Episkopos

N.T. Wright and Deathbed Counsel: Exposing a Fable

2011-06-24T11:12:00.000-04:00

Recently a friend of mine retold a story he had heard in a lecture (precise date unknown) by Don Carson in which Carson alleged that when Dr. Wright was asked what he would say to a person on their deathbed, Wright said that he didn't know or would have to think about it. The implication, of course, is that Wright has no gospel left to preach to a dying person. That account struck me initially as highly implausible. If you know anything about Wright it's that he's rarely at a loss for words. Wright might say some wrong things occasionally, but he always has something to say!

As an admirer of Dr. Wright, I fired off an email to him asking about the origin of this story. Wright responded almost immediately and assured me that though he couldn't remember the exchange it was obvious that he would not have given such an equivocal answer, since as a long-time pastor he has plenty of experience of speaking with people near the point of death and has never had any hesitation in talking to them about the love of God revealed in Jesus and encouraging them to put their whole trust in that saving gift. He said that he had confronted Don Carson, some years ago, about telling and retelling such a slanted and slanderous tale, and that so far as he knows Carson no longer does so.

I'm posting this on my blog to help put this fable to rest. If you want to critique Wright or any scholar, do so in light of their published works and not anecdotes which may or may not be true.

The Gospel Coalition (1)

2011-04-19T10:24:00.006-04:00

I really enjoyed my recent trip to Chicago to attend The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition (hereafter, TGC), so far as I can tell, is an attempt to rally the troops in the movement called the New Calvinism or the Young, Restless, and Reformed and to offer guidance, to encourage and to warn. This movement, which arises out of American evangelicalism, prizes biblical, Christ-centered preaching that is simultaneously culturally relevant. It offers an alternative to young, predominantly white church leaders who may find themselves attracted to the emergent church movement --- another young, predominantly white initiative, but one intent on "doing church" in explicitly PoMo fashion. The obvious conservatism of TGC is neither stodgy nor traditional. The music at the conference was lively and contemporary, and the speakers, often wearing blue jeans, laced their presentations with appropriate humor. The underlying commitment to Reformed soteriology for these individuals does not preclude, for example, a preference for contemporary worship or a neo-Pentecostal embrace of the so-called charismatic gifts

What most impresses me about the TGC conference are its founders, Don Carson and Tim Keller. The other speakers at the plenary sessions were mediocre, especially in comparison to Carson and Keller. I found James McDonald to be genuine, but his props were entirely unnecessary -- it wasn't a gathering of children. Both McDonald and Alistair Begg, who preached on Ruth, were handed wonderful opportunities to preach Christ from their Old Testament texts, but in both instances the references to Christ seemed somewhat detached from their expositions, as an afterthought of sorts. Matt Chandler and Albert Mohler were sound, humorous, and entertaining, but not particularly profound or insightful. Mark Driscoll's workshop had the semblance of an angry rant, and this was particularly disappointing to me since I found Driscoll to be quite insightful at the last conference.

Part of this mild letdown can be explained by my upbringing. I've been extraordinarily blessed to be nurtured in my youth by faithful, redemptive-historical, Christocentric preaching. The important figures in my own church history, Klaas Schilder and Benne Holwerda, were pioneers in developing a homiletic for narrative texts that was explicitly Christocentric and non-moralistic. By the age of twenty, long before I went to seminary, I had read Sidney's Greidanus's Sola Scriptura. So what the New Calvinism is cutting its teeth on has been my staple for decades.

And yet the conference was an immense blessing for me, and for several reasons: (a) the rousing music and faithful songs of the Gettys; (b) Tim Keller's brilliant lectures, (c) David Powlison's talk about the pastor's counselling ministry, (d) conversing with David later about the use of Scripture in counselling, (e) Don Carson's exciting talk about Melchizedek, (f) chilling with family and friends.

Next time, I'll return to Tim Keller. He is the reason I attended TGC conference, and he is the reason I will return.

Vonk on Genesis 1 (4)

2011-04-06T11:17:00.002-04:00

God gets the credit

The person who recorded Gen.1:1–6 for his contemporaries was writing truth. To whom do all things owe their origin—the things that we see and the things that we do not (yet) see, those referred to in one way in this age and in another way in that way—to whom else do they owe their origin than to the Lord, our God, the creator of heaven and earth?

In what other way could the author of Genesis 1 make clear to his hearers and readers that the credit for creating everything they saw was due exclusively to the one true God, than by addressing them in their language and by making use of their notions and conceptions? For that reason he gave the name raqia’ to that which we still perceive today as a vault—a Hebrew word which was associated at that time with notions which we no longer share, even though the separation of waters above and waters below is still highly significant for us today.

In this way we understand the intention of the author of these verses perfectly well, just as we can understand his intention for all of Genesis 1 in a similar way. This is especially true if we take note of the conclusion and the sequel of this chapter, for then we can discern the underlying plan. From the very beginning the intention of Genesis 1 has been lead the Israelites in a subtle way to praise the One who had let himself be called Yahweh by them ever since Horeb. As they heard or read this chapter, they were to come to the conclusion that the honour and glory of all that exists belonged to the God of Israel.

The entire story is constructed in such a way that the Israelites could not help but break out at the end in a song of praise to Yahweh, who had spoken to his people on Mount Horeb and identified himself there as the Creator of heaven and earth, and even of the fearsome sea. With a mighty hand and sovereign ease he had made them himself, and afterward took a rest which nothing or no one could prevent, and which he now gave, indeed commanded, to his Israel in a day of undisturbed rest and relaxation.

Vonk on Genesis 1 (3)

2011-04-06T11:16:00.002-04:00

Already harmonized

It has pleased God our Father to tell us something about the origin of the great realities which we see with our eyes and which cause us to magnify his name. He was not under obligation to anyone to do this. Nor was there any mortal to whom he could explain these things as to an equal. But he was pleased to do this because he wanted to be honoured by us as the only and almighty God (Rev.4:11). This is a lesson of Genesis 1 that no one may call into question.

Perhaps he also wanted to guard Israel against the foolish notion that things arose as the result of a struggle of fearsome primordial monsters, or against the mistaken conception that those things together constituted a second god, which had existed next to him from all eternity. Therefore God let us know something about the origin of all things, namely that they all owe their existence to his creative hand. It was his prerogative to make use of whatever language and time he pleased, and of whatever nation.

Naturally these things were of considerable influence on the manner of presentation. The Lord did not express himself about these things in the concepts of the 20th century. He would not have been understood if he had. The Scriptures sometimes speak of the earth as though it had four corners and rested on pillars (Job 9:6; Jet. 49:36; Rev.7:1 and 20:8), and sometimes as though the land floated on water (Ps.24:1).

Is it possible for us, who have now learned to speak in completely different ways, to dismiss these passages as untrue, or must we in some way or other seek to bring them into harmony with the exact results of science? Surely that is completely unnecessary; they already are in harmony. There is no question of conflict here. Each passage is simply speaking with its own purpose and above all in the language of its hearers and readers.

How would the prophets, the poets and the singers of Israel have been understood by themselves and by their contemporaries if they had spoken the language of our days? It is understandable that we do not have controversies about those pillars and foundations; it would be simply too silly.

But can we then say that we do have the right, on the basis of contemporary knowledge concerning the structure and history of the universe and the earth, to criticize what we are told in Genesis 1, and that we must then exert every possible effort to try to reconcile the one with the other? Let me give just one example.

In Gen.1:6-8 we are told that God made the firmament. In the Hebrew the word that is used is raqia’. We must not give this word the same meaning as our words “atmosphere” or “stratosphere” because these are modern concepts. If Old Testament scholar Brongers is right, the Israelites conceived of this as a vault, made either of cloth or flattened metal, having doors and windows in it, and water above it.

Now some people today will immediately say that such a vault does not exist at all, and that therefore it cannot have been created by God either. We would not be able to deny this. But does this mean that we have declared Gen.1:6-8 to be untrue? Or must we now exert ourselves to rescue this part of Scripture from the hands of the critics by reading our concept “atmosphere” into the Hebrew word in question? Both responses are illegitimate.

Vonk on Genesis 1 (2)

2011-04-06T11:15:00.002-04:00

Much writing and controversy

These difficulties which seemed to many to be occasioned by the reading of Genesis 1 have given rise to an extensive literature and much controversy. Some decided, on the basis of supposed inaccuracies in this one chapter, to reject the rest of Scripture as well and to abandon their faith altogether, whereas others looked for a solution in harmonizing the Bible and science.

The most obvious way of doing this was to equate the days of Genesis I with epochs, possibly epochs of immense length, which could easily accommodate the results of astronomical and geological research. Perhaps there have also been those who thought to themselves: those days of Genesis I were just ordinary 24-hour days and those geologists and other scientist types are selling me a bill of goods. But, of course, to hide one’s head in the sand is not a satisfactory solution, not to mention the hard-line which this implies against fellow-believers who are also serious about their faith.

We do not wish to suggest that we are above all such debates among Christians about the interpretation of Genesis 1, but the question has occurred to us from time to time whether we are really dealing here with genuine difficulties resulting from a real clash between Scripture and science, and whether, consequently, the search for solutions is not superfluous. Is this a proper use of the Genesis creation story? Or is it possible that we can properly apply the following analogy, which we once heard someone use in a discussion of these matters?

Imagine a great industrialist, someone like Henry Ford, sitting in his old age surrounded by some of his grandchildren, who are 10 or 12 years old. They ask him how it came about that Grandpa created the large company which made him so famous. How will he answer his grandchildren in a way which will give them some insight into how he laid the foundations of his mighty enterprise?

He will tell a story, a story adapted to children. The story will be geared to children, not to adults. Making use of their limited conceptual possibilities he tells in sequence the story of some of the main components of his business, things that the children have some experience of at the present time. But now suppose that those same children go on to study economics and related disciplines, and then, armed with this academic training, begin to do research in Grandpa’s enormous business archives. Some of them, on the basis of certain items in Grandpa’s immense archives, will feel compelled to come to conclusions that are somewhat different from what they remember of the story they heard as a child and will question the truth of that story. Others will try by all sorts of solutions to vindicate Grandpa’s truthfulness.

Is it really necessary to do either of these things? Was that really the point of the earlier children’s story, to be subjected at some time in the future to the criticism of economic science?

Vonk on Genesis 1 (1)

2011-04-06T11:14:00.000-04:00

Cornelis Vonk (1904-93) was a pastor in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands who initiated a multi-volume commentary on both the Bible and the Reformed confessions entitled De Voorzeide Leer (The Aforesaid Doctrine). What follows is taken from Volume 1a (pp.98-102) which deals with introductory matters and Genesis-Exodus. It usefully illustrates how Dutch Reformed pastors and theologians commonly approached questions of science and Scripture without resorting either to liberalism or fundamentalism. The following translation is courtesy of Dr. Al Wolters, one of my beloved professors from Redeemer University College, and was first published in Calvinist Contact (January 18, 1991: pp 12-13).

* * *

The author of Genesis may have expected his readers to have little difficulty in understanding him, but subsequent readers of the first page of the Bible have had difficulties aplenty. This was already the case in a time and in a country that were not even so very far removed from the time and the country of the apostles.

The author and first readers of Genesis 1 were undoubtedly people of ordinary intelligence and therefore must have realized that the light which they enjoyed every day really came from the sun, which was not created until the fourth day; yet they had no problem with the fact that the creation of light is already mentioned on the first day.

Similarly, Christ and his apostles never issued any warnings against the first page of “Moses and the Prophets” because it contained something that didn’t quite fit. Nevertheless, as early as the Syriac church fathers there were those who had difficulty with Genesis 1 because they could not understand how there could have been evening and morning before there was a sun that rose and set. Consequently, they devised a number of different solutions to the problem.

However, in subsequent ages the problems have become more acute as a result of reflections on the age of the universe, especially that of the earth. As astronomers investigated the universe with its immense masses and volumes, distances, temperatures, numbers, its concentration here and its emptiness there, they became acquainted with such awesome dimensions, both of space and time, that their greatest astronomical yardstick, the so-called cosmic year (the time it takes for the sun to circle the centre of gravity of our galaxy) was hardly sufficient to measure these dimensions. As for geologists, especially the paleontologists among them, who did research on the earliest time of the earth’s existence, they could come to no other conclusions than that the length of time which had elapsed between the first life on earth and the arrival of the human race must have been by far greater than just a few days.

The Contemplative Imperative: Are there healthy alternatives to smoking?

2011-03-31T16:11:00.002-04:00

It was a pleasure of mine not so long ago to attend a Paidea event where (aspiring) scholars were invited to reflect on the promises and perils of Neo-Calvinism, the revival of Calvinism initiated by Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck that was characterized by an acknowledgement of Christ's lordship over all of life and a corollary orientation to worldview thinking. Not only was I treated to stirring lectures by the likes of Craig Bartholomew, Michael Goheen, and Calvin Seerveld, I was blessed to dialogue with a variety of individuals with the interesting and engaging personalities you would expect to find at such a gathering. In a conversation with Rob Joustra and Alissa Wilkinson, I shared my theory on why smoking is so attractive to academics.

Those of us who spend a good deal of the day buried in books need periodically to stand up or wander around and contemplate what we've been reading if only to determine specifically how it has relevance for the project with which we are busy. Any academic will concede the usefulness of such an exercise, and Rob and Alissa were no different. The problem is that the moment of contemplation has an awkward feel to it; one simply stands and stares, as if in a trance, and that looks funny, seems wrong, induces guilt, etc. We could be helped if there were something to do, or better, to enjoy, in this moment. Puffing on a cigarette fills the need perfectly: it takes the awkwardness out of the moment, and there's no longer a need for embarrassment if someone approaches and sees you in your trance-like contemplation. After all, you're doing something.

The problem, however, is that though smoking stimulates brain activity shortterm, it tends to do nasty things to other important organs without which proper human functioning is difficult. We need alternatives. Chewing gum won't do; it still looks silly. What would really help is a harmless cigarette which is non-addictive, nicotine free, etc. Is there anybody out there who can help us?

New Look and Outlook

2011-03-18T10:17:00.000-04:00

In the coming days I'm going to resurrect this blog with a slightly new look and a definite new outlook. I was preoccupied in the past with theological debates, and though I'm still strongly convicted about the things I wrote, I'm disillusioned about the possibility of sincere, meaningful theological dialogue within the confessionally Reformed camp. In the future, therefore, this blog will be dedicated to more profitable ventures.

Personal Assessment of 2010 URCNA Synod (2)

2010-08-05T15:58:00.003-04:00

A question which deserves consideration is, why is the URCNA so insistent on repudiating Federal Vision? Are there churches divided over this issue? Are there men in the URCNA teaching what are perceived to be the dangers of Federal Vision? Is Federal Vision making inroads into the URCNA? Is this an issue URCNA churches are unable of their own to resolve? Why was a synodical pronouncement so necessary?

The fact that the URCNA made these pronouncements apart from any evidence anywhere of alleged false teaching in the church is curious. When may synod make doctrinal pronouncements or give pastoral advice about doctrinal issues? The answer, it seems, is: when it feels like it.

Not exactly a great precedent. What's next?

What was accomplished by approving the recommendations of the FV Report?

1. The names and reputations of godly pastors were dragged through the mud. This is what I find especially objectionable. My URCNA friends tell me that the FV Report was not adopted, but only received; the recommendations are adopted. True enough, but the contents of the report will now be published and distributed, even though they are full of fallacies and distortions.

The names of John Barach, Steve Wilkins, Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart and others are all mentioned in the report. Variations of their teachings, according to the report, must be repudiated. Do these men have the opportunity to defend themselves? Can they explain their statements? Have they retracted anything? There's no way to know without talking to them. Talking to FV personalities, however, ruins the fun; they sound so orthodox when they explain themselves.

Do I sound sarcastic? The men mentioned above are my friends. I know them well, some better than others. They are people with sensitive hearts and souls. They are godly husbands and fathers, with loving wives and children. They are Reformed pastors in the church of Christ whose hearts beat for the gospel They are co-laborers in the kingdom of Christ. Was it too much to speak to them?

John Barach was a fellow seminarian of many pastors in the URCNA, a student of several professors. Everyone loved John at seminary. He was the seminary's bright light. John's going to go places, we all said. Was it too much to talk to him?

The Arminians at the Synod of Dort were initially seated as delegates. They were given opportunity to defend themselves. True, say my correspondents, but the FV leaders are not ministers in the URCNA. True, I say, but then why are you badmouthing them? It's easy to condemn someone when he's not in the room.

2. A message is sent to the Can Ref that their constant warnings about adopting extra-confessional pronouncements are worthless. This point cannot be minimized. The URCNA was warned about the nine points. The nine points were re-affirmed and more points were added.

What about the Reformed confessions is unsatisfactory? Is the teaching on justification really that unclear? Is the teaching on the sacraments really that obscure? If the recommendations basically say exactly what the confessions do, why are they necessary? If they say something beyond than the confessions, why isn't that extra-confessional binding?

3. Those who have made careers out of badmouthing FV personalities and distorting their teachings can feel good about themselves and continue in their ways.

I realize that there are many who participated in this synodical decision who are not culpable. They are godly men who sincerely want the gospel to be preserved in its integrity. They fear that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone is being jeopardized. I'm with them, in some sense. But I'm not with those who've read through the Joint FV Statement and know exactly what FV folk truly affirm and deny and persist in condemning.

Personal Assessment of the 2010 URCNA Synod

2010-08-05T09:19:00.003-04:00

I've been asked by several friends to comment on the recent URCNA synod. I suspect the reason for this is two-fold: (a) I served as a URCNA minister for 12 years, attended all the synods, participated in several advisory committees and federational committees and even functioned for a time as the federation's stated clerk, in which capacity I assembled the Agenda for, and recorded the minutes of, Synod 2004 in Calgary; (b) I was quite critical on this blog of the FV Report drafted by the committee appointed by Synod 2007.

In what follows I will present an assessment of the recent URCNA synod, though it will be prefaced by a lengthly autobiographical account which hopefully will shed light on how I've reached my assessment. What follows is borderline "stream of consciousness" and I apologize at the outset for grammatical and spelling blunders. I don't have the time to edit!!

I am presently happy to be a minister in the Canadian Reformed Churches, though I cherish my friendships with URCNA colleages and have fond memories of serving two wonderful congregations, in Grande Prairie, AB and Kansas City, MO. In both locales I was surrounded by loving people and wise and considerate elders who shaped me more than they will ever realize. Leaving congregations is painful, and some of that pain is still with me. I am indebted the URCNA, particularly for the lessons in ministry I learned.

I was baptized as an infant in the Canadian Reformed church I now pastor. I was catechized in the Canadian Reformed churches and schooled by Canadian Reformed teachers. Some would say, "You can take a man out of the Canadian Reformed churches, but you can't take the Canadian Reformed churches out of a man." Though I tended be critical of my ecclesiastical context in my youth (and continue to harbor some critique), I remained loyal to essence of what I was taught by my pastors and teachers because I've increasingly recognized their biblical rootedness.

