But Scripture tells us that humanity is totally depraved and lives under the condemning judgment of God. "For God has consigned all to disobedience" (Romans 11:32a). There is no hope for the creature within himself to please God unto salvation.

Therefore it must have been (2). God chose certain individuals for salvation rather than others because of something inherent to God.

But what? What about God motivated God in election? The Bible tells us. He was motivated by himself; he is disposed to demonstrate his glory in election, love extended mercifully. "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32). And who is the all? All he chooses to save, vessels of mercy. "[God] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:15-16). In his loving election, God demonstrates "the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy" (Romans 9:23b).

Edwards's description of the divine nature in The End, which professor Lee calls "dispositional," is in a sense a reapplication of the biblical principle behind election. Edwards is expanding the idea that God is motivated by something inherent to himself out to the cosmic level, and, even further, to the very nature of God. Just as God is his own motivation and, therefore, his own ultimate end in election, so also he is his own ultimate end in all that he does and is.

Yet love displayed in mercy would not exist apart from a fallen creation, so there is a sense in which God would be incomplete without the fallen creation to redeem, but NOT because he is dependent on anything inherent to the creation and NOT because of any deficiency in himself, but because an aspect of his complete, perfect, glorious, effulgent, and self-sufficient nature is the disposition to express itself through repetition. In the history of redemption God is repeating, among other things, the fullness of his eternal love.

As Lee says of Edwards's thought:

God's creation of the world is not for self-realization of God as God. It is rather the exercise of the disposition of God who already is God. This self-communication of God ad extra is an act of God's self-realization to the extent that it is a further exercise of God's dispositional essence. But it is an act of self-realization in a peculiar sense--namely, as a self extension or repetition of what is already fully actual. So the world is meant to be "an increase, repetition or multiplication" of God's internal fullness (247).

BERKHOF vs. EDWARDS: On Inability

Introduction

My colleague Matt Bradley is currently reading through Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology. Both of us agree that it is a foundational work in Reformed theology. I have been enriched by my study of it greatly. His chapter on "The Dual Aspect of the Covenant" provided the breakthrough I needed to understand the Reformed view of covenant membership. I thank God for men like Berkhof who faithfully give themselves in service to the church to help it love its God with all its mind.

Yesterday Matt showed me a couple of sections where Berkhof disagrees with Jonathan Edwards. Given Berkhof's stature among Reformed theologians and my appreciation for Edwards, I was immediately interested. In this series of posts I will examine Berkhof's critiques and offer responses either in defense of Edwards's teaching or in recognition that, according to my own evaluation, (heaven forbid!) Berkhof is right.

Round One

The first section is from Chapter 4 "Sin in the Life of the Human Race." It is on the subject of total inability. Berkhof defines the doctrine of total inability writing:

When we speak of man's corruption as total inability, we mean two things: (1) that the unrenewed sinner cannot do any act, however insignificant, which fundamentally meets with God's approval and answers to the demands of God's holy law; and (2) that he cannot change his fundamental preference for sin and self to love for God, nor even make an approach to such a change. In a word he is unable to do any spiritual good (247).

Berkhof and Edwards are basically in agreement on this point. But Edwards goes a bit further in his analysis of the doctrine of inability in his book Freedom of the Will. Berkhof disagrees with a central distinction in Edwards's doctrine of the will.

Edwards begins his classic work in the usual fashion, defining key terms. The will is "that by which the mind chooses any thing" (137). Notice the distinction between the mind and the will. Later Edwards will make the case for understanding the will as a non-power. This is fundamentally linked to his definition of choice. What is choice? Edwards writes, "I trust it will be allowed by all, that in every act of will there is an act of choice; that in every volition there is a preference, or a prevailing inclination of the soul, whereby the soul, at that instant, is out of a state of perfect indifference, with respect to the direct object of the volition" (140). In other words, choice is "a prevailing inclination of the soul" based on understood options. Therefore, while the will itself is a faculty by which choices are made, it does not have within itself the power of choosing. The will is not self-determined. The power of choosing comes from the inclinations of the soul (i.e. the affections), which are informed by understood options (i.e. the mind or understanding).

With those definitions in place we are now in a position to understand the distinction Edwards makes with which Berkhof disapproves. That distinction is between natural ability and moral ability.

1. Natural ability- The ability to do whatever one's nature allows. With respect to human willing, it is the ability to do whatever one pleases. Edwards writes, "A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will" (139). Or in other words, "the will is always determined by the strongest motive" (142).
   
2. Moral ability- The inclination to do what is pleasing to God.
   

Berkhof lodges four critiques against this distinction in Edwards's understanding of the will.

1. "It has no warrant in Scripture, which teaches consistently that man is not able to do what is required of him."
2. "It is essentially ambiguous and misleading: the possession of the requisite faculties to do spiritual good does not yet constitute an ability to do it."
3. "'Natural' is not a proper antithesis of 'moral,' for a thing may be both at the same time; and the inability of man is also natural in an important sense, that is, as being incident to his nature in its present state as naturally propagated."
4. "The language does not accurately express the important distinction intended; what is meant is that it is moral, and not either physical or constitutional; that it has its ground, not in the want of any faculty, but in the corrupt moral state of the faculties, and of the disposition of the heart" (247-48).
   

Let's look at each in turn:

1. "It has no warrant in Scripture, which teaches consistently that man is not able to do what is required of him."

This is, respectfully, a baseless critique. Edwards's distinction does not militate against the Reformed doctrine of total inability. Unrenewed humanity is unable to do what God requires of it, but it is not unable to do what is required of it in every sense. In other words, there is a sense in which humanity is able to do what is required of it whether renewed or not. That is natural ability. But there is another sense in which unrenewed humanity is unable to do what is required of it. That is moral inability. Scripture teaches both senses.

A classic passage on moral inability is found in John 6. Jesus is recorded as saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44a). In context, we understand what Jesus means by the phrase "come to me" is "trust me unto salvation." No one can trust Jesus unto salvation apart from the Father's drawing. That is moral inability.