When I was a student at Redeemer University College I was taught by, among others, Dr. Theodore Plantinga. In my early years as student at Redeemer he was busy translating Rudolf Van Reest's book, which was later published under the title, "Schilder's Struggle for the Unity of the Church." Dr. Plantinga gave me pre-publication drafts of the chapters he had completed, assuming I'd be interested. The fact is, I wasn't, but as I read these chapters I became interested. I still chuckle about Van Reest's depiction of Schilder: his fondness for Schilder was sometimes excessive, as in "No one could smoke a cigar quite like Schilder." All of this prompted in me a desire to learn more about Schilder and the theological tradition I had inherited.

In the spring of 1992 I studied in the Netherlands through the then Netherlandic SPICE program under the auspices of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. I acquired a basic reading knowledge of Dutch and began to read materials by Benne Holwerda and Cornelis Trimp, both of whom I regard as brilliant intellects and creative thinkers in the Reformed tradition. While in Holland, I visited the Theological University in Kampen (Broederweg), had tea with Dr. Jochem Douma and Drs. Ohmann (sp?) and listened to some lectures in church history by a Dr. Vanderpol (I think).

Towards the end of my time at Redeemer I became very intrigued by Kuyper and the neo-Calvinism of Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. Dr. Al Wolters must shoulder the burden of this -- his lectures on the subject are among the most memorable I've ever heard. I applied and was accepted into a Master's program at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. I applied and was accepted simultaneously at Mid-America Reformed Seminary (then in Orange City, IA) since I had friends who had gone there who said it was quite fun: classes in the morning, golf in the afternoon, movies at night, as one friend put it. Over lunch at my summer job (managing a small garden center outside of Toronto) I decided to abandon my plans to study at the ICS and go the MARS instead.

Mid-America was fantastic in those days. I loved every minute of my seminary training. Rev. Vanderhart taught Hebrew as an enthusiast; Dr. Venema taught theology carefully and winsomely, sometimes with an open Hebrew or Greek Bible in front of him; Dr. Kloosterman taught everything with his characteristic charisma. Rev. Zorn was an ardent VanTilian who lectured from his wide experience, though my recollection is that every lecture ended with a digression into the thinking of the philosopher Kant. When I think of Zorn's lectures I immediately imagine a chart with the noumenal and the phenomenlogical.

I felt very much at home at Mid-America in those days. There was a lot of fondness for Klaas Schilder and the so-called "Liberated tradition." This was reflected in Dr. Venema's lectures. Dr. Venema sided with Schilder in just about every debate, though he was always and properly concerned about extremes. Back in those days, he didn't care much for the term "covenant of works," defended the objectivity of the covenant, was critical of the concept of the "invisible church" (preferring the language of "unsurveyable") and didn't say much about a law-gospel dichotomy, etc. Moreover, whenever the name Norman Shepherd was mentioned, it was in the context of appreciation. That was then.

I was the first individual to go through the ordination process of the newly formed federation, then called, "The Uniting Reformed Churches in North America." I accepted a call from the Orthodox Reformed Church in Edmonton to help plant a church in Grande Prairie. Those were fabulous days, and I was happy to have Rev. Bill Pols mentor me. In my first year of ministry I wrote a monograph on the covenant which some found helpful. It was translated into a couple of languages, and eventually found its way into the hands of Scott Clark. Scott didn't care for it. It didn't help that in my preface I indicated that my understanding of the covenant was shaped largely by people like Klaas Schilder, Jelle Faber, Cornelius Vander Waal and Norman Shepherd.

One of the things I argued in that monograph was that Genesis 15:6 (quoted in Romans 4) does not refer to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is what Shepherd also taught, and Clark wasn't happy. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. To me, it was an unacceptable exegetical stretch to call this theological shorthand for "the imputation of Christ's righteousness." We must not impose our theological categories on the text of Scripture. To me, the text was simply saying that God reckoned Abraham as righteous through (and only through) his faith. This reading finds an elaborate defense in Dr. Gert Kwakkel's monograph, "De Gerechtigheid van Abram." Since Scott stumbled upon this paper, he hasn't thought too highly of me (which means, he has never thought too highly of me!!).

During my Grande Prairie days I was also introduced to the writings of James B. Jordan and they have revolutionized my thinking. I know of no one who knows the Bible better than Jim Jordan. My friend John Barach and I used to quip that Jim was either ON TO something or he was ON something, because some of his ideas sound outlandish initially. Jim was shaped by a lot of the same thinkers as I was (i.e., the Dutch redemptive-historical interpreters), and so his ideas resonated with me.

During my GP days I also stumbled upon the writings of N.T. Wright, and I read his column in "Bible Review" faithfully. Wright's book, "Jesus and the Victory of God" has radically altered my understanding of the New Testament. I didn't care too much for his book, "What Saint Paul Really Said" though I've found his later books on Paul much more palatable, if not helpful.

During these years a strong friendship was forged between John Barach, Tim Gallant and me --- someone apparently referred to us as Mid-America's Canadian triumvirate. We graduated in different years, but shared interests and a connection to Grande Prairie, AB. John and Tim are extraordinarily bright individuals. John's memory is photographic and Tim is brilliantly creative. There was once talk of some seminary in Mexico hiring John to teach. When it was pointed out that John didn't know Spanish, Bill Pols quipped, "That's no problem. He'll learn it on the plane on the way down."

John had become very enamored with the "Liberated" tradition in his second year at seminary. I remember him stumbling into class (he was not a morning person) saying, "I've experienced a major paradigm shift." Dr. Kloosterman taught John Dutch and soon enough John was throwing around words like "verbond" and "verkiezing." Since then John has read numerous Dutch books in the Liberated tradition and even translated a couple of them.

Things began to change at Mid-America about three years after I graduated. If I had to pinpoint a watershed moment, it would be the publication of Cornel Venema's article defending the covenant of works. This article was published around the time that Tim Gallant had written a paper in seminary quite critical of the covenant of works. Venema defended the concept of merit in the covenant of works, but since he recognized that merit is not merit strictly speaking, he put the word in quotation marks. You will note Venema's influence in the recent synodical recommendations re: FV. Merit appears as "merit." To me, he conceded the debate in so doing. We can call Adam's obedience meritorious, but it's not really meritorious. I'm fine with that.

John and I were blogging back then about N.T. Wright and Venema wasn't thrilled. On a visit to the seminary, I was called into his principal's office where I was "rebuked" for my generally positive appraisal of Wright. Moreover, Tim came out in favor of paedocommunion. Since then, Venema has devoted much of his career, it seems, to refuting N.T. Wright and paedocommunion. The subtext could be: I hope no more students turn out like Bill, John or Tim. And we generally agree!!

In the years that followed, Mid-America became more oriented, it seems, to the Westminster Standards. That's why I think the publication of Venema's article on the covenant of works is a watershed moment. The terminology of "covenant of works" is nowhere in the Three Forms of Unity, but Venema felt obliged to employ it, in part because of its appearance in the Westminster Standards. Mid-America professors, after all, are required to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, in addition to the Three Forms of Unity. Today at Mid-America you will hear robust defenses of the visible/invisible church distinction, of the law/gospel dialectic and of a meritorious covenant of works (confirmed by recent students who have been kind to share their notes).

This move to a more robust Westminster perspective coincided with a distancing from Schilder and the Liberated tradition. One professor at Mid-America who had nothing but fondness for Schilder while I was a student alleged some five years ago that Schilder was a "latent Arminian." A new theological orientation was emerging at Mid-America, and one not so different from the orientation at Westminster Seminary in California.

Professors at Westminster Seminary in California are also required to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. That's perfectly understandable. WSCAL is a Presbyterian seminary, and it's reflected in the name. Moreover, it's no secret that Scott Clark (in particular) is not impressed by Klaas Schilder whose theology he routinely depicts as "idiosyncratic" at best.

Thus, the main two seminaries feeding the URCNA are confessionally committed to a theological foundation the URCNA is not --- namely, the Westminster theological tradition. The result is that the theology of the pastors in the URCNA looks and sounds increasingly very Westminsterish. This is going to make them very squeamish about emphases in the Canadian Reformed tradition and in the so-called "Federal Vision" school of thought.

At synod 2007 in Schererville there was a lot of opposition to the proposed merger with the Can Ref. The delegates talked often about "applying the brakes" to the whole process. In the adoption of the nine points, there was a clear, though implicit message, to the Can Ref -- namely, "we are not friends of Schilder around here."

Similarly, there was an implicit message to the Can Ref in the recent adoption of the anti-FV recommendations -- namely, "we know the Can Ref don't like extra-confessional declarations, but we're going to make them anyways."

People in the Can Ref churches should not see these decisions as benign. They are telling, and they are not encouraging.

What's being lost in the URCNA is the Afscheiding theological tradition and the commitment to historic Reformed polity. A new federation is emerging in which the theology will look increasingly Westminsterish and in which synods will have no qualms about making extra-confessional pronouncements. In both instances, the loser is the Three Forms of Unity. That's what's especially sad for me.

The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness (2)

2010-05-11T11:36:00.003-04:00

Several weeks ago I began a blog series on the imputation of Christ's righteousness and my busy schedule has prevented me from posting again. This week is really no different with an Ascension Day service Thursday evening, a wedding on Friday and morning worship on Sunday, so I'll do this quickly.

In the previous post I noted that there were divines at the Westminster Assembly who insisted that what is imputed in justification is Christ's passive righteousness. Though the majority of commissioners embraced a double imputation (active and passive righteousness), the Westminster Assembly did not want to exclude the minority position from their confessional stance.

The following information is derived from Hans Boersma's super informative Th.D. dissertation, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter's Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy. In my edition published by Boekencentrum in Zoetemeer, the relevant page numbers are 220-230.

In the continental Reformed tradition there are many who embraced what at the Westminster Assembly was a minority position. John Calvin believed that Christ obeyed the law for our sake, but he stopped short of stating that Christ's obedience to the law was imputed to us. It was Calvin's colleague and successor, Theodore Beza, who was the first to differentiate sharply between aspects of Christ's righteousness.

Many in the continental tradition rejected Beza's reformulation of the doctrine of justification as including the imputation of Christ's active obedience, including Zacharius Ursinus (1534-83), Caspar Olevianus (1536-87), David Pareus (1548-1622), Marcus Friedrich Wendelin (1584-1652), Jacob Alting (1618-76)and Johannes Piscator (1546-1625). At the synod of Dort, Sibrandus Lubbertus (1555-1625)and Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) showed sympathy for this position, though Synod reaffirmed double imputation by amending the text of the Belgic Confession by adding the words "in our stead" to Article 22.

Boersma's claims are supported by Heinrich Heppe who in his Reformed Dogmatics states, "The older German-Reformed theologians (chiefly those of Heidelberg, Herborn, Anhalt like URSIN, PISCATOR, SCULTETUS) had of course taught with apparent agreement, that Christ gave the 'active obedience' purely for himself, in order to be able as the holy deliverer to offer the Father the only representative 'passive obedience'" (p.460).

More to follow . . .

Union with Christ and Infant Baptism

2010-03-31T10:17:00.004-04:00

I'm planning, momentarily, to return to a new series on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but have been too busy recently to post anything. I did contribute this morning to a discussion about baptism and union with Christ on an email list and I'm reproducing the essence of my comments below.

Water baptism formally marks one's inclusion in the body of Christ. This gets at the heart of what it means to hold to infant baptism. The union with Christ (with accompanying privileges and obligations) which is accessed by faith belongs by covenantal promise to baptized infants. For this reason I urge parents to raise their baptized children as Christians and to summon them, even when they are two, to be prophets, priests and kings!!!

Consider the historic Form for the Baptism of Infants used in continental Reformed churches: "When we are baptized into the Name of the Son, God the Son promises us that He washes us in His blood from all our sins and unites us with Him in His death and resurrection. Thus we are freed from our sins and accounted righteous before God. When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins, etc." Then we pray before the baptism that God will graciously look upon the child and incorporate him by His Holy Spirit into His Son Jesus Christ so that he may be buried with him by baptism into death and raised with him to walk in newness of life.

Every time, it seems, anyone talks about union with Christ through baptism, someone else objects, pointing out that union with Christ is enjoyed only through faith (and not baptism). Answer 20 or 32 of the Heidelberg Catechism is usually appealed to in this connection.

No one disputes that we become members of Christ by faith. What is not always acknowledged, however, is that the privileges and obligations of believers belong, by virtue of covenantal promise, to baptized infants.

I've long been fascinated by the uniqueness of the Greek preposition eis (which means "in" or "into") in certain NT formulations. I once heard Sinclair Ferguson say that, so far as he knows, the Pauline expression "believe into (eis) Christ" is completely unique to the Bible and is not found anywhere in extra-biblical koine or classical Greek literature. What I find fascinating is that this is the same preposition used in the expression "baptism into Christ" as in Galatians 3:28 (lit. trans.): "For as many into Christ were baptized (eis Christon ebaptisthete) were clothed in Christ."

So we believe into Christ and we are baptized into Christ. It might seem like two separate unions, but it's not. The union with Christ which is accessed by faith belongs by covenantal promise to baptized infants. The privileges and obligations of membership in Christ are like oversized garments for these infants. But we, their parents, summon them to grow into them. Those who shirk from their membership in Christ in unrepentance will be cut off from Christ (John 15).

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness (1)

2010-03-09T10:55:00.003-05:00

Many in confessionally Reformed churches in North America today are preoccupied with debates about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. What exactly is meant by this phrase to which so many cling as an essential component of Christ's saving work? Eventually I'll be giving my own spin on this doctrine, but before I do I want to set the stage with some background information from church history, beginning with the great Westminster Assembly (mid-17th century). The information which follows is available in Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652 (Ph.D. diss: Cambridge University, 2004), 270-344.

What exactly is meant by the phrase “imputation of Christ’s righteousness” was hotly debated at the Westminster Assembly in September, 1643. The commissioners were busy refining Article 11 of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England when a prolonged debate erupted about the active obedience of Christ. It was proposed that the language of the original Article 11, “we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” be amended to, “we are accounted righteous before God . . . only for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s sake, his whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed unto us.” It’s clear from the Minutes of the Assembly that the language of “whole obedience” was intended to include both the active and passive obedience of Christ.

This proposed amendment provoked opposition from a minority contingent at the Assembly led by the capable Thomas Gataker who wanted the word “whole” struck from Assembly’s formulation because of his conviction that the righteousness associated with Jesus’ death is the only righteousness which avails for sinners in justification. Though the majority of commissioners at the Assembly did not agree with Gataker (or William Twisse and Richard Vines), they did formulate the statement in the Westminster Confession in such a way as to allow for Gataker’s passive righteousness only position. The word “whole” was struck and precise identity of the imputed righteousness of Christ was left undefined. Reflecting on this move, William Barker writes, “The Westminster Divines, in such controversies, sought to be clear and faithful to Scriptural language, yet to allow for shades of difference within a generic Calvinism” (Puritan Profiles: 54 Influential Puritans at the Time When the Westminster Confession of Faith was Written [Geanies House, Scotland: Mentor, 1999], 158).

Reflections on Stackhouse's Finally Feminist

2010-02-05T12:44:00.018-05:00

Recently at the Cornerstone book club, of which I am privileged to be part, we discussed John Stackhouse's book, Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005). I've enjoyed a number of Stackhouse's books, but I didn't find the argument in this one particularly compelling.

Stackhouse's book can easily be read in an hour. I took two hours to read it and, as I did, jotted down some rather random criticisms and questions. I don't have the time to rewrite these criticisms into a formal book review, so I'm leaving these comments in their random format. Moreover, since I have returned the book to a member in the congregation from whom I borrowed it, I'm unable to double check page references and hope they are accurate.

Plug for the Cornerstone book club: Our discussion at this meeting was, as always, superb. Various viewpoints were represented: some were very favorable to Stackhouse; others were not impressed. I'm always encouraged by the mature and edifying conversations we can have, sometimes in a context of strong disagreement. I certainly learned a lot from the discussion.

Stackhouse’s thesis in a nutshell is that, though it's all over the Bible, patriarchy (by which Stackhouse apparently means any sort of headship/submission relationship) is a sinful, oppressive structure the Holy Spirit accommodates (57), analogous to Moses accommodating divorce because of hard-heartedness. The apostles taught a policy of social conservatism and encouraged cooperation with political powers and social structures in the interest of spreading the gospel before the imminent return of Christ. Paul prohibited female leadership because women then were uneducated and unskilled in rhetoric, but permitted women to pray and prophesy because these activities did not require formal education. He encouraged them to keep their heads covered to avoid scandal. Women were considered “the weaker vessel” and Peter encourages them to play that role well (59).

Stackhouse employs what’s often called a “redemptive-historical” or “trajectory” hermeneutic to argue that the church should transcend the culturally relative prohibitions of Scripture. Because our society is far more enlightened than ancient societies and because we now recognize the true equality between men and women, there no longer is a need to accommodate the sinful structure of patriarchalism.

Comments:

1. The widespread use of the term "patriarchy," rarely used among complementarians, is pejorative.

2. Slavery per se is not evil. If it were evil, the apostles would have condemned it as such. They openly assailed the institutions of paganism that were antithetical to Christianity. They were unafraid to upset an economic status quo, as in: don’t eat meat sacrificed to idols! If slavery is wrong, why didn’t Jesus say so? Jesus wasn’t afraid to critique the practices of the Pharisees.

Stackhouse does not differentiate Hebrew slavery from Roman slavery from nineteenth century slave trade (kidnapping is forbidden by Exod.21:16). Roman slavery was cruel and oppressive; nineteenth century slavery was racist. Hebrew slavery was benevolent. In a time when there wasn’t an elaborate banking system with mortgages and other long terms loan options, one could repay a debt by voluntarily enslaving oneself to a creditor. Wouldn’t it be better for a debtor to work for a creditor until the debt was paid off then go to prison or lose his home? Lastly, slavery is not dead: the army is a kind of slavery.

Besides, in Israel, debts were cancelled every seven years (Deut.15:12) and slaves had the option of going free. The fact that slaves are given the option to stay with their masters shows that it wasn’t intended to be an oppressive institution (Deut.15:16-17).

Christians are encouraged in the NT to obey masters. Stackhouse assumes that it's right for slaves to revolt. But slaves, in countries today where slavery is permitted, are still required to obey their masters. Masters, then and today, are required to treat their slaves justly (Col.4:1). There is little emphasis in the Bible on rights, as there is on fulfilling responsibilities well.

Lastly, the Bible does not insist on the continuation of slavery. Like the institution of monarchy, it seems suited for more primitive cultures. It is not commanded by God, but regulated by God.

3. There is, to be sure, a sense in which there is progress in history to which the Bible accommodates itself. A good part of the OT deals with kings, though monarchy is nowhere commanded in Scripture. He allowed for Israel to have a king and regulated the kingship and encouraged submission to kings, but nowhere did he command it. A wife’s submission to her husband, however, is commanded and a woman’s subordination in the church is commanded.

4. There is a widening of privilege in the new covenant for women. Girls are now baptized and women now partake of the Lord’s Supper. This must have been scandalous then. Why didn’t Paul accommodate prevailing opinion there? Yet, the widening of privilege does not mean an erasing of differentiating roles.

5. There are times when Paul clearly accommodates a culture. When he does, he says so. He urges Tim to get circumcised for example (Acts 16:3) because “of the Jews who lived there.”