But the Scriptures also speak of a sense in which every man is free to do what he knows is right, namely ascribe due honor and gratitude to God. Paul writes in Romans 1:20-21, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." God has clearly revealed himself to humanity. Humanity, even though fallen and dead in sin (i.e. moral inability), possesses ability in some sense to perceive God's self-revelation and recognize that he is deserving of our honor and gratitude. And Paul does not regard honor and gratitude as things unrenewed humans are unable to perform. Indeed, we are quite able to honor whatever we esteem as honorable. So Paul writes further, "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:25b). The unrenewed human, while totally unable to love God, is not thereby unable to love. He is unable to love God, because he hates God (i.e. moral inability), but not because he cannot love. He is still able to love, because he still bears the image of God (i.e. natural ability).

Therefore Edwards, I think, rightly understood that the fundamental problem of unrenewed humanity is not that it doesn't have the natural ability to please God. Again, God has not commanded us to do anything beyond our natural capabilities as his image bearers. The unrenewed human, naturally speaking, can please God if he will. But he won't. The fundamental problem with the unrenewed human is not that he can't; it is that he won't. The unrenewed human doesn't desire God; he doesn't want to please God; he knowingly and willingly hates God; therefore his sins condemn him. This is what is meant by moral inability. What the unrenewed human needs is not a new natural faculty, but a renewed natural faculty. He needs a new habitual ordering (i.e. state) of the soul to cause him to forsake sin and love God. That is the miracle of regeneration.

2. "It is essentially ambiguous and misleading: the possession of the requisite faculties to do spiritual good does not yet constitute an ability to do it."


Here Berkhof admits that he agrees with Edwards's teaching that we do not gain new faculties in regeneration. In that sense, we are equipped to do spiritual good prior to regeneration. We have all the natural faculties we need. But, Berkhof says, simple possession of the natural faculties does not constitute ability in any sense. Berkhof misses the importance of maintaining a doctrine of natural ability on this point.

Here is the problem: If God were to require us to do something that we are naturally unable to do, then he would be unjust. To put it in more practical terms, if God were to require us to be omnipresent, and then condemn us for failing to meet this requirement, then he would be unjust. Human beings are, by nature, unipresent.

In the history of creation God has never asked his people to do anything they were naturally unable to do. What is the first and greatest command? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37b). In other words you shall worship God with all of who you are above all other things. Paul reminds us in Romans 1:25 that unrenewed humanity has natural ability to to do just that. They do worship, but they refuse to worship God. That is why "they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20b).

Moreover, every human being is naturally able to not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness, honor his father and mother, and love his neighbor as himself. There is nothing, naturally speaking, that hinders us from doing these things. Remember Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler recorded in Matthew 19:16-30? The list above is the same six commandments Jesus gave to him when he asked, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" After receiving Jesus' answer, the young man replied, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" How did Jesus respond? Interestingly, he didn't challenge the young man's assertion that he had kept all those commandments. He didn't say, "What you need to realize is that you were actually unable to keep the commandments, because no one can really do that." Instead, he replied, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Again, Jesus gave him something that he could do, naturally speaking. It would have been very easy for the young man to sell all his possessions and go off to follow Jesus. Indeed, some of Jesus' disciples had done just that. This man's problem was not his natural ability. His problem was his moral ability. His problem was that he had no desire to do what Jesus had asked. He simply did not want Christ more than his own possessions. His treasure was own earth rather than in heaven. That prevailing inclination could only be overcome by a miracle of God. He needed to be born again from above.

Rather than causing ambiguity, Edwards's distinction helps clarify this biblical dynamic with respect to the freedom and bondage of the human will.

3. 'Natural' is not a proper antithesis of 'moral,' for a thing may be both at the same time; and the inability of man is also natural in an important sense, that is, as being incident to his nature in its present state as naturally propagated.

Edwards would agree with Berkhof on this point. Indeed, the adjectival category "natural" is not antithetical to "moral." There is significant overlap in the way these two concepts relate in Edwards's thought. Also, there is a sense in which our corruption (i.e. moral inability) is incident to our natural propagation (i.e. being in Adam). But Berkhof seems to confuse the concept of "nature" itself with a "state of nature."

Adam's nature prior to the fall is identical to his nature after the fall. For that matter our natures, even in their unrenewed states, are identical to Adam's pre-fall nature. The difference is not the thing itself but the state or condition of the thing. After the fall, human nature exists in a state of total depravity. While we are in a depraved state; we are not therefore essentially depraved (i.e. fundamentally defined by our depravity). If we were essentially depraved, then we would no longer be human, and the man Christ Jesus could not have been our penal substitute. Berkhof seems to miss the distinction between "nature" and "state of nature" at this point.

4. The language does not accurately express the important distinction intended; what is meant is that it is moral, and not either physical or constitutional; that it has its ground, not in the want of any faculty, but in the corrupt moral state of the faculties, and of the disposition of the heart.

Berkhof seems to be saying that the idea of natural ability has no place in the discussion of total inability. He defines total inability for the unrenewed human as "In a word he is unable to do any spiritual good" (247, emphasis mine). That is a correct definition. It is the same definition as that offered by The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9 "Of Free Will" section 3, "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation" (emphasis mine). This is the doctrine of total inability.

But what do Berkhof and the divines mean by the adjective "spiritual?" An understanding of that concept requires an understanding human nature. The spirit of a man is an aspect of his nature. This is how the Westminster divines approached the doctrine of inability in Chapter 9 "Of Free Will" sections 1-3. Let's take a look.

First the divines confess the doctrine of natural ability. Section 1 reads, "God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil" (emphasis mine). The divines understood that in order to begin to speak of a state of the will, one must first understand the will itself; therefore they teach that the nature of the will is to have liberty that is not forced. In other words, man, according to his very nature, is endowed with freedom of choice (i.e. free will), which is the ability to choose according to his prevailing inclinations. This natural liberty exists in all human beings. It is of their nature. This is the same fundamental distinction Edwards is making when he speaks of natural ability.

Next the divines confess the doctrine of moral ability. Section 2 reads, "Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it." Here we see the divines speaking of the moral ability of humanity in terms of a state, a "state of innocency." That state is described as being able to will what is pleasing to God. This is moral ability.

Finally the divines confess the doctrine of moral inability. Section 3 reads, "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation" (emphasis mine). Notice that the doctrine of total inability is also described in terms of state, "a state of sin." It is understood as a condition of nature, a moral condition. This is exactly how Edwards understands the doctrine of total inability.

If Berkhof intends to assert that Edwards's development of the distinction between natural and moral ability is problematic because the concept of nature has no place in a discussion of total inability, he has misunderstood Edwards. Edwards would agree that the doctrine of total inability is subsumed under the rubric of moral ability as distinct from natural ability. But that does not mean the distinction has no place in the broader discussion. Indeed, understanding the natural abilities of the will is foundational to understanding its moral abilities and, therefore, to understanding the doctrine of total inability. Since total inability is a state of human nature, we should not expect to understand it without first understanding human nature itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think Berkhof's critique of Edwards's distinction between natural and moral ability is unfounded. Edwards would have been in agreement with the basic thrust of Berkhof's understanding. But Berkhof's points of difference are the result of an unnatural limiting of the scope of the original discussion in which Edwards was a part. The doctrine of total inability is a subset under the larger rubric of free will, which necessarily includes a doctrine of natural ability. Furthermore, Berkhof's charges (e.g. "no warrant in Scripture," "essentially ambiguous and misleading," "'natural' is not a proper antithesis of 'moral,'" and that natural ability has no part in the discussion of total inability) are demonstrably baseless.

Nonetheless, let me reiterate my high regard for the work of Dr. Louis Berkhof. I wish I could have sat in his class to hear him lecture and feel his spirit. Thankfully, he has left us a wonderful legacy in his Systematic Theology. I have benefited from it greatly. If you don't have a copy, I encourage you to go out and buy it asap. It is currently listed on Amazon for $31.50--well worth every penny!

THE ARMINIAN DEMIURGE

[Also posted at CRM with discussion in the comments section and further posts here and here]

Jared Nelson and I have had the privilege of teaching a great group of folks this semester at PCPC's Midweek. The class is called 12 Questions that have Shaped Church History. The subject is the history of doctrine in the Christian church. Each class is titled with a question. My last class was on this question: "How are the full benefits of Christ's atonement acquired?" We covered the development of the doctrine of particular redemption in the years following the Protestant and Roman Catholic reformations. A large portion time was spent discussing the Five Articles of Remonstrance delivered by the Arminians to the Dutch Reformed Church early in the 17th century.

I began the class as usual with a quick review of the questions we had addressed for each prior class. The first class dealt with the question "How has God revealed himself?" We examined the way Gnosticism, Ebionism, Marcionism, and Montanism understood divine revelation.

Gnosticism teaches that God reveals himself through a secret, higher, spiritual knowledge. The problem with humanity is ignorance; therefore the solution (i.e. gospel) is attaining a higher knowledge. Attaining higher knowledge is what saves people from evil.

You might then ask "What evil?" or "Where did this evil come from?" And that would be a good question. Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the problem of the origin of evil for thousands of years. The way a system answers the question of the origin of evil will determine much of its makeup from that point forward. Before we move forward let me briefly clarify what I mean by the problem of evil. Simply stated the problem is this:

1. The world was created by an all-powerful and all-loving God.
2. Evil exists in the creation.
3. If God were all-powerful, he could immediately destroy evil.
4. If God were all-loving, he would immediately destroy evil.
5. Therefore, God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving.

Gnostics explained the problem of the origin of evil by denying divine omnipotence through dualism (i.e. two-principle system). Dualism is a term used to describe any worldview that posits two fundamental opposing principles to explain the origin of evil; its opposite is monism (i.e. one-principle system). There are of course variations of dualism; but dualists basically understand evil to be the result of a fundamental principle which is, at least in some respect, outside the control of the good principle. In Gnosticism this fundamental principle is called the demiurge. The demiurge is the cause of the existence of evil in the world.

So what does this have to do Arminianism? Well, as my class discussed the difference between the Reformed definition of grace and the Arminian definition of grace, I made this statement (learned from my former theology professor Dr. John D. Hannah): "According to Reformed theology, grace isn't grace if it isn't discriminatory." Here's what I mean:

According to Arminianism

1. There will be two distinct types of people in the end, the redeemed and the damned.
2. Since all begin in the same place (i.e. as sinners equally deserving to be damned), something must cause the final distinction.
3. The work of prevenient grace is applied by God universally so that all who hear the gospel can either believe it unto salvation or reject it and stay on the same trajectory of damnation.
4. Therefore, the distinction between the redeemed and the damned is ultimately caused by the sinner himself.

According to Calvinism

1. There will be two distinct types of people in the end, the redeemed and the damned.
2. Since all begin in the same place (i.e. as sinners equally deserving to be damned), something must cause the final distinction.
3. The work of prevenient grace is applied by God discriminately so that all who receive it believe the gospel unto salvation.
4. Therefore, the distinction between the redeemed and the damned is ultimately caused by God alone.

The reformed understanding is that grace cannot be grace if it is not discriminatory, because if it is not discriminatory, the sinner ultimately makes the discrimination for himself with regard to his final end. If a sinner makes that distinction himself, then he is left with something of himself to boast about in his salvation. While many others who had the same opportunity and ability to believe did not believe, he did. That is ultimately why he enjoys a better end than them.

As I was thinking through this with the class, I made a connection with regard to dualism and the problem of evil. What the Arminian system is fundamentally doing through its understanding of grace is adopting a measure of dualism in order to resolve the problem of the origin of evil. Notwithstanding the wills of angels, the two fundamental opposing principles in the world, according to Arminianism, are the divine will and individual human wills. In a manner of speaking, the human will is the demiurge of Arminianism.