6. Stackhouse sees parent/child relationships as oppressive. He writes, “But no one should suggest that children are in perpetual thrall to their parents’ commands.” But is this what the Bible assumes of parent/child relationships?? Should children be liberated from their family structures?

7. Stackhouse assumes that “weaker vessel” is a matter of sociological recognition and not innate fact. But, generally speaking, aren’t women physically weaker than men? Why is it embarrassing to admit that? Is the assumption that stronger is better? Why?

8. Why should the apparent imminence of Christ’s return be an argument for accommodating sinful structures? One would expect the opposite. In view of an imminent return from Christ, you would expect Christians to be emboldened to overturn sinful structures.

9. Test case (a) — modesty. Paul urges modesty for women. Perhaps Paul was accommodating a culture with a penchant for modesty. Our society believes it’s liberating for women to be immodest. Test case (b)— homosexuality. Stackhouse does not refer to any one passage about homosexuality in his book. What happens when one applies Stackhouse’s trajectory hermeneutic to Romans 1??

10. Interpretation of various texts

(a) 1 Corinthians 11:7-9: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

Stackhouse writes: “Paul’s depiction of the second creation story, that of Gen.2, of the woman being created from and for the man seems a bit tendentious.” (p.66). Tendentious? As in prejudicial? The interesting thing about these verses and those that follow (8-9) is how they prove that role distinctions between males and females existed prior to the fall. Paul argues from creation, not from the fall; he apparently did not think redemption in Christ negated creation.

The wearing of shawls is a culturally bound application of a transcultural principle. Women should show when they pray and prophesy that they are not dishonoring their head (Christ perhaps?). There are other instances of culturally bound applications of transcultural principles, e.g., braided hair, holy kisses, raising of hands when praying, etc.

(b) 1 Corinthians 14. Stackhouse alleges that Paul prohibited female leadership because women then were uneducated and unskilled in rhetoric, but permitted women to pray and prophesy because these activities did not require formal education. This strike me as pure conjecture. Is there any textual indication that this is so?

(c) 1 Tim. 2:11-15: Stackhouse does nothing with the argument Paul makes but dismiss it. Typically, egalitarians argue that this prohibition is local. Stackhouse says: “Paul ignores Genesis 1, in which male and female are created at the same time as the image of God together. Then we see that his argument from Genesis 2 that the prior creation of the man entails some sort of political superiority seems not be taught by Genesis 2 itself.” (67). Really?? Was Paul really that bad an exegete?

“As for verse 14, Paul may seem to be suggesting that all women are more prone to spiritual deception than all men, and thus they should be silent in the church. But this interpretation seems preposterous coming from a man with such obvious regard for Priscilla and numerous other wise women in the church” (67).

(11) My interpretation: We know that the gospel brought freedom and emancipation to the world. People who did not enjoy dignity in their pagan cultures now do. This is the case with children and slaves. In many ancient quarters children and slaves were regarded merely as property. But in the epistles children are addressed directly, as full members of the church, and the gospel says that masters and slaves are equal in Christ. Masters and slaves are brothers in Christ.

Women were also emancipated. In ancient cultures women often lived the way Muslim women live today. In many mosques women must enter through the back door and pray in the back row. They enjoy few protections. The Bible revolutionized the position of women in society.

Presumably in Ephesus they took this sense of equality and carried into the worship service and presumed to have equal right to have authority and to teach. Are we not one in Christ? And Paul has to teach them that freedom in Christ does not mean the obliteration of all authority structures.

So Paul says (vv.11-12): “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” There are those who argue that Paul here gives two prohibitions: do not teach and do not have authority. I don’t believe this is the best reading.

Paul doesn’t forbid women to teach. That’s can’t simply be said. It’s contradicted by the teaching of the New Testament. Priscilla was a teacher and she taught Apollos in the home (1 Cor.11:5; cf. Acts 2:17; 21:9). And we find women teaching in a host of situations. Among Paul’s many co-workers were many women. You simply need to read Romans 16. So it can’t be no teaching, period.

Nor does Paul forbid women from having authority, period. Women can serve as presidents and prime ministers. What Paul forbids is for women to teach in such a way that usurp positions God assigned to men. Deborah was permitted to be a judge in Israel, but she was forbidden to usurp the position of her husband Lapidoth.

The positions of leadership in the church or family of God are assigned to men. And God forbids women to teach is such away that usurps these positions. It’s not politically correct, but it is normative in God’s purposes.

Paul roots these claims with arguments from Genesis. V13: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The argument here is from the priority of Adam’s creation.Adam was created first, as the leader. And then Eve was created, as the follower. This is Paul's argument. God did not make the woman first. He did not make man and woman at the same time. He made the man first. This is the way God set it up in the Garden Sanctuary. The woman is a “helper fit” for the man. Man speaks first in the sanctuary liturgy. She speaks last. He is the speaker and she is the responder. He is the leader and she is the follower. This is the order in the garden sanctuary.

Then Paul says (v.14): “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” Perhaps women are constitutionally more easily deceived because of their extraordinary sensitivity and sympathy. That’s the viewpoint of some. But . . . men can often be deceived just as easily as women, and sometimes more. Women are often MORE perceptive than men. Men can be deceived in precisely the same way Eve was. Paul says to men in 2 Corinthians 11:3: “I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

Paul’s point here is not that Eve was more easily deceived than Adam. It’s that Eve was created to follow. That’s what Eve was doing when the serpent tempted her. Adam was not deceived. He simply stood there and let Eve be deceived. The sin of Eve occurred because of Adam’s negligence as a leader. Adam was created first and he should have protected Eve. But he didn’t and therefore she was deceived.

12. I'm certainly open to having women assume recognized roles in the church. I have no opposition to women reading Scripture in church, leading in some of the prayers, and assuming some teaching responsibilities. On other hand, I think that the Bible clearly restricts the authoritative offices in the church to men.

Thoughts on the Active Obedience of Christ (b)

2010-02-03T14:23:00.012-05:00

Why did Jesus live? In my last post, I indicated a popular answer among Reformed folk: Jesus came to obey the covenant of works (active obedience), thereby to merit eschatological life for believers. I think that the Bible gives a far more comprehensive answer to that question---namely, that Jesus had a mission to fulfill as the second Adam/Israel. His mission was to recapitulate in himself the history of Adam/Israel in order not only to undo the sins of Adam/Israel, but to inaugurate, through the complex of his death and resurrection, the cosmic and glorious eschatological age promised to Adam/Israel.

One individual in support of this comprehensive paradigm is Michael S. Horton, of Westminster Seminary in California. Though I often cringe at Dr. Horton’s popular books, I find his academic books invigorating, if not at times brilliant. He seems to have a solid grasp of the current trends in theology and wonderfully incorporates a lot of biblical theology into his arguments, all the while showing a firm commitment to Reformed theology. The book I have in mind, in particular, is Horton’s Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology.

After presenting biblical data in support of this recapitulation motif in Christ's life and ministry, Horton writes, “For the first time, the world has an Adam and Israel has a king who will do only what he hears the Father say” (p.222).

Later he writes,

"Although traditionally classified as his active and passive obedience, both should be seen together as one active self-offering. There is no passive suffering in Christ’s ministry. Not only must sacrifice be correlated to the other important aspects of Christ’s work; sacrifice itself cannot be reduced to Christ’s death. Even in the most charitable reading of Anselm, the most the atonement accomplishes is forgiveness. This is largely due not only to the absence of the resurrection from his account, but of Christ’s incarnation and obedient life, the covenantal recapitulation of Adam and Israel. Yet ironically,‘forgiveness’ is part of the weakness of the law. E.P. Sanders is surely correct to remind us that Israel’s faith cannot be reduced to ‘legalism’; there were provisions for transgression of the law, particularly the sacrifices. As the writer to the Hebrews especially emphasizes, however, 'forgiveness’ is not the same as reconciliation, and the sacrifices could never bring about the positive obedience that God’s covenant and character required” (p.223).

Once again,

If our atonement theology focuses only on the cross, we will be more likely to see Christ’s work one-sidedly, in exclusively judicial-legal terms. Yet it was not only the case that Jesus was on trial throughout his ministry; he was in that life-long trial recapitulating and restoring what was lost in Adam”(p.226).

Still later,

“Far from diminishing the significance of our own obedience, then, the covenantal approach I have been advocating affirms that the ‘alien righteousness’ of Christ’s active obedience is only ‘alien’ in the sense that is not the outcome of our obedience” (pp.230-231).

Horton presents a lengthy quotation from N.T. Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant:

The place ‘where sin abounded’ (v.20b) is undoubtedly Israel, the ‘place’ where ‘the law came in that the trespass might abound.’ Adam’s trespass, active though unobserved until Sinai (vv.13-14, cf.7.9a), found fresh opportunity in the arrival of Torah. Again it could be display its true colours as trespass, the flouting of the commands of God. And it was there that grace abounded. This point, thus far, is frequently noted. What is not usually seen is the line of thought which, beginning here in Romans, runs on through 7.13-20 and 8.1-4. Here, near the end of a key Christological passage, we find perhaps the most important of all Paul’s beliefs about Torah . . . . The Torah, possesses, Paul asserts, the divinely intended function of drawing sin on to Israel, magnifying it precisely within the people of God (7.13-20), in order that it might then and thus be drawn on Israel’s representative and so dealt with on the cross (8.3). This is, as it were, the positive reason for the negative role of Torah. As a result, for our present purposes, it becomes clear that the obedient act of Jesus Christ was the act of Israel’s representative, doing for Israel what she could not do for herself. Adam’s sin and its effects are thus undone, and God’s original intention for humanity is thus restored in the Age to Come, which has already begun with the work of Jesus Christ (v.21).

Following this lengthy citation, Horton concludes, “Thus the story of Adam (humanity generally) is concentrated in the story of Israel, particularly focused on the active obedience of Christ” (p.239).

I agree . . . completely.

Thoughts on the Active Obedience of Christ (a)

2010-02-03T13:19:00.004-05:00

The subject of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience has long intrigued me. Students of the Bible, it seems, are often adept at answering the question, why did Christ die? The more difficult question is, why did Christ live?

I tend to think that Reformed folk in history have grappled with the question with integrity and in so doing have proposed some reasonable answers. One such answer, and perhaps the most popular, is that Christ came to keep the covenant of works which Adam failed to keep. Christ’s keeping of this covenant is often denominated his active obedience. Christ, it is quickly acknowledged, did far more as our Mediator: he also suffered eternal death as the punishment Adam had deserved by breaking the covenant of works. Christ’s suffering of this punishment is often denominated His passive obedience. This sensible answer to the question, why did Christ live, has tremendous appeal, in large part because of its logical coherence.

There’s a particularly disturbing variation of this answer which suggests that Adam, in the covenant of works, could merit reward from God, according to the dictates of strict justice, by being perfectly and perpetually obedient. Adam’s obedience, therefore, would put God in his debt and God would owe him the eschatological reward of his labours. Adam, however, disobeyed God and therefore failed to merit his reward. Thankfully, Jesus comes along and through his obedience earns a whole treasury of merits which he then lavishly shares with believers so that they can enjoy the eschaton Adam was promised.

This particular formulation of a meritorious covenant of works fails to grapple with the Creator/creature distinction and does not account for, inter alia, the disproportion between the human work and the divine reward. It seems far more biblical to insist that even if Adam had done everything God had commanded, he still would have been the unprofitable servant, only having done what God had been commanded. Moreover, there is nothing in the text of Scripture which suggests that eschatological life must (or can) be earned by humans, even if it is Jesus doing the earning.

Sensing the problem, some Reformed folk have preferred (a) to talk about “merit” in quotation marks to denote that it’s not merit, strictly speaking, or (b) to introduce the language of “covenantal merit” which, I suppose, can then be distinguished from “judicial merit.” I find myself in agreement with the theology of these folk though I continue to question the usefulness of the term “merit” given these necessary qualifications.

At some level, I can agree with this system. I do believe that Christ succeeded and obeyed where Adam failed and disobeyed and that because of Christ’s perfect obedience God reckons us righteous, even though we are sinners.

I wonder, however, if there’s another paradigm which is more faithful to the text of Scripture. It’s this paradigm I’ll talk about in my next post.

External/Internal Distinction in terms of Romans 2:28-29

2010-01-15T11:42:00.006-05:00

Reformed folk typically resort to Romans 2:28-29 to defend an external/internal distinction in relation to the covenant. In these verses a prooftext is located for alleging that whereas all the baptized are externally in the covenant, only the elect are internally in the covenant. But is this what Paul is saying in Romans 2?

It is my thesis that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles in terms of the newly constituted Israel and that the distinction he introduces here is not timeless, but redemptive-historical.

In the wider context Paul is addressing a Jewish interlocutor (see vv.1-3,17) who is eager to judge others and hopes to escape God’s judgment by passing judgment on others. In verse 25 he writes (ESV is used throughout this post),

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

The Jewish interlocutor would have agreed with the first statement but would have been shocked and possibly offended by the second, especially if he were familiar with the practice of epispasm, by which hellenizing Jews somehow disguised the mark of circumcision (cf. 1 Macc.1:15). Then in verse 26, Paul writes,

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

The question is rhetorical. God will reckon (logizesthai) uncircumcision as circumcision if the uncircumcised keep the Torah. The non-Jew who keeps the law can be reckoned as a member of God’s covenant community.

Verse 27: Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision, but break the law.

“Physically uncircumcised” is better translated “uncircumcised by nature (phuseos),” an expression which recalls 2:14, “the nations who have not the law by nature (phusei).” These phrases denote those who are “naturally” Gentiles, Gentiles by birth. So, God will reckon those who are “by nature” outside the covenant as being “inside” the covenant if they keep (telousa) the Torah.

Sidenote: I agree with Andrew Das who argues, against a number of scholars, “It would hardly carry any persuasive value to say that only a hypothetical Gentile judges the Jew. Why bother? On the other hand, actual Gentile obedience and actual Gentile judges would shame the Jew.” (Paul, the Law and the Covenant [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001] 185, n. 48).

The “naturally” Gentiles who keep the law will condemn “you who have the written code and circumcision”—literally, “you the-through-letter-and-circumcision (dia grammatos kai peritomes)-transgressor of Torah.” This has been rendered as “though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor” (NASB) but the Greek preposition (dia) is more naturally instrumental than concessive. It is through the possession of Torah and circumcision that he becomes a transgressor. Torah, far from solving the problem of sin, exacerbates it (cf. Rom.3:20, 5:20 and 7).

Those who judge others, but fail to keep Torah themselves will be “judged” (v.27) by the Gentiles who keep Torah through the Spirit. Paul turns the tables on the Jews! The “righteous” who judge are not the “naturally” circumcised, but those who, though “naturally” uncircumcised, do the things written in Torah.

This passage envisions the reconstitution of God’s people in the new covenant. As in Galatians 2 Paul is concerned with the question, who is a Jew? With his disagreement with Peter in mind, he says to the Galatians (2:14), “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how you can force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Peter had assumed that uncircumcised believers, in order to belong to God’s people, would have to assume the identity of ethnic Jews by getting physically circumcised. But “the Israel of God” (Gal.6:16) is now redefined as the people of the Messiah. Those who believe in Messiah Jesus, and are baptized into him, form the new family, redefined around and by the Messiah in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham (Gal.3:29).

It is in this context that we must understand Romans 2:28-29:

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

The Hebrew word for ‘praise’ is jehuda (Judah), so that the very name ‘Jew’ (Ioudaios in Greek), ought to mean ‘praise.’ But this word Ioudaios is to be predicated of a group no longer defined ethnically or by possession of Torah and no longer marked by things which are “in the open” (en to phanero). Rather, “the-in-secret-Jew” (ho en to krypto Ioudaios) is circumcised in the heart and gains ‘praise’ not from humans, but from God.

Herman Ridderbos (Paul: An Outline of His Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]) writes (334-335),

The last pronouncement in Romans 2 is also of importance for the reason that without directly mentioning the name of Christ it signifies a radicalizing of the concept Jew, and thereby of the definition of the essence of the people of God . . . For Paul, even when speaks of being a Jew in the heart and the Spirit, faith in Christ and his gift of grace are all-important, and therefore natural descent from Abraham is no longer a determinative factor for belonging to the people of God.

See also Thomas Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2001) 81.

Jews who don’t keep the law are not (true) Jews and their circumcision is uncircumcision (v.25). On the other hand God can reckon “uncircumcision” as “circumcision”; he can reckon those “naturally” outside the covenant as being inside the covenant if they, by the power of the Spirit, keep the law (v.26). The Messiah and the Spirit reconstitute the people of God, transforming the heart to enable it to keep the commandments of God (cf. Rom.7:4-6; 8:4-8; 2 Cor.3).

Conclusion: Paul’s manifest/secret distinction in Romans 2 is not timeless, but has specific import at this juncture in redemptive history when the people of Israel had only recently been reconstituted by the arrival of the Messiah and the outpouring of His Spirit on Pentecost. It was a time period when “manifest” circumcision, for example, still had a lot of spiritual capital in the minds of people and therefore Paul has to explain that, because it is no longer the marker of God’s people, “manifest” circumcision has been relativised. The new marker of God’s people is “secret” faith (see the contrast between circumcision and faith in Romans 4).

Paul would never claim, in other words, that those who were circumcised but not believers were not truly in the covenant. Precisely because they were in the covenant, they had to be “broken off” (Romans 11) that the Gentiles might be grafted in. It is therefore going beyond Paul to say that only the elect are members of the covenant community. Even once one has been grafted in, the possibility of falling away remains (Rom.11). Paul’s language about election largely needs to be understood in the context of covenant and not vice versa. This does mean that Paul’s use of “elect” often unsettles those of us who grew up with the pleasant aroma of TULIP. We must remember, however, that Paul’s teaching does not explicitly contradict TULIP; it simply operates more in the historical sphere than in the eternal.

Excursus on Internal/External Distinction (a)

2010-01-14T11:26:00.004-05:00

Peter Leithart addresses the external/internal distinction with characteristic clarity and faithfulness here. Here's what he writes:

"At the same time, I acknowledge that the Bible regularly teaches that human beings have an internal and an external dimension. The tabernacle is, among other things, an architectural human being, and it has an “inner” and “outer” sanctuary. Paul uses an “inner man/outer man” distinction in various places (Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16). So, the issue is not whether this distinction is a biblical one; it is. The question is what the Bible means by this distinction and how it functions. It’s very easy for us to read the Biblical inner/outer distinction through our own cultural lenses, where the Cartesian subject/object, mind/body dualism is still instinctive (emphasis mine, BDJ).

Let me briefly analyze one important use of this sort of distinction, Romans 2:27-29. In the context (I believe) of a discussion of Jews and Gentiles, Paul introduces a distinction between different sorts of circumcision. There is the manifest circumcision in the flesh, and the “secret” (kruptos) circumcision of the Spirit. Jews who don’t keep the law are not Jews, and their circumcision is uncircumcision (v. 25). Only those who keep the law by the power of the Spirit are Jews and the true circumcision. Within Israel, then, there are some who are circumcised only in the manifest, fleshly sense, and others who are circumcised also in the secret, Spiritual sense.

For Paul, however, this does not mean that fleshly circumcision is meaningless or useless, or that those who received fleshly circumcision received nothing. As Paul’s argument continues into chapter 3, he asks “What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” (v. 1). Clearly, he is speaking of what he has just described as Jews and circumcision according to flesh; the advantage of those who are circumcised by the Spirit is obvious. Given Paul’s distinction between fleshly and Spiritual circumcision, we might expect him to answer his question with “Fleshly circumcision gives no advantage.” That is not what Paul says, however. “Great in every respect” (v. 2). Here, he lists only one of the great advantages of fleshly Israel – “they were entrusted with the oracles of God” (v. 2).

When Paul picks up the argument later in Romans, however, he expands on the advantage of fleshly Israel: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (9:3-5).

Fleshly Israel – the “visible church” of the Old Testament – received great blessings. They were the son(s) of Yahweh, had the glory of Yahweh dwelling in their midst, received the covenants and promises, had a law that was the envy of the nations, was privileged with the temple service and the great heritage of the patriarchs. Above all, they were the people of Jesus, the Christ, the king of all things. When God blessed forever became flesh, He became Jewish flesh. These are blessings enjoyed by the “manifest” or “external” Jew, and they are considerable.

I don’t think I am imagining things to conclude that Paul’s is not the view of many in the PCA. Do we tell baptized children, “Yours is the adoption; yours the glory and the covenants and promises and commandments; you have a great heritage, and are privileged to have a place in the temple of the living God”? If Reformed theologians and pastors had so robust an understanding of the gifts conferred in baptism, I would not have devoted so much time to the subject of baptismal efficacy."

Questions for the CanRC (11) -- Part Deux

2010-01-13T11:12:00.008-05:00

Scott's eleventh question, again: Schilder was known to say that everyone is in “the covenant” “head for head” and that “the covenant” is “all or nothing.” The effect of such formulations seems to deny the historic and confessional Reformed distinction between the two ways of being in the one covenant of grace, i.e., the distinction between the internal relation and the external relation to the covenant of grace. How widespread is the “head for head” and “all or nothing” view in the CanRCs?"

Answer: My recent foray into ritual studies led me to Bryan Spinks, the Professor of Liturgical Studies at Yale University. Dr. Spinks has written some fabulous material, not least a book entitled, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006).

Herein Spinks writes (pp.42ff.), "The influence of Farel in Geneva may account for the fact that Calvin's writings between 1537 and 1539 show an increased tendency to distinguish between the outward and the inward. The 1539 Institute added a very lengthy discussion on circumcision, baptism and infant baptism. Gone is any reference to Luther's idea of child faith. Instead we have an approach similar to Zwingli's, justifying infant baptism on analogy with circumcision.

. . . Once in Strasbourg, however, it seems that Calvin came under Bucer's influence, and adopted or extended Bucer's terminology of instrument and exhibit. . . .The sacraments are instruments through which God works as he pleases and through which he gives us the reality he promises."

Spinks goes on to quote Christopher Elwood who writes, "In the notion that the sacraments are instruments of God's grace we have the read hallmark of the Calvinist doctrine. Calvin invokes instrumentality as a way of distinguishing sacramental signs from the communicative power that proceeds from and is the exclusive prerogative of God. The signs are efficacious not because of an inherent capacity but in the sense that they are instruments God has chosen to attest to the genuine operation of the Spirit's power to unite believers with the body of Christ."

Dr. Spinks has also written a very enlightening essay entitled, "Calvin's Baptismal Theology and the Making of the Strasbourg and Genevan Baptismal Liturgies 1540 and 1542" (Scottish Journal of Theology 48 [1995], 55-78). What follows is a very lengthy, but instructive quotation:

"The first and most striking change that Calvin has made is that he has abandoned Farel's Declaration on baptism, and has replaced it by his own lengthy explication within the service itself (70).

. . . In [Farel's Declaration of baptism] he denies that grace is bestowed through the outward ceremony, noting that good and bad receive baptism, citing Paul and Simon Magus. He then draws a sharp distinction between the outward ceremony and the inward baptism of grace by the Holy Spirit. This latter is not bound by time, place or ceremony. The outward ceremony is entry into the Church, and it is hoped that at some stage the candidate will receive the baptism of the Spirit. This teaching reflects very much the early years of the Reformation when for both Zwingli, with his neoplatonic stoic anthropology and its division between flesh and spirit, and for Bucer, there was concern to make a distinction between outward and inward baptism (71; my emphasis, BDJ).

. . . But the later Bucer moved away from this position, insisting that baptism is a signification and exhibition of the reality of grace. Farel, however, does not seem to have moved as far as Bucer had, and there is still a hint of the earlier Zurich division between inward and outward, spirit and flesh. Calvin had expounded some similar ideas in the 1539 Institute, but the fact that he dispenses with this suggests that he did not feel this theology particularly helpful. It was the Anabaptist threat which helped change Bucer's mind, and it may be the case that Calvin's experience with the Anabaptists persuaded him also that this was an unfruitful theology (71).

. . . Whereas Farel is concerned to explain the limitations of the human rite, Calvin is more concerned to stress the positive nature of a sacrament instituted by God. For Calvin, baptism is an objective sign which God gives us, and it may mediate grace, because the initiative is God's. Calvin is concerned to emphasize that God does not give empty signs" (73).

One more quote, unrelated to this post, but sweet nevertheless: "Last, Calvin has reversed Farel's order of commandments and then creed. This may be because Calvin believed that faith through grace leads to the keeping of the law as a response, while Farel's sequence, like the scheme of Beza and the later Heidelberg theologians, suggested that the demands of the law are prior to grace and faith. In Calvin's sequence of creed and then commandments the priority of grace is maintained" (73).

I wrote an essay about this here which I just discovered is footnoted in this interesting book.

Questions for the CanRC (11)

2010-01-12T14:23:00.006-05:00

Scott's eleventh question: Schilder was known to say that everyone is in “the covenant” “head for head” and that “the covenant” is “all or nothing.” The effect of such formulations seems to deny the historic and confessional Reformed distinction between the two ways of being in the one covenant of grace, i.e., the distinction between the internal relation and the external relation to the covenant of grace. How widespread is the “head for head” and “all or nothing” view in the CanRCs?"

Answer: It would have been helpful here if Scott had provided some documentation for Schilder's use of these expressions. The language of "all or nothing" recalls the title of Sybrand Strauss' Th.D dissertation on Schilder, but leaves us wondering where and in what sense Schilder used this expression.

Dr. Nelson Kloosterman wrote an article for Christian Renewal (vol.25. no.15) offering a corrective to Scott's published remarks about Schilderian theology. Kloosterman writes, "Rather than distinguish between an internal aspect and an external aspect of the covenant of grace, Schilder preferred to speak of the legal aspect and the vital aspect of this covenant. Using this latter distinction, he taught that all baptized children are legally in the covenant of grace, and therefore all children are genuinely addressed by its promises, demands, and threats."

Since then numerous people have latched on to this quote, alleging that Schilder's view of the covenant was no different from that of Louis Berkhof or Geerhardus Vos, both of whom distinguished between the covenant as a purely legal relationship and the covenant as a communion of life.

This much is sure: Berkhof's and Vos's views of the covenant were not embraced by the late Dr. Jelle Faber. Dr. Faber questions, first, whether Berkhof's position on the dual aspect of the covenant doesn't present "a confusing ambiguity"? (American Secession Theologians, p.43). The ambiguity Faber detects lies in Berkhof insisting, on the one hand, that the promises of the covenant are extended collectively and not individually and, on the other hand, that each covenant child has the responsibility to lay hold of God's promises. In the words of Faber, "Berkhof does not answer the question how one may lay claim to promises that are not given individually" (p.42).

For Vos (see, Dogmatiek), the distinction between legal relationship (rechtsverbintenis) and fellowship of life (levensgemeenschap) can be rephrased as a distinction between being "under the covenant" and being "in the covenant." Vos restricts being "in" the covenant only to the elect, and this, according to Faber, does not do justice to Lord's Day 27 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Berkhof's and Vos's positions don't seem to be Schilder's either. Schilder nowhere distinguishes between the covenant as purely legal relationship and the covenant as communion of life. Kloosterman's detection of a legal/vital distinction in Schilder may be accurate, but Schilder himself never phrased it exactly that way (and certainly not in the way Berkhof or Vos did).

In the section of Schilder's writings (his monograph, Looze Kalk) Kloosterman has in mind, Schilder writes (p.44), "To be sanctified in Christ means that by our participation in the covenant we are entitled (recht hebben) to the promises of justification by Christ's blood. When by faith the baptized person accepts the promise of being washed in Christ's blood, and thereby in fact receives justification, then this implies his being washed by Christ's Spirit --- his sanctification not 'in Christ' but 'through the Spirit.' And what we have 'in Christ' (by covenantal right, as promise; Dutch: naar verbondsrecht, in belofte) is therefore the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives (what our elders called regeneration, the resurrection of the new man, etc.), which must be seen as including our conversion in principle (principieele omzetting)."

Schilder makes an interesting distinction between "washing through Christ's blood" ("IN Christ") and the "washing through Christ's Spirit" (THROUGH the Spirit). In Schilder's mind, these two phrases from the Form for the Baptism of Infants mean different things, though his opponents alleged they were synonymous. The former, for Schilder, refers to the promise which belongs by right to every baptized child and the latter to the appropriation by faith of that which is promised, which only some enjoy.

In De Reformatie (18 [March 22, 1947] p.185) Schilder writes, "Participation in a promise is a right (Deelen in een belofte is een recht). He who bases himself on it . . . has a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' But participation in an active grace, a grace that is already active, is a fact (Maar deelen in een werkzame genade, een reeds werkende genade, dat is een feit). He who bases himself on it has a factual basis (een feitelijken grondslag) for his 'assuming' and 'acting.' The Synodicals jump from a sure and certain statement (stellige uitspraak) which creates a legally valid ground (een rechts-grondslag) to a presumptive fiction (onderstellende fictie), which only fantasizes a valid ground (een feitelijken grondslag)."

Whereas the Kuyperians alleged that "sanctified in Christ" means all covenant children are presumed to be regenerate (and on that basis baptized), Schilder argued that this phrase means that the promises of the covenant are legally (not fictitiously) the possession of all covenant children. On the other hand, those who embrace the promises of the covenant are not simply the legal recipients of the promises of justification, but are factually justified.

In his article, therefore, Dr. Kloosterman used the term "legal" to denote Schilder's rechts-grondslag and "vital" to denote Schilder's feitelijk grondslag. That strikes me as an appropriate description of the distinction so long as readers do not equate Schilder's views with those of Vos or Berkhof.

Questions for the CanRC (7) -- REVISITED

2010-01-08T11:40:00.002-05:00

There's second quotation from Calvin about the inseparability of faith and works I should have included in my earlier post. This too is from his commentary on 1 John (4:7): "But two things in the Apostle's words ought to be noticed, -- that the true knowledge of God is that which regenerates and renews us, so that we become new creatures; and that hence it cannot be but that it must conform us to the image of God. Away, then, with that foolish gloss respecting unformed faith. For when any one separates faith from love, it is the same as though he attempted to take away heat from the sun."

Faith and works are as inseparable as the sun's light and the sun's heat. But just as the sun's heat does nothing to help us see, so the works we do do not avail for justification.

Questions for the CanRC (10-B)

2010-01-08T10:02:00.004-05:00

Scott's 10th question (again): In the Nine Points, the URCs said, “we reject the errors of those…who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith.” At least one current CanRC minister has, in the past, preached publicly a sermon teaching that, at baptism, every baptized person is united “head for head” with Christ. What is the range of teaching in the CanRCs regarding “baptismal union with Christ”?

I think at some level Can Ref folk can agree with this. We all affirm that not every baptized covenant child is finally saved. Moreover, we agree with the Belgic Confession, article 29 which speaks of "hypocrites, who are mixed in the church along with the good and yet are not part of the church, although they are outwardly in it." Jelle Faber explained this with the memorable analogy of kidney stones. Kidney stones are in your body, but they are not of your body (see Lectures on the Church [Kelmscott: Pro Ecclesia, 1990]). The church is an assembly of "true Christian believers" and it is by faith that we partake of Christ and all his benefits (LD 25). Those who persist in unbelief don't belong in the church any more than kidney stones belong in the body; they should be excommunicated.

Scott would like us to say that baptized members of a church are not all in the covenant in exactly the same way, but that some are in the covenant outwardly by baptism and others are united to Christ inwardly by faith. At some level, this is a theologically precise formula and it can be reconciled with the Belgic Confession's teaching with little difficulty. Hypocrites are in the covenant outwardly by baptism and are not united to Christ inwardly by faith.

Why then do some Can Ref object to this formulation? Just because a theological statement can be defended, doesn't mean it should be used. After Dr. Faber notes that the Westminster Standards use expressions which reflect Calvin's concern about visible and invisible aspects to the church, he says, "It doesn't mean that you should say, 'I am happy with those expressions or I will take over those expressions.'" Dr. Faber goes on to say that behind these expressions was a legitimate "fight against a monolythic, 'positivistic' concept of the church." (Lectures on the Church, p.20).

Similarly, I can agree with the legitimate rationale behind Scott's distinction without utilizing the distinction. The church should not tolerate unbelievers. Unbelievers have no place in the church. We should preach, warn and exhort against spiritual apathy and presumption. We must stress the necessity of faith and conversion and repentance. We should not assume every member in our congregations will be finally saved.

What's so problematic then about utilizing the distinction between those outwardly in the covenant by baptism and those inwardly united to Christ by faith? Several things.

1. This distinction diminishes the value of baptism, seemingly making baptism dispensable. The sense you get from this distinction is: "Baptism is not what counts; faith is. Being in the covenant is not what counts; being united to Christ is." This seemingly reduces baptism and covenant inclusion to something merely external, if not superfluous. But baptism is God's sacrament and the covenant is His bond of love with us. Moreover, at baptism God sincerely promises us to wash away our sins and to present us, without spot or wrinkle, among the assembly of God's elect in life eternal and formally includes us in the body of His Son, the church (cf. Lord's Day 27; Belgic Confession, article 34). How dare we diminish those promises or denigrate that inclusion? Are covenant children insignificant little rugrats until they make public profession of faith? No, all covenant children---head for head---enjoy the saving promises of their Father and inclusion in the body of His Son. And if they die without spurning those promises they will be saved.

2. The distinction ignores ways in which all covenant children are members of Christ. The Reformed formulary for baptism says that the Holy Spirit assures baptismal candidates by the sacrament of baptism that He will make them living members of Christ, imparting to them what they HAVE in Christ---namely, the washing away of sins, etc. That promise, as I've indicated in previous posts, is not a prediction awaiting fulfillment, but a declaration summoning faith. Covenant children---head for head---are members of Christ by covenant promise and must grow up to embrace it or else be excluded from the church. Those who are excluded from membership in Christ and covenant with God are the unfruitful branches of John 15 which are cut off the vine of Christ. For this reason, I love the baptismal hymn in the Augment to Hymnary of the Book of Praise (Can Ref Hymnal) which has: "We praise you, Lord, that this dear child is grafted to the vine, and as a member of your house, now bears the cross as sign." That's a profound baptismal hymn!!

3. The distinction betrays a gnostic influence. This is something I learned from Sinclair Ferguson. Descriptions of authentic Christianity as inner or inward or internal represent a deviation from the holistic anthropology of Scripture. In a conversation we had a number of years ago, Dr. Ferguson said to me, "There is no such thing as faith; there are only believers." His point is that faith is not a commodity to be housed, but a gift to be lived. It is given to us to believe, much like it is given to us to suffer. Ever since that conversation I recoil when I hear "internally in the covenant" as if external means evil.

4. The distinction lacks pastoral sensitivity by shifting the focus from the objective promises of God to the subjectivity of one's spiritual health. If I begin to press the distinction in my preaching between those outwardly in the covenant by baptism and those inwardly members of Christ by faith, I suspect most parishioners of mine would conclude they are not inwardly members of Christ by faith. This is what lay at the heart of the Liberation of 1944. The issue was assurance of faith and the trustworthiness of God's covenant promises. Similarly, it would lack pastoral sensitivity for me to press the distinction between those externally called to ministry and those internally called to ministry. At some level this distinction is useful, but when pressed leads people only to doubt whether their minister is internally called to ministry.

5. This distinction can easily be employed with more biblical and therefore suitable terminology. Why not say: "some live in terms of the covenant; others break the covenant" or "some embrace the covenant promises with faith and others reject them in unbelief." Instead of talking about "those only outwardly in the covenant by baptism" I would prefer to use the language of "unbeliever" or "covenant-breaker." Instead of talking about "those inwardly united to Christ by faith" I would prefer to use the language of "believer" or "covenant-keeper."

Questions for the CanRC (10-A)

2010-01-07T10:51:00.004-05:00

Scott's tenth question is: "In the Nine Points, the URCs said, “we reject the errors of those…who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith.” At least one current CanRC minister has, in the past, preached publicly a sermon teaching that, at baptism, every baptized person is united “head for head” with Christ. What is the range of teaching in the CanRCs regarding “baptismal union with Christ”?"

I'm quite sure that Scott is referring to me in this question. When I pastored in Kansas City, I preached a sermon on baptism in which I said, "God joins us to Christ through water baptism." Scott and his wife happened to be in attendance that evening. After the service my wife and I hosted them in our house and we had a lovely time. Months later I discovered from friends of mine who were students at Westminster Seminary that Scott had been publicly badmouthing me at the seminary. I was hurt by this and I immediately contacted him and what followed was a wave of email exchanges, involving several others, not least my own consistory in Kansas City.

To make a long story short, I retracted some things I said in the sermon and indicated regret for my lack of clarity and Scott promised not to bring up the sermon again. Though I found that Scott was often less than charitable in his assessment of my theology and though we never did come to complete agreement, I did appreciate some of his insights and tried, as best I could, to learn from him.

I now wish I had just stuck with Paul's own language in Romans 6, such as: "We are buried with Christ through baptism" though I'm not sure that would have helped either. The problem, as I see it today, was not so much the language of my thematic statement, but the way in which I worked it out. After all, the language I used has been used by countless Reformed notables, including Cornelis Trimp who writes, "It is baptism that grafts us into fellowship with Christ" (in Preaching and the History of Salvation, p.107). Hughes Oliphant Old begins a chapter on baptism by saying, "The saints enter into union with Christ through baptism" (in The Communion with Saints, ed. Phil Ryken). The Scots Confession (1560) says, "We assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ." In the baptismal service followed by John Knox the question was posed, "Do you present this child to be baptized, earnestly desiring that it may be ingrafted in the mystical body of Jesus Christ?"

John Calvin, commenting on Matthew 3:13, tells us that Christ "received baptism with us in order to assure believers that they are ingrafted into His body, and that they are buried with Him in baptism." In his sermon on Galatians, he writes, "You see then that the way for us to get out of the dungeon of death wherein we were drowned is to be united to our Lord Jesus Christ by the bond of faith. Now Saint Paul saith, that that is done in Baptism" Sadly, Calvin continues, "many that are baptized do wipe away the grace of God" (Sermons on Galatians, 484-485).