That's all well and good, but what's the point? Is it necessarily a bad thing that Arminianism is rooted in dualism?

I think it is for one reason: Dualism, by definition, requires one principle to be powerless to the other at some point, which means that neither principle can be omnipotent, and therefore neither can be God. Dualism shuts God out of an area of his creation, and therefore destroys the very concept of divinity altogether. In giving the human will the power of self-determination, it gives the creature the power, at least with respect to his moral decisions, to create ex nihilo.

This is why Jonathan Edwards worked so hard to stave off the Arminian insurgence into the church of his own day. His treatise Freedom of the Will is a fruit of that labor. Paul Ramsey writes of Edwards's thoughts on the Arminian doctrine of the human will:

For Edwards as a theologian the issue is a simple one: either contingency and the liberty of self-determination must be run out of this world, or God will be shut out. "If there be no absurdity or difficulty in supposing one thing to start out of nonexistence, into being, of itself without a cause; then there is no absurdity or difficulty in supposing the same of millions of millions" (p. 183) ("Editor's Introduction," Freedom of the Will vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957], 9).

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE: Particular Redemption Proved by Divine Foreknowledge

From Jonathan Edwards's book Freedom of the Will:

Such a particularity and limitation of redemption will infallibly follow, from the doctrine of God's foreknowledge, as from the decree. For it is impossible, in the strictness of speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing, which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished, as that he should use endeavours for that which is beside his decree ([Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996 reprint], 329).

Basically Edwards is saying that just as it is impossible that God would do anything in the creation that does not work towards accomplishing his decree (since to suppose that is to suppose that there is something outside the decree, which is nonetheless related to it, which is nonsense), so it is also impossible that God could have aimed at the salvation of those whom he knew would not be saved.

PIPER ON HUMILITY

Today Pastor John Piper posted an excellent article entitled 6 Aspects of Humility. Here's one point that spoke to me about the delicate balance between a willingness to consider and learn from criticism while holding firm convictions and seeking to persuade others to accept them:

5. Humility knows it is fallible, and so considers criticism and learns from it; but also knows that God has made provision for human conviction and that he calls us to persuade others.

We see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

A wise man is he who listens to counsel. (Proverbs 12:15)

Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men. (2 Corinthians 5:11)

BOOK REVIEW: The Wages of Spin (pt. 5)

Last time we began our review of Chapter 3 "Theology and the Church: Divorce or Remarriage?" We saw that Trueman begins by pointing to three fundamental issues which manifest a breach between theology and the church:

1. the perceived opposition of knowledge and experience
2. the differing presuppositions of church and academy as seen in the church's minimizing the importance of doctrine and the academy's minimizing the importance of experience
3. the divergent agendas of church and academy as seen in the church's attempt to simplify an increasingly complex world for the sake of staying on its perceived primary task of converting those outside the church and the academy's fragmentation (i.e. movement toward complexity, further specialization) under the exponentially increasing load of available information

We then looked at four theses offered to the academy in the interest of integration:

1. The academy must reform its vision of God.
2. The academy must acknowledge the authority of scripture.
3. The academy must acknowledge the effect of sin upon scholars.
4. The academy needs to return to traditional trajectories of theology.

This time we look at the first two of four theses Trueman offers the church toward the same end:

1. The Church must rethink her emphasis upon experience.

Here, Trueman explores the age-old problem of the relationship between the objective message of the gospel and the individual experience of redeeming grace. Evangelicalism is fundamentally committed to both doctrinal and experiential purity as ideals. True religion must include both elements. However, as Trueman points out:

The two things are formally separable and this, of course, means that the public distinctives of evangelicalism can be learned by those who lack the second, while the second can be claimed with no real grasp of the first. This has led, in some quarters, to a fear not simply that the truth might be preached through the mouths of those who are actually unbelievers but also that there can be a fundamental opposition between the two, the head and the heart, and that the latter, the heart, should therefore be given precedence.

This is the same issue Jonathan Edwards thought through in his great treatise The Religious Affections. Edwards comes to the conclusion that true religion must include both an objective knowledge (i.e. understanding) component and a subjective experience (i.e. affections) component. One may have right knowledge without right affections, but that is hypocrisy. One may have affections without right knowledge, but that is delusion. True religion requires both right knowledge and right affection. Nonetheless, there is a logical priority with respect to right knowledge. Right affection cannot exist apart from right knowledge.

Trueman points to the Donatist controversy as evidence of this line of thought. That controversy reinforced the fact that the gospel is a message independent of the messenger. It is objective fact. He writes:

To take any other position is surely disastrous, as none of us can know for certain what the state of anyone else's heart is; it is only because the gospel concerns the promise of God revealed in Christ that we can have confidence in the efficacy of the message preached. To put it more bluntly: it is better to have the gospel competently preached by one who proves to be an unrepentant adulterer than to have it preached incompetently by one who has been born again, precisely because it is the Word which is efficacious not the heart of the preacher.

Amen!

CAUTION: DIGRESSION AHEAD. This is one of the arguments (i.e. the objectivity of the gospel, the covenant) that compelled me to move from the Baptist tradition to the Presbyterian tradition. Knowing that the covenant sign (i.e. baptism) is only for covenant members, and as Baptists understand that only the regenerate are covenant members, then I could not in good conscience ever baptize anyone as a Baptist. Why? Because I could never know this side of glory if they were really covenant members. As a Presbyterian, I don't have that problem. Covenant membership is not based on the condition of a person's heart; it is based on the promise of God alone. END DIGRESSION.

Trueman concludes:

Much of the anti-intellectualism which pours from pulpits in churches, from Reformed to charismatic, is the result of precisely this confusion between gospel as message and the believer's response in experience--a confusion which has just enough appearance of truth to be superficially plausible while resting on a fundamentally skewed understanding of what the gospel actually is. Only when the church comes to acknowledge in both belief and practice that the gospel is a message, not a feeling or an experience, will such fuzzy thinking (and much else) finally be put to rest.