Then there's the Reformed formulary for baptism which says, "When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ."

In my sermon then I made much of John 15, arguing that Jesus underscores a union with Him in which all covenant members, head for head, partake. There is, after all, a whole host of Reformed theologians in the Afscheiding tradition who emphasize that all covenant member enjoy a union with Christ, head for head, in terms of John 15. Faber writes of William Heyns, for example, in American Secession Theologians (pp.40ff), "In John 15 the unfruitful branches --- covenant members--- are branches 'in Christ,' organically united to him. Romans 11 designates the covenant members as branches which had become partakers of the root and the fatness of the olive tree . . . Already in his earlier articles, Heyns said that a 'certain measure of life' in ALL covenant members cannot be denied" (emphasis mine). Even Herman Hoeksema, Faber points out, argued that the branches of the vine which were cut off (John 15) "drew their life-sap out of that vine."

Schilder was quite critical of Heyns, but Faber faults him for this: "Schilder did not sufficiently acknowledge Heyn's intention in his Catechiek and therefore did not do full justice to this American Secession theologian . . . Schilder should and could have more strongly defended his seceded brother Heyns over against Hoeksema's supralapsarianism."

Questions for the CanRC (9)

2010-01-07T10:43:00.002-05:00

Scott's ninth question is: "How do CanRC pastors and theologians relate their biblical or covenant theology to their confessional theology? Are they integrated or are they seen as separate disciplines?"

In the words of Jelle Faber, "Although we stress that dogmatics takes its starting point in the dogmas of the church and is related to the study of church history, we do not forget that Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith. Therefore, we have to go back from the dogmas of the church to the revelation of God. The demonstrative task of the dogmatician is to prove the doctrine of the church is in agreement with Holy Writ. Scriptural proof occupies an important place in Reformed dogmatics. The Word of God is also the norm for the critical task of dogmatics. We must try to develop the dogmas of the church and to improve them where improvement may be necessary. K. Schilder called this the "sympathetic-critical" character of Reformed dogmatics: "sympathetic" with regard to the confessions of the church, and "critical" because Holy Scripture is and remains the only rule of faith. Councils, decrees, or statues are not of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all (cf. Art.7, Belgic Confession)." From Essays in Reformed Doctrine (Neerlandia: Inheritance, 1990).

Questions for the CanRC (8)

2010-01-07T10:41:00.001-05:00

Scott's eighth question: "Does sanctification have a role in the act of justification and if so, what is that role?"

Answer: No, sanctification does not have a role in the act of justification.

Questions for the CanRC (7)

2010-01-07T09:53:00.002-05:00

Scott's seventh question:

Norman Shepherd has taught that, in the act of justification, faith is not simply “a certain knowledge and a hearty trust” or “resting” or “receiving” but it involves more than that. In light of the endorsement by two CanRC theologians of Shepherd’s theology, how to CanRC theologians and pastors speak about the nature of faith in the act of justification? In other words, do the CanRCs agree with the URC declaration that “we reject the errors of those…who define faith, in the act of justification, as being anything more than “leaning and resting on the sole obedience of Christ crucified” or “a certain knowledge” of and “a hearty trust” in Christ and His obedience and death for the elect”?

From my reading, Shepherd's burden is to reconcile the seeming contradiction between Paul and James by underscoring the vitality of justifying faith. In this connection, Shepherd has talked about justification by an "obedient faith." Understandably, this occasions alarm in the minds of many and the question is posed: How obedient must faith be in order to justify? But this misses Shepherd's point, which is: "A faith without obedience does not justify." Put still differently, a faith which does not obey is not justifying faith. Because of the confusion occasioned by Shepherd's formulation I much prefer the language of "living faith" or "true faith."

[Incidentally, the same problem could be posed of Scott's language (borrowed, I realize, from the Belgic Confession, article 23): How much must one lean and rest on Christ's work?]

I've been helped tremendously in my own understanding of justification sola fide by the Reformers, not least John Calvin, who in his commentary on Galatians 5:6 writes: "There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification."

Similarly, in his commentary on 1 John 3:22, Calvin writes, "By saying, because we keep his commandments, he means not that confidence in prayer is founded on our works; but he teaches this only, that true religion and the sincere worship of God cannot be separated from faith. Nor ought it to appear strange that he uses a causal particle, though he does not speak of a cause; for an inseparable addition is sometimes mentioned as a cause as when one says, Because the sun shines over us at midday, there is more heat; but it does not follow that heat comes from light."

An inseparable addition is sometimes mentioned as a cause. The heat of the sun always accompanies its light, but it does not follow that we see by the sun's heat. Works always accompany faith, but it does not follow that we are justified by works. Put in Shepherd's words: we are justified by obedient faith, but it does not follow that we are justified by obedience.

In answer to the question whether faith alone justifies, Francis Turretin writes: “The question is not whether solitary faith [fides solitaria], that is, separated from the other virtues, justifies, which we grant could not easily be the case since it is not even true and living faith; but whether it alone concurs to the act of justification, which we assert: as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the body. Thus the particle alone does not modify the subject but the predicate, that is, faith alone does not justify, but only faith justifies; the coexistence of love with faith in him who is justified is not denied, but its coefficiency or co-operation in justification [Ita particula sola non determinat subjectum, sed praedicatum, id est, sola fides non justficat, sed fides justificat sola: non negatur coextistentia charitatis in eo qui justificatur, sed coefficientia vel cooperatio in justificatione].

Mark Horne explains: "Turretin is saying that “alone” must not be understood as an adjective modifying “faith” so that justifying faith would have to be viewed as “solitary,” or in isolation from its working or from its manifestation in obedience to Christ. Rather, “alone” is to be understood adverbially as pointing to the distinctive role played by faith in relation to the other gifts and graces with which it is invariably associated. Only faith justifies. Only faith to receive, accept, and rest upon Christ for justification and salvation from eternal condemnation. This is what Turretin means when he says that faith alone concurs to the act of justification."

Lastly, this is what the Belgic Confession itself teaches us in article 24: "It is therefore impossible for this holy faith to be inactive in man . . . This faith induces man to apply himself to those works which God has commanded in His Word . . . Nevertheless, they do not count toward our justification."

So in short, I suspect all Canadian Reformed folk warmly embrace what the confessions teach about justification sola fide.

Questions for the CanRC (6)

2009-12-18T09:12:00.003-05:00

Scott's sixth question:

6. Schilder spoke of the covenant of grace in a way that did not distinguish it clearly from the prelapsarian covenant with Adam. Among the CanRCs what is considered to be the difference between the prelapsarian and postlapsarian covenants? Do the CanRCs agree with the URC declaration that “we reject the error of those…who, in any way and for any reason, confuse the ‘commandment of life’ given before the fall with the gospel announced after the fall”? Do the CanRCs agree with the URC declarations that “we reject the error of those… who confuse the ground and instrument of acceptance with God before the fall (obedience to the commandment of life) with the ground (Christ who kept the commandment of life) and instrument (faith in Christ) of acceptance with God after the fall” and “we reject the error of those…who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers”?

Answer: I would need to see some documentation before I can agree that Schilder did not clearly distinguish the covenant of grace from the prelapsarian covenant with Adam. All the evidence I have points to the contrary.

The difference between the prelapsarian covenant and the postlapsarian covenant is that the former is a loving relationship/friendship between the Creator and the human creature and the latter is a loving relationship/friendship between the Creator and the human sinner in which atonement for sin and the defeat of evil through the seed of the woman are now promised. In both scenarios, Adam and Eve had to "trust and obey" or else invite the covenant curses.

My own view of the prelapsarian arrangement might be different from some or most of my Can Ref colleagues. I'm not afraid to introduce eschatology in the Garden, though much of it is deduced from my reading of passages outside of Genesis, such as 1 Corinthians 15. I would say that Adam to be faithful to the terms of prelapsarian covenant and mature as a covenant child of God into a king of sorts, well qualified for the dominion to which he was called. Upon proving this maturity he would be entitled to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. NB: earlier God had said that he had given Adam ALL the trees in the garden to eat.

Discerning between good and evil is an index of the maturity required of kings. 2 Samuel 14:17: "Then your maidservant said, 'Please let the word of my lord the king be comforting, for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and evil. And may the LORD your God be with you.'" 1 Kings 3:9: "So give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil." Cf. Hebrews 5:14: "But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."

I suspect that had Adam proved maturity, God would have translated him (through sleep-death perhaps) from a realm of posse peccare (able to sin) and posse non peccare (able not to sin) into a realm of non posse peccare (not able to sin). Many of my Can Ref colleagues might charge me with speculation and I would have difficulty defending myself!

But surely there is a difference between the pre-fall commandment of life and the post-fall gospel. The former ensures the continuation of sinless life through faith (trusting God) and obedience and the latter promises new life through Christ by faith. The ground of life in the prelapsarian context was trust in God and obedience to Him; the ground of life in the postlapsarian context is the (active and passive) obedience of Christ which becomes ours through faith.

Lastly, do we agree with the URCNA and "reject the error of those…who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers”? I hope we all recognize the infelicity of this statement. Did Christ need to earn acceptance with God? Or was Christ always the "beloved" Son of His Father in whom His Father was well-pleased? I suspect that the statement intends to say, "who deny that Christ earned acceptance for believers with God."

I have little objection to talk about the merit of Christ. One of my objections to using 'merit' to describe Adam's righteousness is the disproportion between the human act (finite) and the divine reward (infinite). This objection falls to the side when talking about Christ who as the eternal Son of God performed works of infinite worth. The Canons of Dort, for example, teach the death of Christ (2:4) "is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit." In fact, this death (2:4) "is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

Moreover, I recall Alistair McGrath in Iustitia Dei explaining how, at the time of the Reformation and before, the term "merits" simply denoted value and didn't necessarily imply proportionate justice. But my time is up and I'll have to dig up that citation later.

Questions for the CanRC (5)

2009-12-17T14:08:00.005-05:00

5. It is common for Schilder-influenced theologians to speak of the prelapsarian covenant as a “covenant of favor.” The noun “favor” has often been a synonym for “grace” in Reformed theology. In light of that tradition, how do the CanRCs understand the language of the Belgic Confession Art. 14, when it says, “commandment of life”? Do the CanRCs agree with the declaration of the URCs that “we reject the errors of those…who deny or modify the teaching that “God created man good and after His own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness,”" able to perform “the commandment of life” as the representative of mankind”?

It is common for Schilder-influenced theologians to speak of the prelapsarian covenant as a "covenant of favor." This is also the preferred term for many in the URCNA, including Rev. Mark Vander Hart, whose section on the covenant with Adam in his Bible study on Genesis 1-11 is entitled, "The covenant of God's favor" (see, Genesis 1-11, Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship Inc., 2007, p.60). By using the term 'favor' these scholars distinguish the prelapsarian covenant from the postlapsarian covenant of grace while recognizing the infelicity of calling it a covenant of works.

Jelle Faber, in his article "The Covenant of Works" published in Clarion during the early 80s, rightly pointed out that the Three Forms of Unity, in distinction from the Westminster Standards, have no doctrine of a so-called covenant of works. Moreover, Faber objected to the nomenclature of "works" to describe this covenant because it intimates a legalistic or meritorious conception of human righteousness and fails to recognize the impossibility of humanity to earn or merit anything from God.

This is very much in line with what Calvin says in his commentary on Romans 11:35: "And Paul not only concludes, that God owes us nothing, on account of our corrupt and sinful nature; but he denies, that if man were perfect, he could bring anything before God, by which he could gain his favor; for as soon as he begins to exist, he is already by the right of creation so much indebted to his Maker, that he has nothing of his own. In vain then shall we try to take from him his own right, that he should not, as he pleases, freely determine respecting his own creatures, as though there was mutual debt and credit."

Lyle Bierma argues that Calvin saw the prelapsarian covenant with Adam as gracious. The sign of the tree of life was intended "to lead him to the knowledge of divine grace" (Comm. Gen.2.9). This view was shared by Ursinus, the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism: “Ursinus too always presents this primal relationship in the context of divine grace — in both the Cat. maior and the commentary on HC.” The prelapsarian relationship is “surrounded by grace.” When Adam and Eve fell, “they robbed themselves and all their descendants of that grace of God.” Latin: voluntaria inobedientia se et universam posteritatem suam illa Dei gratia spoliarunt (From Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus).

Bierma concludes: Ursinus “consistently places this relationship in the context of divine grace. For him grace is not just a redemptive concept; it is manifest already in the original righteousness conferred by God at creation and repudiated by us at the fall. . . . Calvin’s emphasis on divine grace in the prelapsarian relationship with Adam clearly resurfaces in Ursinus.” This is from Bierma's essays,“Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl Trueman and R.S. Clark, UK: Paternoster Press, 1999.

Summing up John Owen's position, Sinclair Ferguson writes, "Eternal life by the covenant of works would not give a man ground for boasting, since that life would be his because of God's promise, not because of his merit. . . . This emphasis on grace on Owen's part is all the more significant in view of the strictures sometimes passed on federal theology" (in Owen on the Christian Life, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, p.23). Many Can Ref folk see the covenant with Adam along the lines of De Graaf, Berkouwer, Hoekema, Hoeksema and Murray.

How do the Canadian Reformed understand "the commandment of life" in Belgic Confession, article 14? If one sees the next sentence as epexegetical--a likely interpretation-- "transgressing the commandment of life" means "breaking away from God, who was his true life." God had commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and to violate that command was to invite death.

Lastly, Do the CanRCs agree with the declaration of the URCs that “we reject the errors of those…who deny or modify the teaching that “God created man good and after His own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness,”" able to perform “the commandment of life” as the representative of mankind”? I can't think of any reason why a Can Ref minister would not find this perfectly acceptable.

Questions for the CanRC (4)

2009-12-17T14:05:00.002-05:00

4. Do the CanRCs agree with the URCNA when it said “we reject the errors of those…who teach that Spirit-wrought sanctity, human works, or cooperation with grace is any part either of the ground of our righteousness before God or any part of faith, that is, the “instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness”?

Yes, we agree with the URCNA on this point.

Questions for the CanRC (3)

2009-12-15T13:02:00.006-05:00

Scott's third question:

3. Over the last 20 years or so, at least two theologians in the CanRCs have publicly endorsed the theology of Norman Shepherd. Over the last several years, many NAPARC denominations and at least three Reformed seminaries have publicly repudiated Shepherd’s covenant theology and doctrine of justification. How widely influential is the theology of Norman Shepherd in the CanRCs?

The preface to this question strikes me as careless and disingenuous. I suspect Scott has in mind the late Jelle Faber (1924-2004) and Cornelis Van Dam, both of whom admired things Shepherd stood for and neither of whom "endorsed" his theology. In his editorials in Clarion in the early 1980s, Faber commended Shepherd for, inter alia, his rejection of (a) a meritorious covenant of works and (b) the notion that the covenant of works was republished at Sinai. I seem to recall Faber quibbling about some things in Shepherd's writings, such as the phrase "the state of justification" which Faber found too static.

Cornelis Van Dam wrote a blurb on the back of Shepherd's new book on justification recommending it for its exegetical clarity. I doubt whether either Faber or Van Dam read every statement Shepherd published and whether either man would endorse every jot and tittle in his theology. I'm not prepared to do that for Calvin, Ursinus, Olevianus or, for that matter, Witsius, Voetius, Ames, Van Mastricht, Cocceius, Polanus and Wollebius. Now, if "endorse" simply means "publicly defend on some points" then Faber and Van Dam are guilty, as are Cornelius Van Til, Richard Gaffin, John Frame, Ralph Gore, Bill DeJong (unworthy to be in such a list) and a whole host of others.

As far as the apparent widespread repudiation of Shepherd's covenant theology is concerned, some qualification is necessary. The denominations and institutions (or at least individuals in some institutions) envisioned by Scott have all made critical statements about Shepherd's theology without necessarily "repudiating" it all. For what it's worth, I and some others in the Can Ref churches are disappointed with this; we think that Shepherd, as a Reformed father, deserves far better treatment. Moreover, we find that many of the critiques of Shepherd have a distinctively Presbyterian or Westminsterian bent. The Westminster Standards are fine expressions of Reformed theology, though many of us would be unwilling to subscribe to them, especially if strict subscriptionism is envisioned.

I happen to agree with Shepherd's rejection of a meritorious covenant of works and the notion that this covenant was republished at Sinai. I happen to agree with him that the faith which justifies is an active and living faith, and that "alone" in "justification by faith alone" is adverbial and not adjectival. Though I am unable to provide a head count, I think you will find many ministers in the Can Ref who share my assessment.

On the other hand, I suspect that Can Ref leaders read and enjoy Shepherd the way that they read and enjoy any scholar. When it comes to theologians and intellectuals, most of my Can Ref colleagues do not operate with nice and naughty lists the way that Scott does. Canadian Reformed pastors generally read very widely and with discernment and appreciate the insights of men and women with whom they sometimes disagree. Among intellectuals I enjoy reading I would list N.T. Wright and Stanley Hauerwas and among the deceased, Karl Barth, Richard John Neuhaus and Stanley Grenz. On the other hand I would oppose the ordination of any one of these men were they to apply for such in the Canadian Reformed churches.

Lastly, I suspect many Can Ref leaders wonder why the institutions and churches envisioned by Scott felt the need to publish critiques of Shepherd when Shepherd was/is not one of them. The chances of getting a Can Ref synod to adopt a statement on Shepherd are slim. Shepherd is not a member in a Can Ref church or any sister church.

The same applies to writers in the so-called Federal Vision movement. You will find some of us ranting and raving about James B. Jordan while others enjoy reading John Barach or Peter Leithart or Jeff Meyers. None of us would issue blanket endorsements of these men. We cherry pick with the federal vision writers the way we do with any writer. Many of us recognize that the impulses of the Federal Vision writers are the same as they were for Schilder, Holwerda et al, but I've written enough about that already.

Questions for the CanRC (2)

2009-12-11T11:57:00.004-05:00

Clark's second question is:

2. In reaction to problems (real and perceived) in the Netherlands, Schilder formulated an idiosyncratic version of covenant theology that is at odds with much of the Reformed tradition and which helped to lay the groundwork for the contemporary federal vision movement. How do the CanRCs see Schilder’s relations to the Shepherdite and FV theologies How influential is the Federal Vision theology in the CanRCs?

Answer: Once again, the preface to the question is imprecise and somewhat pregnant with assumptions. I suspect, first of all, that Schilder himself would be offended by this caricature. He believed that his version of covenant theology was very much in line with that of his fathers in the Afscheiding tradition of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. I suspect, secondly, that he would be surprised to be judged one who is at odds with much of the Reformed tradition. It's quite clear from my reading of Schilder that he prized the Reformed tradition and that he saw himself as a theologian working in this tradition.

On the other hand, Schilder did not see himself bound to "much of the Reformed tradition." He would probably question how one would go about determining such a thing. He saw himself as a theologian bound to the Three Forms of Unity and therefore somewhat free to deviate from Luther, Calvin, Vermigli or Witsius, etc. in areas not governed by the confessions. Schilder's homiletics (redemptive-historical preaching) represented a (positive) shift from Calvin's homiletics. I imagine that if one were to identify 600 Reformed theologians who insisted that Christ is the Head of the covenant (and not the Mediator), Schilder would say, "That's an impressive list. But I'm not bound in my theology by 'the great multitude' (Belgic, article 7). Show me where in the confessions I must believe that Christ is the head of the covenant."

Whether Schilder laid the groundwork for the so-called federal vision movement is debatable. Schilder is somewhat of a hero to John Barach and Barach's talk at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference was very much in line with Schilder's emphases. In the end, I suspect that Barach's views owe more to Schilder's colleague, Benne Holwerda, and Schilder's disciple, Cornelis Trimp. I doubt that Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins know much about Schilder's covenantal theology. More significant figures in the evolution of FV would probably be: Rousas J. Rushdoony, Cornelius Van Til, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, twentieth century neo-Calvinist writers and perhaps on the periphery, John Nevin, Philip Schaff, Gordon Wenham, John Millbank, Rene Girard and a handful of others.

There are clearly areas where Schilder would disagree with FV thought. Neither Schilder nor any prominent figure in the Liberated theological tradition, so far as I know, holds to paedo-communion. Moreover, Schilder's eschatology, unlike the postmillennialism of prominent FV players, was remarkably pessimistic, almost defeatist -- as was the case for many who endured two world wars.

The FV view of the covenant of works and the invisible/visible church, though similar to Schilder's views, probably derives more from John Murray and Anthony Hoekema. The FV emphasis on the centrality of union with Christ as the matrix through which to understand aspects of salvation probably derives more from John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Anthony Hoekema and Sinclair Ferguson. The FV liturgical emphases are informed by various Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican liturgists.

The name of Norman Shepherd has always been respected in Canadian Reformed circles. Shepherd studied at the Free University of Amsterdam (where he had prepared to write a doctoral dissertation on Zanchius) and is fluent in Dutch. His facility with Dutch gave him access to the theological literature of the Dutch Reformed and Shepherd became quite fond of S.G. De Graaf, in particular. I have a slight recollection of Shepherd telling me that his views on the covenant of works were derived in part from reading De Graaf's book on the Heidelberg Catechism, entitled, Het Ware Geloof. Shepherd prized the Liberated tradition of Schilder, Holwerda and company and was thrilled with the translation and publication of Kamphuis's An Everlasting Covenant.

When Shepherd was dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary for political and not theological reasons, Jelle Faber wrote a series of editorials in Clarion lamenting this, defending Shepherd, but not uncritically. I suspect Shepherd's more recent books are not widely read in Canadian Reformed circles.

Though I respect Norman Shepherd a great deal, and cherish him as a Reformed father and a brother in Christ, I do demur from some of his positions. In my mind he tends to over-accentuate continuity between old and new covenants. I'm not convinced either by his arguments against the imputation of Christ's active obedience in justification. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the theology of many of his critics either. I share with Shepherd the conviction, on exegetical grounds, that Romans 4 is not about the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I agree with Shepherd that faith is the sole instrument of justification and that faith without works is dead. I find it deeply regrettable and irresponsible that his name is so cavalierly tarnished in segments of the Reformed community.

Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, who teaches Old Testament at the Theological College, recently wrote a blurb on the back of Shepherd's new book on justification. I suspect he shares my fondness for Shepherd; I also suspect that he shares my unwillingness to endorse everything Shepherd says.

Questions for the CanRC (1)

2009-12-10T19:54:00.002-05:00

Over at his blog, Scott Clark, an instructor at Westminster Seminary in California, has posed some questions for the CanRC. I can't speak for the CanRC, nor can I say how representative my views are within the CanRC, but I can answer his questions as best I can.

Question 1: "The CanRCs grew out of a controversy in the GKN. They are directly descended from one side of that controversy led by Klaas Schilder. How do the CanRCs now view Schilder’s influence in their theology, piety, and practice?"

Answer: The preface to this question strikes me as somewhat imprecise. The Canadian Reformed churches were established by post-war Dutch immigrants who in the Netherlands had been members of the GKN-V (the Liberated), a federation of Reformed churches whose formation was occasioned, in large part, by Klaas Schilder's ouster from the GKN. Schilder himself wanted to remain in the GKN and, though he disagreed with them vehemently, thought the views of his opponents were within confessional bounds.

A synod of the GKN decided in 1944, the worst year of the war, to depose Schilder for his views on covenant and baptism (while Schilder was still in hiding from the Germans). Many ministers and members in GKN regarded this judgment as ecclesiastical tyranny and on August 11, 1944 an Act of Liberation and Return was signed by those who rejected the ruling of the synod and a new federation of churches was born.

I think that leaders in the Canadian Reformed churches have always felt a sense of indebtedness to Schilder for his labors and his faithfulness to the gospel. Those of us who can read Dutch marvel at his genius. He was far less of a theological maverick than he is made out to be. On the other hand, he was not opposed to theological innovation, so long as the innovation was within confessional bounds. He was one of the first theologians to offer a substantial critique of Karl Barth and he remained, over the course of his life, a vigorous opponent of the Swiss theologian. Cornelis Vanderwaal once speculated that, had Schilder lived another 20 years or so, he might have attained the stature of Barth---so great were his intellectual capabilities.

Moreover, Schilder was a courageous and brilliant pioneer in the field of redemptive-historical interpretation and preaching and his published volumes of sermons, accessible to readers of Dutch, may perhaps be his greatest legacy.

He was fond of Abraham Kuyper, but refused to embrace all the theological categories Kuyper introduced or endorsed. He routinely castigated the fixation with Kuyperian theological categories and dichotomies as scholasticism. He was particularly perturbed by Kuyper's view of presumptive regeneration. Since the sacraments confirm faith (LD 25) and since we can't know whether an infant has faith, Kuyper insisted that regeneration and faith must be presupposed in the infant baptismal candidate in order for baptism to make sense. If we could see that the infant didn't or wouldn't have faith, Kuyper speculated, there wouldn't be any purpose in baptizing him or her. For this reason, some Kuyperian ministers, after baptizing a child, would say, "Let's hope this was a real baptism." The baptisms of children who proved to be unbelievers were meaningless spillings of water.

Schilder insisted that the basis for baptism must be God's objective promises and not our presuppositions. He did not want to narrow the scope of covenant to the decree of election. What God said in history was, for Schilder, just as important as what He decreed in eternity past. God speaks promises to children being baptized. Who are we to diminish the importance or doubt the sincerity of that speech?

Schilder thought that a lot of Kuyper's dichotomies (external covenant/internal covenant, visible church/invisible church, militant church/triumphant church, etc.), when pressed, hindered a proper interpretation of Scripture.

Schilder was also a cultural theologian and the contributions he made in this realm are increasingly being recognized in North America. Vincent Bacote of Wheaton College, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, and James K.A. Smith of Calvin College are among the contemporary evangelical intellectuals interested in Schilder's cultural philosophy (which Mouw interestingly regards as a kind of hybrid between the creational worldview of Kuyper and the anabaptistic ecclesial worldview of Stanley Hauweras).

In conclusion, I suspect you'll find a lot of sympathy for the Schilder's theology among the leadership of the Can Ref.

Excursus on Baptism Becomes Discursive

2009-12-09T17:52:00.002-05:00

Anthony Lane, the British theologian and Calvin scholar, makes the point I made in my previous excursus on baptism with greater authority and sophistication when he writes [in Baptism: Three Views, ed. David F. Wright (Downer's Grove: IVP Academic, 2009)126-127]:

"The instrumental role of baptism in receiving salvation ought not to need stating, but this aspect of New Testament teaching has been so widely suppressed in most (not all) evangelical teaching that it is worth quoting some passages in full. These all portray baptism, not as a symbol pointing to something but as having a role in the reception of salvation---not of course in opposition to faith, but together with it.

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38).

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16).

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom.6:4)

For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal.3:26-27)

Having been buried with [Christ] in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col.2:12)

Baptism . . . now saves you. (1 Pet.3:21)

All of these passages portray baptism as (not in isolation but together with faith) the means by which we receive the gift of salvation, including forgiveness, union with Christ and the Holy Spirit . . . the New Testament writers were not embarrassed to attribute salvation to baptism as well as to faith . . . Of course, attributing this power to bring salvation to baptism separate from faith is an abuse of the New Testament."

Excursus on Baptism

2009-12-09T11:00:00.003-05:00

The agenda of the FV school of thought is to talk about the things God talks about in the way God talks about them. I remember conversing a couple of years ago with someone of substantial theological pedigree who objected to my statement that we are joined to Christ through baptism. My interlocutor insisted that baptism was a sign and seal of the covenant and not a means by which we are united to Christ. I found this statement analogous to insisting that my minivan is a Ford and not a Windstar. What really floored him, though, was my use of the prepositional phrase, "through baptism." He seemed to think that nothing happens "through baptism" and that I should excise that formulation from my theological speech.

I tried to explain to him that I attributed no inherent power to baptism, but wanted to be faithful to the Bible's way of speaking about baptism. Paul says in Romans 6:4: "We were therefore buried with Christ through baptism (dia tou baptismatos) into death." If Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, didn't hesitate to use this language, why do we? Well, it's risky, people say. But the risk in using these formulations is the Holy Spirit's risk and we are simply not afforded the liberty to say, "The Holy Spirit should have been a little more cautious with his vocabulary."

I sometimes wonder whether the church languishes today because of our distance from biblical vocabulary and biblical locutions. Though we talk often enough about the power of the Word, we marginalize it through our hesitation to speak it.

Some might allege that I'm resorting to biblicism. My response is, "No, I'm resorting to the Bible." We don't need to discard our theological explanations of baptism; we do need to ensure that our theological explanations do not eclipse the Bible's formulations. I'm therefore appreciative of the FV school of thought for reminding us to speak about the things God does in the way God does.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (17)

2009-12-01T14:25:00.003-05:00

The question remains, why did the URCNA Report consistently use the language of "saving union to Christ" or "savingly united to Christ" to describe the FV position on baptism or the covenant of grace when (a) this terminology, so far as I can tell, is absent from FV documents and (b) the FV documents themselves describe this union with other words --- namely, "covenantal union" or "formal union."

I would submit that this language is borrowed from point five of the nine points adopted by Synod Schererville 2007, which rejected the errors of those . . .

# 5. who teach that a person can be historically, conditionally elect, regenerated, savingly united to Christ, justified, and adopted by virtue of participation in the outward administration of the covenant of grace but may lose these benefits through lack of covenantal faithfulness (CD, I, V).

By utilizing language of "savingly united" to describe the FV position, the report forces Synod 2010, if it accepts the report's portrayal of FV as accurate, to judge the FV position erroneous because Synod Schererville has already condemned those who teach that a person can be "savingly united" to Christ by virtue of participation in the outward administration of the covenant of grace.

There's great irony in this because the word "savingly" is my word.

Here's the history: At Schererville, a sentiment was growing that there was no way out of Synod apart from the adoption of a statement addressing some of the controversial issues of the day. The synodical advisory committee (on which I served) to deal with the Shepherd Overture from Classis Michigan had been presented with a document penned by an anonymous instructor at Westminster Seminary in California who had not been delegated to Synod, but apparently wanted to have his voice heard. This document contained points of perceived error to be rejected by Synod.

The initial impulse of the advisory committee was to consign this document to the trash-bin. Since when does an advisory committee admit documentation for discussion and possible adoption by Synod which the churches themselves have never had an opportunity to see??? After some lengthy discussion, however, there was a surprising change of mind and the document was lifted out of the trash-bin, put on the table and viewed as potentially helpful.

At a certain point, Rev. Harry Zekveld, a friend and colleague of mine who brims with congeniality, sat down beside me in the auditorium and asked me what, if anything, I found objectionable in the statement. I told him what I tell people today---that I found the statement to be largely innocuous from a doctrinal point of view, though I did prefer changes in wording here and there. One of the changes I suggested was the insertion of the word "savingly" in front of "united to Christ" in recognition of the fact that it's perfectly biblical and Reformed to speak of those in the covenant of grace as "united to Christ" (a sentiment with which the URCNA FV Report happily agrees). In fact, one of my reasons for suggesting the addition of adverb "savingly" was to leave room for the FV emphasis that those in the covenant of grace are, in some way, "united to Christ." Harry liked the suggestion, inserted the word with his pen, and the amended phrase was eventually adopted.

So the word "savingly" is, oddly enough, my word, a word from one of the delegates at Synod Schererville. So far as I know, the expression "savingly united" to Christ can't be found among the FV documents. So this adverb "savingly," though it originated with me in an attempt to exonerate FV, is now being used to indict it.

Today, I regret my suggestion to Rev. Zekveld, and think it was unhelpful. I now think that there is a way in which it is perfectly legitimate to talk about those in the covenant of grace as "savingly united to Christ." It all hinges, of course, on what is meant by "saving."

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (16)

2009-11-25T12:00:00.004-05:00

The report insists that the FV folk “teach that all recipients of baptism are savingly incorporated into Christ” (p.33; emphasis mine, BDJ). This is a repeated claim made throughout the report, as the sample of citations below indicates.

FV authors resist any distinctions between some within the covenant community who are only “externally” or “apparently” in union with Christ and others who are truly and savingly in union with Christ (p.22; emphasis mine, BDJ).

To ascribe to the sacrament by itself the power to effect a saving union with Christ, which imparts all of the benefits of His work as Mediator, including justification, is contrary to the biblical and confessional understanding of the sacrament (p.44; emphasis mine, BDJ).
Some authors even use the language of ‘baptismal regeneration’ to underscore the constitutive significance of baptism, not only as a sign and seal of the covenant promise in Christ, but as the instrument that actually effects saving union with Christ and all His benefits (p.55; emphasis mine, BDJ).
The sacrament of baptism does not effect the believer’s union with Christ and justification, but is a confirmation of the gospel promise to those who respond to the sacrament in the way of faith. (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Days 25, 27) (p.61).

Compare these statements with the language of:

The Joint FV Statement: "We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God" (bold emphasis mine, BDJ).
The Summary Statement of the AAPC's Position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation: "By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Westminster Shorter Catechism #94 states, baptism signifies and seals 'our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace.' Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14)" (pt.7; emphasis mine, BDJ).

What the URCNA Report repeatedly describes as a "saving" union, the FV Statements describe as "formal" or "covenantal." The authors of the report clearly know that these statements exist; the Joint FV Statement is footnoted on pp.12 and 14, and the Summary Statement of the AAPC's Position is quoted on p.22.

More about baptism in terms of union with Christ to follow

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (15)

2009-11-25T11:22:00.000-05:00

The FV position on baptism is evaluated in section 3.D.4 where the report states, “Contrary to the FV conception of sacramental efficacy, the Three Forms of Unity do not countenance any view of the sacrament of baptism, for example, that would ascribe to the sacrament the power to ‘regenerate’ its recipient” (p.33). The problem here is that nowhere in the report’s own summary of FV teaching on baptism is there anything about its purported power to regenerate. The report does mention that some FV writers have defended the language of “baptismal regeneration” (p.55) and that Wilkins, in particular, believes that “all the baptized” are “the recipients of all the blessings . . . . including justification” (p.18; Wilkins is not quoted). I searched the entire report in vain to locate any discussion about a supposed FV view regarding the “power” of baptism to “regenerate” its recipient.

Moreover, the use of quotations marks around the word ‘regenerate’ in the statement on p.33. is intriguing. Do the quotation marks mean: (a) that FV writers use the verb regenerate in connection with the function of baptism or (b) that FV writers use the verb regenerate, but not in the way the word is typically used?

It is interesting that the Joint Federal Vision Statement, signed by all the important FV players, addresses this issue head on: “We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e., that an ‘effectual call’ rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized” (emphasis original, BDJ).

Why was this clear FV statement about baptismal regeneration ignored in the report?

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (14)

2009-11-25T10:43:00.002-05:00

Much time has lapsed since my last installment in this series of posts critiquing the URCNA Report on FV. The demands of pastoring a congregation are so great I don’t often have time to venture beyond them. On the other hand, I know there is therapeutic value in diverting from one’s typical responsibilities periodically to refresh the mind. In this post I would like to reflect on what the FV report says about baptism in particular.

In summarizing the FV position on baptism (section III.B.2), the report cites Rich Lusk and Steve Wilkins in particular. Why the writings of Peter Leithart were excluded from this section is puzzling (inexcusable??), given the fact that Leithart wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on baptism at Cambridge University and subsequently published a book on baptism in light of the FV controversy. One would think that FV critics would begin with the FV individual who has given the most thought and attention to the sacrament of baptism.

I will not comment on what the report says about Rich Lusk other than pointing out that Lusk’s exegetical comments are critiqued with confessional data. One would have wished that the report had begun with interaction with Lusk on the exegetical level first --- unless, of course, the assumption is that interpretations of Sacred Scripture which conflict with those of Sacred Tradition are necessarily wrong.

The bulk of this section in the report is a summary of Wilkins’ position on baptism as presented in “Covenant, Baptism and Salvation” in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros. & Cons. Here it is alleged that Wilkins “maintains that baptism is the means of incorporation into Christ and places its beneficiaries in possession of all the benefits of His saving work” (p.18). What’s striking here is that there’s only one citation from Wilkins—one citation which says a lot of about Wilkins’ view of the covenant, but nothing of Wilkins’ view of baptism. This part of report, however, purports to address the sacraments (3.B), and specifically baptism (3.B.2) and not the covenant (3.A). Surely the authors of the report could have included at least one citation from Wilkins on baptism!

Interestingly, this section does reach an apparently guarded conclusion: “Since membership in the covenant community is tantamount to saving union with Christ, and since baptism is the means to effect such a membership, it seems to follow that baptism saves by uniting covenant members to Christ so that they are flesh of His flesh, bone of His bone” (p.19). The report betrays some unusual caution here through the use of words like “tantamount” and “seems.”

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (13): Covenant, Election and Salvation (c)

2009-07-09T09:41:00.005-04:00

The Report says (3.D.1) says, “However, the FV tendency to identify covenant and election in an unqualified manner renders saving election loseble, election being conditional upon covenant faithfulness.”

Statements like this seem far removed from the actual testimony of FV authors. What follows are some statements from John Barach (“Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision) which disprove the above claim.

a. “God has predestined some people who deserve eternal damnation to eternal glory with Christ instead, while not predestining others. This is the Bible’s teaching from Genesis 1:1 on through the whole of Scripture. God didn’t predestine anyone to glory because of something in that person, but simply out of His sheer love and grace in Christ. God initiates, not because He sees anything in us, but out of sheer grace. That predestining choice is unchangeable. The number of people who will enter into final glory is the number of people God always intended to enter into final glory with Christ. That predestining choice is unthwartable” (17).

b. “Deuteronomy 7 is one of the passages that teach us unconditional election: ‘Not because you were great in number, but because God loved you and He is faithful to His oath.’ In Deuteronomy 9:4-6 God goes further and says that He isn’t blessing Israel because of her righteousness, either. Her blessings weren’t due to anything in Israel herself. It was entirely God’s grace” (26).

c. “We are God’s chosen people, not because of anything in ourselves, not because of anything we have done, but because of His sheer grace” (27).

d. “We need to hold three things together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election. First, God has eternally predestined an unchanging number of people out of the whole world to eternal glory with Christ. We read that in Genesis 1:1 on. We know that from Ephesians 1:11: God “works all things after the counsel of His will.” Second, God’s covenant includes some who have been so predestined to eternal glory with Christ, but it also includes other who have not been predestined to eternal glory with Christ but who will apostatize. Third God addresses His people as a whole, and that includes each one in the covenant, head for head, as His elect” (31-32).

e. “On the last day we will look back and we will see God’s grace every inch of the way. God gave us life. God worked in all the details in our lives. God, in grace, united to us in Christ, the Elect One, and He kept us in Him. He worked in us to will and to work (Phil.2:13). He worked in us so that we responded to Him in faith and trust and we persevered. We owe it all to Him, to His choice, to His grace. We will enter into final glory with Christ exactly according to God’s eternal predestinating decree” (38).