2. The Church needs to revise her worship practices in the light of the above.

Trueman is quick to remind us that he is not attacking the experiential element of the Christian religion per se. He is just arguing that experience must flow from the objective truth of the gospel, the promises of God. To reverse the order is disastrous.

Once the gospel starts being presented primarily as that which brings such-and-such benefits, be they freedom from alcohol abuse or just emotional highs every once in a while, the distinctive particularity of Christianity is lost.

This should lead to worship that is governed by the Word rather than human experience. The gospel message (i.e. content) should be central in worship. Style and experience should be in large part a matter of indifference.

This should also direct the church away from an obsession with revival and conversion as the main agenda behind our church services. Now, do not misunderstand me here. I am not saying that we do not want conversions; emphatically, we do. What I am saying, however, is that the Sunday service of the church is primarily for the equipping of the saints for the work of being a Christian Monday to Saturday. The church should be like a mother, nurturing us in our faith, giving us rest from the world and a tiny anticipation of what the fellowship in heaven will be like. . . . Of course, if an outsider attends our service, he should be made welcome, and should be able to understand what is going on and being said--one might add, he should be able to see an obvious connection between what is read, said, prayed, and sung; but accommodating him should not be the decisive priority in the service. In fact, coming into the presence of God's people worshipping a holy God should be an unsettling experience for the unbeliever.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE: The Excellency of Christ

The concept of divine excellency was used by the Puritans to speak of the perfection of God. Excellency is is the perfection of the relationship between unity and diversity. It is harmony, symmetry, fitness, beauty, etc. In this sense, God is excellent in his being and ways. Recognition of the divine excellency is the root of true Christian faith and obedience. This beatific vision comes from the triune God through the miracles of regeneration and illumination as performed by the Holy Spirit with respect to the Word. John Owen described it like this:

The essence of faith consists in a due ascription of glory to God (Rom. 4:20). This we cannot attain to without the manifestation of those divine excellencies to us in which he is glorious. This is done in Christ alone, so as that we may glorify God in a saving and acceptable manner. He who discerns not the glory of divine wisdom, power, goodness, love, and grace, in the person and office of Christ, with the way of salvation of sinners by him, is an unbeliever (The Glory of Christ).

In his sermon "The Excellency of Christ" Jonathan Edwards exposits and applies Revelation 5:5-6: "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain."

Edwards writes:

Many things might be observed in the words of the text; but it is to my present purpose only to take notice of the two distinct appellations here given to Christ.

1. He is called a Lion. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. He seems to be called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, in allusion to what Jacob said in his blessing of the tribe on his death-bed; who, when he came to bless Judah, compares him to a lion, Gen. 49:9. "Judah is a lion's whelp; from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?" And also to the standard of the camp of Judah in the wilderness on which was displayed a lion, according to the ancient tradition of the Jews. It is much on account of the valiant acts of David that the tribe of Judah, of which David was, is in Jacob's prophetical blessing compared to a lion; but more especially with an eye to Jesus Christ, who also was of that tribe, and was descended of David, and is in our text called "the Root of David"; and therefore Christ is here called "the Lion of the tribe of Judah."

2. He is called a Lamb. John was told of a Lion that had prevailed to open the book, and probably expected to see a lion in his vision; but while he is expecting, behold a Lamb appears to open the book, an exceeding diverse kind of creature from a lion. A lion is a devourer, one that is wont to make terrible slaughter of others; and no creature more easily falls a prey to him than a lamb. And Christ is here represented not only as a Lamb, a creature very liable to be slain, but a "Lamb as it had been slain," that is, with the marks of its deadly wounds appearing on it.

Next, Edwards infers this doctrine: "There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ."

Then, he begins explaining this doctrine writing:

There do meet in Jesus Christ infinite highness and infinite condescension.

Christ, as he is God, is infinitely great and high above all. He is higher than the kings of the earth; for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He is higher than the heavens, and higher than the highest angels of heaven. So great is he, that all men, all kings and princes, are as worms of the dust before him; all nations are as the drop of the bucket, and the light dust of the balance; yea, and angels themselves are as nothing before him. He is so high, that he is infinitely above any need of us; above our reach, that we cannot be profitable to him; and above our conceptions, that we cannot comprehend him. Prov. 30:4 "What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" Our understandings, if we stretch them never so far, cannot reach up to his divine glory. Job 11:8 "It is high as heaven, what canst thou do?" Christ is the Creator and great Possessor of heaven and earth. He is sovereign Lord of all. He rules over the whole universe, and doth whatsoever pleaseth him. His knowledge is without bound. His wisdom is perfect, and what none can circumvent. His power is infinite, and none can resist Him. His riches are immense and inexhaustible. His majesty is infinitely awful.

And yet he is one of infinite condescension. None are so low or inferior, but Christ's condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of them. He condescends not only to the angels, humbling himself to behold the things that are done in heaven, but he also condescends to such poor creatures as men; and that not only so as to take notice of princes and great men, but of those that are of meanest rank and degree, "the poor of the world," James 2:5. Such as are commonly despised by their fellow creatures, Christ does not despise. I Cor. 1:28 "Base things of the world, and things that are despised, hath God chosen." Christ condescends to take notice of beggars Luke 16:22 and people of the most despised nations. In Christ Jesus is neither "Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free" (Col. 3:11). He that is thus high condescends to take a gracious notice of little children Matt. 19:14. "Suffer little children to come unto me." Yea, which is more, his condescension is sufficient to take a gracious notice of the most unworthy, sinful creatures, those that have no good deservings, and those that have infinite ill deservings.

Yea, so great is his condescension, that it is not only sufficient to take some gracious notice of such as these, but sufficient for every thing that is an act of condescension. His condescension is great enough to become their friend, to become their companion, to unite their souls to him in spiritual marriage. It is enough to take their nature upon him, to become one of them, that he may be one with them. Yea, it is great enough to abase himself yet lower for them, even to expose himself to shame and spitting; yea, to yield up himself to an ignominious death for them. And what act of condescension can be conceived of greater? Yet such an act as this, has his condescension yielded to, for those that are so low and mean, despicable and unworthy!

Such a conjunction of infinite highness and low condescension, in the same person, is admirable. We see, by manifold instances, what a tendency a high station has in men, to make them to be of a quite contrary disposition. If one worm be a little exalted above another, by having more dust, or a bigger dunghill, how much does he make of himself! What a distance does he keep from those that are below him! And a little condescension is what he expects should be made much of, and greatly acknowledged. Christ condescends to wash our feet; but how would great men, (or rather the bigger worms,) account themselves debased by acts of far less condescension.

This is one of my favorite Edwards sermons. It is rich with worship, exalting and praising the beauty of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

RESPONDING TO UNITARIANISM

I just read one of the best informal responses to unitarianism I've ever come across. It is by Jared Nelson. He posted on trinitarianism last week, received a comment arguing for unitarianism, and today commented in response. You can read both comments under his post. Notice not only the excellent structure and content of Jared's response but also his graciousness and concern for the well-being of the commenter.

THE INTELLECTUAL SIN OF ARMINIANISM

One of the most stirring articles I've ever read is J. I. Packer's introductory essay to John Owen's book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Packer effectively demonstrates the utterly vacuous nature of the Arminian doctrine of universal-potential atonement and makes one of the most compelling cases I've ever read for the promotion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, sometimes called the doctrines of grace or the five points of Calvinism, over and against the gospel of Arminianism.

He writes:

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the ‘five points’, as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the areas in which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

Christ’s work of redemption was defined by the Arminians as the removing of an obstacle (the unsatisfied claims of justice) which stood in the way of God’s offering pardon to sinners, as he desired to do, on condition that they believe. Redemption, according to Arminianism, secured for God a right to make this offer, but did not of itself ensure that anyone would ever accept it; for faith, being a work of man’s own, is not a gift that comes to him from Calvary. Christ’s death created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith, but that is all it did. Calvinists, however, define redemption as Christ’s substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners, through which God was reconciled to them, their liability to punishment was for ever destroyed, and a title to eternal life was secured for them. In consequence of this, they now have in God’s sight a right to the gift of faith, as the means of entry into the enjoyment of their inheritance. Calvary, in other words, not merely made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died; it ensured that they would be brought to faith and their salvation made actual. The cross saves. Where the Arminian will only say; ‘I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary’, the Calvinist will say, ‘Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary.’ The former makes the cross the sine qua non of salvation, the latter sees it as the actual procuring cause of salvation, and traces the source of every spiritual blessing, faith included, back to the great transaction between God and his Son carried through on Calvary’s hill. Clearly, these two concepts of redemption are quite at variance.

Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh. Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says; that is the significance of the patristic testimonies to the teaching of the ‘five points’, which can be quoted in abundance. (Owen appends a few on redemption; a much larger collection may be seen in John Gill’s The Cause of God and Truth.)So that really it is most misleading to call this soteriology ‘Calvinism’ at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. ‘Calvinism’ is one of the ‘odious names’ by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel.

The true evangelical evaluation of the claim that Christ died for every man, even those who perish, comes through at point after point in Owen’s book. So far from magnifying the love and grace of God, this claim dishonors both it and him, for it reduces God’s love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of ‘saving’ grace, so-called (‘saving’ is really a misnomer on this view), into a monumental divine failure. Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain. Lastly, so far from affording faith additional encouragement, it destroys the scriptural ground of assurance altogether, for it denies that the knowledge that Christ died for me (or did or does anything else for me) is a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation; my salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself.

PHILOSOPHY OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRY

The end of my Pastoral Internship at PCPC is quickly approaching (June 30). I have been sending out resumes since January. Last week I was asked to write a philosophy of Christian ministry. Here's what I wrote (suggestions for improvement are welcome):

PHILOSOPHY OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRY
M. Jay Bennett
Pastoral Intern, Park Cities Presbyterian Church
Last Updated, 3-6-8

Toward a Definition of Christian Ministry

The Westminster Confession of Faith 7.1 states:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

The Puritan divines understood that God, by voluntary condescension, chose to enter into a special relationship with his image bearers by way of a covenant. The covenant teaches humanity who God is, who we are, and how we are to relate to him. It is through the covenant that humanity is able to fulfill its chief end of glorifying and enjoying God forever (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.1) or, in other words, having “fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward” (WCF 7.1).

As God’s relationship with the apex of his creation was ordered by means of a covenant of works wherein he promised life on condition of perfect and personal obedience, so all of creation reflected that same covenantal ordering (Genesis 1-2). Marriage, family, and society were ordered by God covenantally. But through the sin of humanity’s primal representative the covenant between God and humanity was breached, and under the judgment of God the created order was disrupted (Genesis 3). Chaos, decay, and death—the wages of sin—entered the world. But God, in love, promised to redeem his elect from sin along with the rest of his creation through the work of his incarnate Son according to a new covenant, the covenant of grace (Genesis 3:15; 15:18; 17:7). This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I define Christian ministry as loving other sinners by helping them (i.e. shepherding) enter into right relationship with the triune God through his covenant and, in humble love and joy (i.e. worship), walk faithfully with him according to the same. Thus, understanding and conforming to the covenantal structure of God’s world, which is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ, is of vital importance to Christian life, worship, and maturity. We should know and consistently be reminded of how we fit into God’s plan for his creation in order to live and worship as Christians. We should be progressively conformed toward relating to our God, one another, and our world rightly in order to mature in the faith.