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (12): Covenant, Election and Salvation (b)

2009-07-08T14:34:00.005-04:00

The report alleges that FV teaching on covenant, election and salvation diverges in at least two ways from the doctrine of the Three Forms of Unity (3.D.1). The first is that FV teaching fits the profile of the Remonstrant error rejected by the Canons of Dort — namely, that there are two kinds of election, one general and indefinite and the other particular and definite (see RoE 1:2). This strikes me as a convenient attempt to dismiss FV teaching (a theological sleight of hand), but proves upon some investigation to be grasping at straws.

First of all, there is nothing at all theologically aberrant about distinguishing kinds of election. Both Berkhof and Bavinck distinguish different kinds of election—namely, the corporate election of the nation Israel in the Old Covenant and the individual election of believers in the New Covenant. The problem with Berkhof and Bavinck (am I allowed to disagree??) is that they seem to make this distinction along historical and not categorical lines. Thus, election was corporate in the old covenant and individual in the new covenant. This strikes me as incipient dispensationalism.

I’m far more comfortable with the Reformer John Calvin who recognizes that the corporate/individual distinction is operative in both covenants. In this connection he writes, “It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end” (Institutes, 3.21.7).

Then there’s the contemporary Reformed theologian John Frame who in The Doctrine of God also distinguishes between historical election and decretal election. He writes, “As not all Israelites are Israel (9:6), so not all members of the Christian church are regenerate believers. Some are elect only as the unbelieving Israelites were: historically elect, rather than eternally elect. Like Saul and Judas, they are chosen only temporarily; they can become non-elect. So the election of the visible Christian church is similar to the election of Old Testament Israel. It is an election that temporarily includes some within its bounds who will never come to true faith and will never have eternal life. This parallel between the church and Israel should not be surprising because the church and Israel are, contrary to dispensationalism, the same body . . .” (322).

Later he writes, “But in Scripture there is also an election that cannot be lost and that is not at all conditioned on human faithfulness or works . . . So those who are “in Christ” who belong to him inwardly and not merely outwardly, who are the true Israel, can never lose their salvation. They are elect in a stronger sense than was the nation of Israel as a whole and in a stronger sense than is the general membership of the visible Christian church” (325).

In rejecting the error of various kinds of divine election the Canons of Dort envision the Arminians who conceive an election “to justifying faith, without being decisive to salvation” (RoE, 1:2). Federal Vision folk don’t believe decretal election is conditional. They do believe historical election is conditional because historical election corresponds to covenant.

The difficulty here is that Federal Vision proponents say simultaneously (a) only some in the church are decretally elect and (b) all in the church must believe they are decretally elect. It’s the (b) that people can’t get their heads around. But recall what I wrote in my previous post. At baptism, the Triune God promises forgiveness, justification, inclusion among the assembly of the elect in life eternal, etc. These promises are not predictions awaiting fulfilment, but declarations summoning faith.

May a baptized person doubt the validity of God’s promise that He will present him one day among the assembly of the elect in life eternal? No. Even though unbelief negates the saving power of the promise, nothing can negate the validity of the promise. The promise, because it’s God’s promise, is necessarily indubitable, inviolable and trustworthy.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (11): Covenant, Election and Salvation (a)

2009-07-08T10:00:00.004-04:00

As I continue my interaction with the URCNA FV report I’m going to skip ahead a few pages to get to the heart of the matter—the evaluation of FV emphases (3.D), the first of which addresses the themes of covenant, election and salvation (3.D.1)

Here the Report alleges that FV folk teach that “when God covenants with His people (believers and their children), He graciously elects them to a true and saving communion with Himself. . . . With respect to the doctrine of justification, this means that all covenant members enjoy all gospel benefits, including justification, by virtue of their membership in Christ and His Church.”

It strikes me that this statement either (a) fails to recognize important FV nuances and distinctions or (b) chooses to regard these nuances and distinctions as equivocation (of a seemingly deliberate malicious variety).

I’m willing to concede that FV writers occasionally lack clarity and thereby increase the potential for confusion. But I must admit simultaneously that I have yet to hear someone talk about election, covenant and salvation so coherently that my mind is completely put at ease. Don’t these issues necessarily transport us to a realm where our intellects are often unsatisfied? That’s the conclusion the Canons of Dort reaches in 1:18 and I’m happy to endorse it.

Part of the burden of FV writers is to stress that though not everyone in the covenant is (decretally, eternally or eschatologically) elect, everyone in the covenant must believe the promise that, in the words of the historic Reformed baptismal form, “the Holy Spirit will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ, imparting to us what we have in Christ, namely, the cleansing from our sins and the daily renewal of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without blemish among the assembly of God’s elect in life eternal.”

Moreover, FV writers want us rightly to understand the character of ‘promise’ in this baptismal form. The language of promise leads some to think of salvation as primarily future or eschatological, i.e., we ultimately saved “on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor.5:5). That’s certainly very Pauline and therefore very appropriate. But ‘promise’ here has especially the sense of a present declaration of Christ’s work which must be embraced by faith. So what corresponds to promise, in this understanding, is not fulfilment (a fulfilled promise ceases to be a promise), but faith. The Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, for example, teaches that we must believe all that promised us in the gospel—summarized in the articles of the Christian faith (the Apostles’ Creed)—and this refers not to future redemptive acts, but to the present presentation of past redemptive acts.

With this understanding we can make sense of what the Heidelberg Catechism says when it teaches that God promises us that He “graciously grants us forgiveness of sins” (Answer 66), that we have received forgiveness of sins from God, are renewed by the Holy Spirit and sanctified to be members of Christ (Answer 70), that we are “truly cleansed from our sins” (Answer 73). This is the content of the promise which must be believed again and again.

There's a wonderful essay about all of this by Cornelis Trimp, entitled, “The Promise of the Covenant” in a festschrift for Jelle Faber entitled, Unity and Diversity. Interestingly, Trimp in this essay faults Klaas Schilder for failing to recognize this in his monograph, Looze Kalk.

The point is that we must preach the promise to the baptized congregation: “Your sins are forgiven.” If some refuse to believe the “promise,” the validity of the promise remains, though its saving power is lost.

So we can say that all covenant members enjoy all the gospel benefits insofar as all covenant members are promised justification, sanctification and inclusion among the eschatologically elect. But the promise here, however, is not a prediction awaiting fulfilment, but a declaration summoning faith.

Where can you read more about this? In John Barach’s essay, “Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision. More to follow on this point.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (10): Things I Liked about the Report

2009-07-07T09:19:00.004-04:00

A friend suggested that my critique of the report might be more palatable if I expressed in these posts some things about the report I appreciated. That's of course sound advice from a wise friend, and I think my failure to begin on a positive note was a tactical misstep. So here are some things I appreciated about the Committee's work.

1. I think that the study Committee wisely judged early on that any URCNA evaluation of the FV must be based on Scripture and the Three Forms of Unity ("not the Westminster Standards," p.6). This is not because the WS are so evil, but because they are not among the doctrinal standards of the URCNA. I'm disappointed, however, that the Committee was unable to abide by this judgment, given the numerous appeals to WS language and formulations.

2. The Committee also rightly understood that it was not "a judicial committee," but an investigative committee. If it were a judicial committee it would have been obligated to cross-examine each of the FV proponents under suspicion. In my understanding, it would have been a healthy expression of Christian charity to interact with FV men, though I'm not convinced it was absolutely necessary. I do think the Committee could have saved itself a lot of time by running its assessments of FV teaching by its proponents.

3. The Committee correctly understood that FV proponents differ among themselves and that it would "violate biblical standards of conduct to proceed on the assumption" that they are unified on everything. This is a great statement, though I doubt it was always respected.

4. The Committee also judged that the conclusions of their report should be received not as a supplement to the Confessions, but as an application of the Confessions. I'll have more to say about this later, but for the time I respect that the committee was deliberate in viewing their conclusions as intra-confessional, rather than extra-confessional recommendations.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (9): Interesting Usage of the Word "Full"

2009-07-06T12:06:00.004-04:00

On p.19, the report misrepresents the teachings of FV folk by curiously repeating the word "full" as in: "the claim of FV authors that all covenant members without exception . . . enjoy a full and saving union with Christ." Then later, "since the baptism of the children of believers effectively unites them to Christ and grants them full participation in His saving work."

This seems to be the exact opposite of what FV folk say. FV folk stress that a person can apostatize. Whatever blessings and privileges baptized folk enjoy -- and the apostle Paul thinks there are many--- there are obviously some things those who apostatize lack. How can you apostatize if you have a full and saving union with Christ?

I repeat what Doug Wilson says in his Presbytery examination.

69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?

"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had."

I would think that full participation in Christ's saving work would mean at least 'having' the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ. Wilson is asserting that the baptized member who apostatizes never had it.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (8): The Marginalization of the Sacraments

2009-07-06T11:11:00.003-04:00

In the FV Report (p.19) we find this apparent summary of the FV position, "By virtue of their baptism, believers and their children are constituted members of Christ and participate in the fullness of His redemptive work on their behalf. All of the benefits of Christ's saving mediation are imparted to all those who are incorporated into the covenant community by means of baptism."

Thankfully, making the allegation doesn't make it true. The Joint FV Report, signed by all the noteworthy offenders, says, "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning." That's worth repeating, this time in bold and italics. "Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."

In the 2005 Summary Statement of AAPC's Position, it says (#6): "Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief." That's worth repeating, in bold and italics: "What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief."

In his essay "Paedobaptism and Baptismal Efficacy" in The Federal Vision Rich Lusk writes, "Baptismal efficacy raises a red flag for many in the Reformed community. In part, this is due to the specter of ex opere operato from the Medieval Church and is very understandable. We must carefully guard against any view that would lead people to believe that simply because they have been baptized, all is well no matter how they live their lives. In this sense, baptism does not automatically guarantee salvation. We must combine the waters of baptism with a living faith."

I'll resist the impulse here to repeat with bold and italics.

Peter Leithart, in response to questions put to him by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery in May, 2005, said, "In some sense, sacraments never fail to work. A baptized person is always different after he's been baptized. I don't mean to be flippant, but the chief difference is that he's been baptized; he wears the mark of Christ, and is called to serve Him . . . I agree that the sacraments are efficacious by the blessings of Christ and the work of the Spirit, and that the sacraments are means of salvation to believers. (Italics original)."

In the statements cited above FV folk, with striking clarity, deny that the sacraments have saving power by themselves.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (7): The Church with an Invisibility Cloak

2009-07-06T09:33:00.004-04:00

The URCNA FV Report says (p.16) of the distinction between visible/invisible church, "its most basic function is to acknowledge that not all professing believers and their children, who belong to the concrete, visible expression of Christ's church in the world, are truly saved and members of Christ by faith."

I'm interested in the adverb 'truly.' It seems to imply that there is a sense in which you can be saved and yet not enter eschatological rest. I suppose the report is stressing that objective membership in the redeemed community does not guarantee final salvation. But isn't that precisely what FV folk are saying??

Reformed theologians have long quibbled about the invisible/visible distinction. I was taught in seminary by Cornel Venema who preferred the language of "unsurveyable" to "invisible." The illustration he used in class was of a penny under a mattress. A penny under a mattress can't be seen, but that doesn't make it invisible.

Here I would repeat the words of Dr. Jelle Faber, "Allow me to say to my Presbyterian brothers, 'One of yourselves, one of your own prophets, has said so.' I refer to the essay of John Murray in his Collected Writings, entitled, "The Church: Its Definition in Terms of 'Visible' and 'Invisible' Invalid." This from Faber's essay, "The Doctrine of the Church in the Reformed Confessions" in Essays in Reformed Doctrine.

Both Murray and Faber were of course willing to grant, as all FV folk are, that there are invisible aspects to the church. Murray points out, however, that the church in the New Testament "never appears as an invisible entity and therefore may never be defined in terms of invisibility."

Faber in fact questioned whether the distinction between invisible church and visible church "infringed" upon the truth of the Nicene Creed, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

FV folk prefer the definition of the church given in the Heidelberg Catechism, as the gathering Church and the gathered church. The gathering Church is what Wilson terms the historical Church and the gathered church, the eschatological church.

Like the FV individuals I know, I am prepared to make all sorts of distinctions within the church between believers and unbelievers, between the faithful and the delinquent, between the sincere and the hypocrite, between the sheep and the goats, between fruitful branches and unfruitful branches. These distinctions approximate the Bible's own language (why won't that do here?). The visible/invisible distinction to me seems far removed from the text of Scripture.

Here are the affirmations and denials in the Joint Federal Vision Statement:

We affirm that there is only one true Church, and this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an "approximate" Church.

We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Chruch generally correspends to the visible Church---all thsoe who profess the true religion, together with their children---and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God's chosen as they will be seen on the day of the resurrection.

This looks very good. Where do I sign?

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (6): Missing Evidence

2009-07-04T14:17:00.007-04:00

I found the Report's section on "Law and Gospel in the Covenant" (pp.15-16) to be peculiar. I doubt whether any FV folk would deny a distinction between law and gospel in terms of justification. All FV folk recognize that the law cannot save and that the gospel does.

What we have here are insinuations and allegations but surprisingly no documentary evidence to suggest that FV folk might be saying what the report alleges they are saying. Given the absence of proof readers of the report should not attach too much weight to the allegations in these paragraphs.

From my recollection of reading FV material the subject of law and gospel was raised in connection with a perceived need to reclaim the Calvinistic view that the law, though condemnatory in terms of justification, is a wonderful source of delight for the redeemed (as in Psalm 119) and that the gospel, though undemanding in terms of justification, makes demands which must be obeyed by the redeemed (e.g., Romans 10:16).

What concerns FV folk, and ought to concern us all, is that law-gospel hermeneutic which categorizes every passage in Scripture in terms of either law or gospel. Law passages are those with imperatives which necessarily drive us to despair. Gospel passages are those with indicatives which promise forgiveness.

Thus, when we hear the command "Do not fear" in the Bible we are supposed to be driven to despair because this command can't be kept and therefore is unduly burdensome. This is a variant of Lutheranism so bizarre Luther himself would object. It's not hard to illustrate the absurdity of this hermeneutic.

Interestingly, the report cites a peculiar view of Norman Shepherd that "works of the law" in Romans refers to "works performed to merit acceptance with God" which I don't believe is shared by any others in the general FV orbit.

It's questionable, in fact, whether Norman Shepherd views himself as FV. He didn't sign the Joint FV Statement (I suspect he wasn't asked because he wasn't thought to be part of the group). I really don't know why Shepherd is lumped with the FV folk in this report, and no explanation is given.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (5): Imposition of Westminster Confession of Faith

2009-07-04T12:47:00.007-04:00

In point 3.A.3, the URCNA FV Report talks about the pre-fall covenant. Interestingly, the exposition of this doctrine significantly borrows from the Westminster confessional tradition, even though office-bearers in the URCNA are not required to subscribe to the standards of that tradition. On p. 3 the report provides reasons why the FV Study committee decided not to reproduce the findings of other denominational reports on FV.

"However, since our churches subscribe to the three Forms of Unity, not the Westminster Standards, it was the Committee's judgment that our mandate called for an independent report that would evaluate the FV understanding of justification and other related teachings from the standpoint of the Scriptures and these confessional standards" (emphasis mine, BDJ).

By the time we reach p.13 it seems that judgment is all but forgotten. When the so-called covenant of works is explained there's conspicuously no reference to or citation of the Three Forms of Unity (there is a reference in footnote 19 to BC Arts.21-22 which don't mention a covenant of works). What we do encounter, however, are generous citations of the Westminster Confession of Faith VII:1-3. All of this of course begs the question, if this is so important for URCNA office-bearers to embrace, why isn't it found in the doctrinal standards of the URCNA?

The Report states, borrowing language from the Westminster Confession, "The aim of this covenant was to grant to Adam and his posterity the blessing of eternal life and glorification in unbreakable commuion with God 'upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' The promise of this original covenant relationship was an implicit promise of eternal life, which was sacramentally signified and sealed by means of the "tree of life" in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:24)."

I find it interesting that the late Dr. Jelle Faber who contested the doctrine of a meritorious covenant of works in several Clarion articles some years ago cited Belgic Confession, article 24 which states, "Therefore we do good works, but not for merit. For what could we merit. We are indebted to God, rather than He to us, for the good works we do." (So we can't locate support for a meritorious covenant of works in the Three Forms, but we can locate an argument against it.)

Surely, this applies just as much to the prelapsarian context as it does the postlapsarian context. John Calvin thought so. In his commentary on Romans 11:35, he writes, "Even if man were perfect, he could bring nothing to God by which to procure His favour, because as soon as man begins his existence, he is already by the very law of creation so bound to his Maker that he has nothing of his own. We, therefore, fail if we endeavour to deprive God of His right to do freely what He pleases with the creatures whom He has made, as though it were a matter of mutual debt and credit."

It seems the report doesn't want to find any grace in the prelapsarian context. John Calvin was insistent, interestingly, that the tree of life stood in the garden as "a sacrament of God's grace." The sign of the tree of life was intended to lead Adam 'to the knowledge of divine grace' (Comm.
Gen.2.9).

In his essay, "Law and Grace in Ursinus' Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal" in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (eds. Carl Trueman and R. Scott Clark. UK: Paternoster, 1999) Lyle Bierma writes: "Ursinus too always presents this primal relationship in the context of divine grace — in both the Cat. maior and the commentary on Heidelberg Commentary." The prelapsarian relationship is "surrounded by grace." When Adam and Eve fell, "they robbed themselves and all their descendants of that grace of God." voluntaria inobedientia se et universam posteritatem suam illa Dei gratia spoliarunt (From Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus).

I find it curious that on page 14 the report put terms such as "wages," "due" and "merit" in quotation marks. This is a striking admission that in this prelapsarian context we're not talking about wages, dues and merit, strictly speaking. But this is the issue!!!! I'm sure the FV folk would gladly sign on.

The report (p.13) also indicates that eternal life was something promised to Adam upon the condition of obedience. This begs the question, wasn't the life Adam was living before the fall "eternal life"?

I suspect the difficulties FV folk have with the covenant of works is either with the formulation in the Westminster Confession or with Klinean insistence on strict merit. I'm quite sure all FV folk would heartily agree that there was more in store for Adam than the life he was living prior to his fall and that he had to be obedient in order to be translated into that "more in store." There you have all the important elements in the so-called covenant of works.