Concluding Thoughts

Christian ministry begins, is sustained, and ends in the eternal being of the triune God as it is expressed in his revelation. In other words, it happens according to the loving ordination of the heavenly Father through the mediation of his incarnate Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Since the Fall of humanity, the gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e. the covenant of grace in his blood) has been the foundation and framework upon which all of life should be built. It is the lifeblood of the historic Christian church whose visible expression, defined by the proper administration of Word and sacrament, is the context of all Christian ministry. The visible church is “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2).

The process of maturing in the Christian life is a redemptive process in which faith and repentance are central. No one is righteous, but we know the One who is righteous, and we should long to be like him (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16). Since he has redeemed us from sin and given us such a wonderful gift, namely himself, we should worship him in love and joy, mortifying indwelling sin and living unto God by Christ every day (Rom. 6:11).

REHABILITATING A REFORMER?

TimesOnline reports:

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

[HT: Ref21]

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE: True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils

Ernest F. Kevan wrote of the Puritans:

"Ultimately the Puritan was faced with the alternatives of apostasy, hypocrisy, or sainthood." He was possibly nearer the truth than he knew, but the imperishable glory of the Puritans is that most of them chose to be saints (Quoting and commenting on Marlowe, The Grace of Law, 268).

The Park Cities Presbyterian Church pastoral interns have been enjoying a Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith module since our internship started last July. Rob Allen, Pastor of Administration at PCPC, is our teacher. Yesterday we studied Chapter 18 "Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation." Section 1 reads:

Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.

Here the divines distinguish between a false assurance of grace and a true assurance. Those who do not truly believe may in fact have much understanding about Christian divinity and profess to believe the gospel and yet "vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God." The divines understood these men to be hypocrites.

During our WCF session we briefly discussed the issue of hypocrisy. Rob asked, "What could a hypocrite know about God?" Then he referenced James 2:19: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" What kind of knowledge do the demons have? They have far better knowledge of theology than you or me. They have been witnesses of God and his ways since before the creation of humanity. They know Jesus is the incarnate Son of God who has authority to judge and condemn (Mark 5:7), yet they cannot be saved. Therefore, since even the demons have precise knowledge of God and his plan of redemption, then surely a hypocrite could have the same. Rob's point reminded me of Jonathan Edwards's sermon "True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Demons."

Edwards spent much of his life researching and answering this question: "What is the nature of true religion?" His monumental work on that subject was his treatise on The Religious Affections, which is rightly considered one of the masterworks of Christian literature. Edwards's ministry could be properly thought of as an exercise in the promotion of true religion in the world.

He returned often to the subject of the nature of true religion in his sermons. "True Grace Distinguished" is no exception. At 49 years-old, he delivered it before the Synod of New York on September 28, 1952. His text: James 2:19. His thesis: "Nothing in the mind of man, that is of the same nature with what the devils experience, or are the subjects of, is any sure sign of saving grace." Edwards briefly introduces the explanation, defense, and application of his thesis saying:

If there be any thing that the devils have, or find in themselves, which is an evidence of the saving grace of the Spirit of God, then the apostle's argument is not good; which is plainly this: "That which is in the devils, or which they do, is no certain evidence of grace. But the devils believe that there is one God. Therefore, thy believing that there is one God, is no sure evidence that thou art gracious." So that the whole foundation of the apostle's argument lies in that proposition: "That which is in the devils, is no certain sign of grace."

Edwards fundamentally understood that there are two kinds of knowledge in divinity: (1) speculative or natural and (2) practical or spiritual. Speculative or natural knowledge is knowledge available to all fallen moral creatures. Practical or spiritual knowledge only comes to the elect through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Speculative knowledge always includes cognition (i.e. awareness of an object) and can include assent (agreement with the truth of the facts of one's awareness of an object). But practical knowledge includes a third step--living or true faith. True faith is actually entrusting oneself to the object one knows. Edwards proceeds in his sermon along these lines.

First he demonstrates that no degree of speculative cognition in divinity is any certain sign of saving grace. He writes:

Therefore it is manifest, from my text and doctrine, that no degree of speculative knowledge of religion is any certain sign of true piety. Whatever clear notions a man may have of the attributes of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of the two covenants, the economy of the persons of the Trinity, and the part which each person has in the affair of man’s redemption; if he can discourse never so excellently of the offices of Christ, and the way of salvation by him, and the admirable methods of divine wisdom, and the harmony of the various attributes of God in that way; if he can talk never so clearly and exactly of the method of the justification of a sinner, and of the nature of conversion, and the operations of the Spirit of God, in applying the redemption of Christ; giving good distinctions, happily solving difficulties, and answering objections, in a manner tending greatly to enlighten the ignorant, to the edification of the church of God, and the conviction of gainsayers, and the great increase of light in the world: if he has more knowledge of this sort than hundreds of true saints of an ordinary education, and most divines; yet all is no certain evidence of any degree of saving grace in the heart.

Next he demonstrates that no amount of speculative assent is certain evidence of saving grace by making this shocking statement:

The devil is orthodox in his faith; he believes the true scheme of doctrine; he is no Deist, Socinian, Arian, Pelagian, or antinomian; the articles of his faith are all sound, and in them he is thoroughly established.

Therefore, for a person to believe the doctrines of Christianity merely from the force of arguments, as discerned only by speculation, is no evidence of grace.

So what are evidences of true grace?

Edwards answers by describing the nature of a living faith, a true faith that comes through the illumination of the Holy Spirit:

Here possibly some may be ready to inquire, if there be so many things which men may experience from no higher principles than are in the minds and hearts of devils; what are those exercises and affections that are of a higher nature, which I must find in my heart, and which I may justly look upon as sure signs of the saving grace of God’s Spirit?

I answer, those experiences and affections which are good evidences of grace, differ from all that the devils have, and all that can arise from such principles as are in their hearts, in two things, viz., their foundation and their tendency.

On the difference of foundation he says:

They differ in their foundation, or in that belonging to them which is the foundation of all the rest that pertains to them, viz., an apprehension of sense of the supreme holy beauty and comeliness of divine things, as they are in themselves, or in their own nature.

Of this the devils and damned in hell are, and for ever will be, entirely destitute. This the devils once had it, while they stood in their integrity; but they wholly lost it when they fell. And this is the only thing that can be mentioned pertaining to the devil’s apprehension and sense of the Divine Being, that he did lose. Nothing else belonging to the knowledge of God, can be devised, of which he is destitute. It has been observed, that there is no one attribute of the divine nature, but what he knows, with a strong and very affecting conviction. This I think is evident and undeniable. But to the supreme beauty of the divine nature he is altogether blind. He sees no more of it, than a man born perfectly blind does of colors. The great sight he has of the attributes of God gives him an idea and strong sense of his awful majesty, but no idea of his beauty and comeliness. . . .

The wicked, at the day of judgment, will see everything else in Christ, but his beauty and amiableness. . . . They shall see what he is, and what he does; his nature and works shall appear in the strongest view: but his infinite beauty and amiableness, which is all in all, and without which every other property is nothing, and worse than nothing, they will not see.

Therefore in a sight or sense of this fundamentally consists the difference between the saving grace of God’s Spirit, and the experiences of the devils and damned souls. This is the foundation of every thing else that is distinguishing in true Christian experience. This is the foundation of the faith of God’s elect. This gives the mind a saving belief of the truth of divine things. It is a view of the excellency of the gospel, or sense of the divine beauty and amiableness of the scheme of doctrine there exhibited, that savingly convinces the mind that it is indeed divine or of God. . . .

This sight of the beauty of divine things will excite true desires and longings of soul after those things: not like the longings of devils, but natural free desires; the desires of appetite, the thirstings of a new nature, as a new-born babe desires the mother’s breast; and as a hungry man longs for some pleasant food he thinks of; or as the thirsty heart pants after the cool and clear stream.

This sense of divine beauty is the first thing in the actual change made in the soul in true conversion, and is the foundation of every thing else belonging to that change; as is evident by those words of the apostle, “But we all with open face, beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:18).

On the difference of tendency he says:

Truly gracious affections and exercises of mind differ from such as are counterfeit, which arise from no higher principles than are in the hearts of devils, in their tendency.

They are of a tendency and influence very contrary to that which was especially the devil’s sin, even pride. That pride was in peculiar manner the devil’s sin, is manifest from 1 Timothy 3:6, “Not a novice, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil”. False and delusive experiences evermore tend to this, though oftentimes under the disguise of great and extraordinary humility. Spiritual pride is the prevailing temper and general character of hypocrites, deluded with false discoveries and affections.—They are in general of a disposition directly contrary to those two things belonging to the Christian temper, directed to by the apostle; the one in Romans 12:16, “Be not wise in your own conceit,” and the other in Philippians 2:3, “Let each esteem others better than themselves.” False experience is conceited of itself, and affected with itself. Thus he that has false humility is much affected to think how he is abased before God. He that has false love is affected, when he thinks of the greatness of his love. The very food and nourishment of false experience is to view itself, and take much notice of itself; and its very breath and life is to be some way showing itself.—Whereas truly gracious views and affections are of a quite contrary tendency. They nourish no self-conceit; no exalting notion of the man’s own righteousness, experience, or privileges; no high conceit of his humiliations. They incline to no ostentation, nor self-exaltation, under any disguise whatsoever. But that sense of the supreme, holy beauty and glory of God and Christ, which is the foundation of them, mortifies pride, and truly humbles the soul. It not only cuts off some of the outermost branches, but it strikes at the very root of pride; it alters the very nature and disposition of the heart. The light of God’s beauty, and that alone, truly shows the soul its own deformity, and effectually inclines it to exalt God and abase itself.

Edwards finishes his sermon with a vigorous exhortation emphasizing the excellency of true religion in the elect of God:

How excellent is that inward virtue and religion which consists in those! Herein consists the most excellent experiences of saints and angels in heaven. Herein consists the best experience of the man Christ Jesus, whether in his humbled or glorified state. Herein consists the image of God.—Yea, this is spoken of in Scripture as a communication of something of God’s own beauty and excellency. A participation of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). A partaking of his holiness (Hebrews 12:10). A partaking of Christ’s fullness (John 1:16). Hereby the saints are filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:18,19). Hereby they have fellowship with both the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3) that is, they communicate with them in their happiness. Yea, by means of this divine virtue, there is a mutual indwelling of God and the saints; “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16).

This qualification must render the person that has it excellent and happy indeed, and doubtless is the highest dignity and blessedness of any creature. This is the peculiar gift of God, which he bestows only on his special favorites. As to silver, gold, and diamonds, earthly crowns and kingdoms, he often throws them out to those whom he esteems as dogs and swine; but this is the peculiar blessing of his dear children. This is what flesh and blood cannot impart. God alone can bestow it. This was the special benefit which Christ died to procure for his elect, the most excellent token of his everlasting love; the chief fruit of his great labors, and the most precious purchase of his blood.

By this, above all other things, do men glorify God. By this, above all other things, do the saints shine as lights in the world, and are blessings to mankind. And this, above all things, tends to their own comfort; from hence arises that “peace which passeth all understanding,” and that “joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.” And this is that which will most certainly issue in the eternal salvation of those who have it. It is impossible that the soul possessing it should sink and perish. It is an immortal seed; it is eternal life begun; and therefore they that have it can never die. It is the dawning of the light of glory. It is the day-star risen in the heart, that is a sure forerunner of that sun’s rising which will bring on an everlasting day. This is that water which Christ gives, which is in him that drinks it “a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” (John 4:14). It is something from heaven, of a heavenly nature, and tends to heaven. And those that have it, however they may now wander in a wilderness, or be tossed to and fro on a tempestuous ocean, shall certainly arrive in heaven at last, where this heavenly spark shall be increased and perfected, and the souls of the saints all be transformed into a bright and pure flame, and they shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Amen.