The FV take on the covenant of works is no different than Calvin's, Bavinck's, De Graaf's, Hoekema's, Hoeksema's, Murray's and Faber's. Looks like a pretty impressive list of Reformed theologians to me.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (4): Failure to Respect Levels of Discourse

2009-07-04T07:45:00.004-04:00

The FV Report, under Covenant and Election (p.12), says,

"Without emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise, a faith that savingly unites the believer to Christ and His benefits, Barach wants to affirm that all covenant members are individually elect and true beneficiaries of the [sic] Christ's saving work with all of its benefits."

The statement fails to discern the nuances of what John Barach wrote. In his essay entitled "Covenant and Election" in The Federal Vision (eds. Wilkins and Garner), Barach writes of those who apostatize,

"Using our traditional theological and confessional language, we would say that these were non-elect members of the covenant. Using Calvin's terminology, these people were "generally elect" but not "specially elect." Using the language of Scripture, they were among God's chosen people. They were the people God addresses as elect . . . Though He predestined these people to enter His covenant, He did not predestine their perseverance" (p.37).

John here is distinguishing levels of discourse. Typically, in the Reformed confessions and in volumes of Reformed systematic theology, the elect has an eschatological referent, denoting the the specific number of individuals who will occupy the new earth. In light of this referent, those who apostatize are "non-elect members of the covenant." In the writings of John Calvin, who in places distinguishes general election from special election, those who apostatize are "generally elect" but not "specially elect."

John here is distinguishing a biblical level of discourse from theological/confessional levels of discourse. In the theological enterprise this is entirely legitimate. We often define sanctification, for example, as that lifelong process by which the Spirit of Christ gradually renews us and makes us holy. We recognize, however, that when Paul says that "the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife" he's probably using 'sanctification' is a non-theological sense. Life would be so much easier if words always meant the same thing.

John is arguing that Scripture---he's thinking especially of passage such as Ephesians 1 and 2 Peter 2---teaches us to view the covenant community as God's elect. But he has explicitly admitted he is not using the word 'elect' here in "traditional theological and confessional language."

John here is feeding off the insights of Benne Holwerda who wrote a remarkable essay entitled "De verkiezing in de Schrift" in a volume of his essays entitled, Populair-wetenschappelijke bijdragen. On exegetical grounds, Holwerda was inclined to see every instance of "election" or "choosing" in the Bible as historical (and not necessarily eternal). He was not denying the Canons of Dort; he was arguing that the Bible sometimes uses terms differently than the Confessions. Klaas Schilder disagreed with Holwerda but regarded their differences as confessionally intramural.

Interestingly, it's this usage of the word 'election' that we find in the Heidelberg Catechism which defines the church as "community chosen for eternal life" and invites the catechumen to say, "I am and always will be a living member."

Barach writes, "The Heidelberg Catechism links the doctrine of election here with the doctrine of the Church. In a warm and pastoral way, it teaches all the Church's children, those who have been grafted into the Church through baptism (Q & A 74) to confess [this] together with the whole Church" (p.41).

Lastly, apparently John did not "emphasize the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise." In this particular essay I'm citing I see John indicating the need for faith on pp.26, 28, 31, 33, 37, 38, etc.

His entire chapter concludes with (p.39), "Left to myself, I would most assuredly fall away, but in Christ I can be confident because no one who trusts in Him is ever put to shame (Isa.28:16; Rom.10:11). As we look to Christ in faith, as we trust God who speaks to us these words so rich with promise, the Spirit works in us so that we do persevere. There's no room for presumption in God's covenant. The warnings apply to every covenantal member, but there is also no room and no need for worry: "Am I really elect?" We believe God's promise and we live in terms of it."

Here I see John emphasizing the necessary response of faith to the covenant promise.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (3): Failure to Recognize Nuance

2009-07-03T16:02:00.008-04:00

Summarizing a FV view, the Report says (III.A.1):

"In this understanding of the administration of the covenant of grace in the course of the history of redemption, all those with whom God covenants genuinely enjoy salvation in union with the Triune God."

In some sense, this is a true statement. The question is: what is meant by "salvation" in this statement? The report seems to envision only one kind of salvation---eternal salvation. But is this how FV writers are employing the terms? Perhaps some FV statements will clarify . . .

a. The AAPC's Position on Covenant, Baptism and Salvation (April 3, 2005)

Point 4: "God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of covenant. This is why some covenant members are addressed consistently as God's elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world."

Here it is argued that among covenant members there are some who are not "among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world" (emphasis mine, BDJ)

Point 11: "All whom God has ordained to eternal life will surely be saved. But there is also another sense in which all those in the covenant are "saved." They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation in Christ (thus, the Scripture speaks of those who had "known the way of righteousness," "been cleansed from their former sins," have tasted of the heavenly gift," etc.) but not all will persevere in that "salvation."

Here it is explained in what sense all covenant members are saved. They are all saved in the sense that they belong to the redeemed community. Salvation here does not refer to eternal salvation. Notice that "saved" and "salvation" are in quotation marks. This indicates these words are not being used in the way they ordinarily are. The URCNA report itself speaks of "merit" because it recognizes that it's not merit, strictly speaking.

Footnote 2: "Illustrations of this abound in Scripture: In Jude (5) the Israelites are said to have been "saved" and then destroyed, because they did not persevere. Peter (2 Peter 2) speaks of a similar class of people. Redeemed by Christ, they then deny Him and are destroyed. All of these are given as warnings to new covenant believers lest they follow these examples of apostasy."

This further explains in what sense all covenant members are "saved" -- in the sense of the Israelites in Jude 5.

b. Joint Federal Vision Statement

Under the heading: The Sacrament of Baptism

"We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning."

Here it is explicitly denied that baptism guarantees eternal salvation. Implication: not all those who are members of the covenant are eternally saved. The idea here is that though all baptized members are indeed part of the redeemed community, they will not all be part of the eschatological church.

c. Doug Wilson's Examination Questions

68. Can the elect lose their salvation? Can a "Christian" lose his salvation? Can an un-baptized believer lose his salvation?

"No, the elect cannot. A covenant-member Christian can fall from grace, be cut out of the vine, and can apostatize. No, a regenerate person who is not baptized cannot lose his salvation."

69. If a person apostatizes, does he lose salvation---justification, sanctification, etc---or does he demonstrate that he was never saved?

"He does not lose something that was never his personal possession to begin with. This means he does not lose the imputed obedience of Jesus Christ, which he never had. But he does lose something. The Scriptures speak of this with different metaphors, some emphasizing the discontinuity all the way back --- wheat/tares, brothers/false brothers, washed pig/dirty pig. Others emphasize the covenant continuity all the way back---Vine/branches, olive tree branches, etc. So such a person was never individually justified, effectually called, etc. But he is falling away from grace in some way. He was enlightened. He tasted the heavenly gift. He trampled underfoot the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified."

Conclusion: The report fails to acknowledge that 'salvation' for FV writers has different referents in different contexts. This is not equivocation on the part of FV writers; this is acknowledging diverse nuances in biblical vocabulary. Paul says that "women will be saved through childbearing" (1 Tim.2:15) and that God is "the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe" (1 Tim.4:10) and Peter says, "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also" (1 Pet.3:21). Must we conclude that biblical writers use the word salvation in exactly the same way in each instance? I smell an exegetical fallacy.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (2): Factual Errors

2009-07-03T14:28:00.005-04:00

The FV Study Committee Report includes several factual errors which I will begin to enumerate in this post and continue in a subsequent post.

(1) In the third paragraph under "A Brief Sketch of the Emergence of the Federal Vision," it states,

In January 2002, Rev. Steven Wilkins, pastor at the time of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, invited a number of speakers to the church's annual pastor's conference to articulate and defend their advocacy of the 'Federal Vision.'

This is untrue. At this juncture in history there was no movement or school of thought called "Federal Vision." The conference organizers simply wanted to dedicate a conference to the doctrine of the covenant, and since 'federal' means 'covenantal' they picked the name, "Federal Vision." It's a creative way of saying Covenantal Vision.

Steve Wilkins invited colleague-friends of his (Doug Wilson and Steve Schlissel), as well as Norman Shepherd. Shepherd was unable to attend the conference because of his wife's failing health. Several people, including Nelson Kloosterman, were asked for their opinion regarding a replacement and John Barach was recommended. John had written some material about the relationship between covenant and election in Christian Renewal and many were quite fond of John's insights.

This conference was a Pastor's conference with no agenda apart from a sound presentation of the biblical doctrine of the covenant. Each of the speakers, some of whom had no connection prior to the conference, had done some speaking or writing on the subject and was considered sufficiently qualified to lecture to other pastors about this.

In the minds of some, the conference was doomed for failure already here. Who are these men? None are seminary pastors. None have earned doctorates. None have been vetted (read Guy Waters for more on this). They were all basically fishermen. Utterly amazed, the professional theologians asked, "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?"

(2) The third paragraph goes on to say,

"Since Rev. Shepherd was unable to attend this meeting, Rev. John Barach, at the time a pastor of the Grande Prairie URC, was invited to speak in his place."

This is especially interesting for me since I was the pastor of the "Grande Prairie URC" in January, 2002 and I don't recall seeing John there. John was then the pastor of the Trinity Reformed Church in Lethbridge. Aside from this, the church in GP is called Covenant Reformed Church.

(3) The first full paragraph on p.9 says,

"The advocacy of children at the Lord's Table, which is one of the most common practical fruits of the FV understanding of the covenant of grace, has been addressed by the broader assemblies of the federation."

This ignores the fact that in 2002 only one of the speakers embraced paedocommunion. Two did not hold the position (Barach and Wilson) and the other (Schlissel) was and is vocally opposed. Moreover, many in the Canadian Reformed Churches, who have a similar view of the covenant's objectivity, are not convinced of paedocommunion. In a recent issue of Clarion, Clarence Bouwman expresses his appreciation for many of the tenets of FV, but voices his objections to paedocommunion.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (1): Introduction

2009-07-03T10:57:00.004-04:00

The URCNA FV Study Committee Report has just been published. It's a thorough and substantial report which, as to be expected, has some excellent statements. There are, however, several features of the report which concern me and these I would like to enumerate and address on my blog.

Why do I care about this report? For several reasons. I am good friends and colleagues with many of the leading FV personalities. I've known John Barach, for example, for about 15 years. He and I were classmates at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in the mid-90s. John is among the brightest fellows I know, with a memory nearly photographic. While at M-ARS, where he aced all of his courses, John learned to read Dutch --- which enabled him eventually to translate Dr. Van Houwelingen's fine commentary on 1 Peter and important exegetical and theological material by Benne Holwerda. He also underwent some paradigm shifts at seminary in the trajectory of Klaas Schilder's theology. I remember him walking into class some mornings, with a Thomas Kuhn twinkle in his eye.

John and I were also huge fans of Norman Shepherd, whom we had met a number of times at the seminary. We had listened with great enthusiasm to the taped lectures on the covenant Shepherd gave at Mid-America in the mid-80s. We were delighted to see Shepherd at the seminary on occasion to deliver a chapel address or a lecture. Back then the seminary community, including faculty, was quite fond of Shepherd. I understand that today he's a persona non grata.

Aside from my friendships with FV personalities, I served on the advisory committee at Synod Schererville which recommended the appointment of this study committee. The advisory committee was tasked with making recommendations to synod regarding an overture from Classis Michigan to adopt the RCUS report on Justification. That sentiment was quickly discarded. The URCNA is not the RCUS, it was said, and Norman Shepherd, the subject of the RCUS report, was a minister in the CRCNA and not the URCNA.

On the other hand, the members of the advisory committee thought something should be done. FV theology was threatening the URCNA church. No one could cite an instance in the URCNA. No one could name a name. But sometimes a war is just even when you can't find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So the advisory committee recommended two things (a) adopt nine points dealing with covenant theology (which, though unhelpful and at points confusing, are generally innocuous). The original nine points had been penned by Scott Clark, an instructor at Westminster Seminary in California, and passed to a delegate to take to this advisory committee meeting. They were tweaked (significantly in places) and then submitted to synod for adoption. Not exactly pristine Reformed church polity, but it happened; (b) appoint a study committee to investigate the FV position on justification in particular. Though this wasn't what any church or classis had requested, this is what we did.

On a personal note, I and others argued from the floor of synod for the adoption of the nine points (the lesser of two evils) in lieu of the appointment of this committee. It didn't happen. The nine points were adopted and the study committee was appointed. Van Dellen and Monsma rolled in their graves.

Moreover, I served as a minister in the URCNA for some 12 years. In that time period I developed lasting friendships with both parishioners in the churches I served and colleagues throughout the federation. I am concerned about the direction of the URCNA, should it adopt this report and its recommendations.

Today I'm a pastor in the Canadian Reformed Churches which has close ecumenical ties with the URCNA, so much so that there's a merger being planned. Folk in the Canadian Reformed Churches are rightly very sensitive to what's sometimes called "extra-confessional binding," the extra-confessional theological statements of synods which demand allegiance. Moreover, they are generally fond of the theologies of Schilder and Holwerda which, it seems, are now under attack in the URCNA. For some it brings back sad memories of an event they call 44.

I yearn for closer relations between Can Ref and URCNA. These relations are now in jeopardy. I want to do what I can to encourage the uniting of what is being fractured.

The Reformation and Johann Sebastian Bach (2)

2006-11-14T21:32:00.000-05:00

A week ago I indicated my intent to show from his life and music that the great Baroque musician Johann Sebastian Bach was a devout and orthodox Lutheran. In this post I want to highlight some interesting connections between J. S. Bach and Martin Luther himself.

The musician Bach (1685-1730) and the theologian Luther (1483-1546) were of course separated temporally by well over a century. Their lives, however, intersected geographically at a number of places, most notably the German towns of Eisenach and Leipzig.

It was in the town of Eisenach, first of all, where Bach was born, on March 21, 1685. This historic German town was very familiar to Luther and for several reasons: (a) it was the hometown of Luther’s mother; (b) from 1498-1501 Luther studied at the Eisenach Latin school — Bach would later study at the very same school; (c) it was located at the foot of Warburg, the medieval hilltop castle which provided refuge to Luther while he translated the New Testament into German; (d) Luther preached in St. George’s Church, where Bach was baptized, on his way both to and from the Diet of Worms.

It was in the town of Leipzig, secondly, where Bach would later serve as church musician. It took several decades for the Reformation to prevail in Leipzig and when the city finally and officially embraced the Lutheran faith the occasion was marked by an appearance of none other than Martin Luther himself who, on Pentecost Sunday, 1539 preached at St. Thomas’s church, the very church where Bach would later serve.

But the connections between Bach and Luther are far more than geographical. Bach’s family was firmly Lutheran, theologically and ecclesiastically. The Lutheran faith had been embraced early on by Bach’s great-grandfather who, in fact, had been forced to flee to Hungary on account of it. The legacy of devout Lutheranism persisted in the Bach family for generations and is evident everywhere in the life and music of J. S. Bach.

The Reformation and Johann Sebastian Bach (1)

2006-11-03T18:36:00.000-05:00

I’ve long been fascinated with the person of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750). This dates back to my years in college when I became especially impressed by the pipe organ music, partly because Redeemer University College, which I then attended, housed a remarkable Reil organ whose potential, so far as I could tell, was fully tapped by the college organist, Dr. Christiaan Teeuwsen.

In the spring of 1992 I studied in the Netherlands and was exposed to some of the greatest pipe organs in the world. On Saturdays I would sometimes bike from Amsterdam to Haarlem (about 10 miles) to take in free concerts at St. Bavo’s Church to hear the massive 1738 Muller organ. Soon after the organ was constructed, incidentally, it was played by George F. Handel who traveled to Holland exclusively for this purpose and was charmed by its sound. In 1776 the organ was played by a ten year boy by the name of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

It was in Haarlem where I was introduced to the organ music of Johann Sebastian Bach and I’ve never stopped listening. Today I happily own a complete CD collection of Bach’s organ works featuring Ton Koopman, organist and conductor of the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra.

My fascination with Bach was revived recently by a new interest in the cantatas of Bach and by a recent reading of Christoph Wolff’s 2001 biography Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. Wolff is Professor of Music at Harvard University and one of the great authorities on Bach in our time.

One of the things that has inclined me to Bach, as opposed to Mozart, for example, or Beethoven, is Bach’s Protestantism. In following Pastor’s Pages I’d like show from his life and music that Bach was an astute, pious and orthodox Lutheran.

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (14)

2006-10-19T11:01:00.000-04:00

This marks the final installment of my translation of Scholtens' 1936 booklet, Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking (Covenant and Discriminatory Preaching). In the next few weeks, I'll go over my translation and refine it, afterwhich I'll endeavor to publish it somewhere, perhaps in installments in a periodical, perhaps as an independent booklet. The booklet's value is probably mainly historical. One of the key issues of debate among Reformed churches in early 20th century Holland was the issue of self-examination, about which the Synod of Utrecht in 1905 and the Synod of Sneek-Utrecht in 1942 published statements. Scholtens' booklet must have been an ingredient in these debates.

. . . . Do people actually think that our work of self-examination has more value for attaining assurance, and gives more security, than the promises of God? Only when one can proves that covenantal preaching, as explained here, in conflict with Scripture, will he have the right to speak. Before the Scriptures I will always bow.

But then that proof must be cogent and clear. Because I see a great danger in discriminatory preaching and in the constant insistence on self-examination of one’s state—the danger of further backsliding among our Reformed people, the danger of neglecting the calling to be witnesses for Christ.

We must not always be questioning, "Am I truly a Christian?" Rather, we must ask, "Am a good Christian?" Indeed, all of life must be a sacred query to our Father about what we as His children must do so that the world around us, which does not know Christ, shall through our walk and through our Word be drawn to the Christ of God.

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (13)

2006-10-19T10:54:00.000-04:00

Continuation of my translation of Scholtens' Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking.

. . . At this point in my understanding, after reading several different commentaries, I do not find Holy Scripture enjoining self-examination so as to facilitate answering the question, "Am I a believer, or not; am I regenerate, or not?" I’m now convinced that this way of seeking assurance is not the way of Scripture.

Needless to say I still want to note here that I don’t deny that there are covenant-breakers in church, under the preaching of the Word. Nor do I deny that the insistence on the requirement of covenant obedience accompanies the warning against the disobedient life that leads to perdition. I also have no opposition to the clear preaching of this covenant-threat now and then. I mean to suggest, quite apart from this, that covenantal preaching should exclude the insistence on investigating marks which prove that one is a believer.

Covenantal preaching will always, in the first place, pursue the right of the Covenant God and shall therefore endeavor to give the full, rich revelation of this God. It will not, therefore, concentrate on the question, "whether we’ll get there, " but it will mobilize us to be Christians, to be office-bearers, in order to fulfill our calling as covenant children.

Someone has said, "This preaching makes it very easy." Another has talked in this connection about "the imagined heaven" in which one really goes to hell. This accusation is both severe and untrue. Easy? To live in covenant-obedience? To deny oneself, completely? Not even being able to look for marks which then would still give one a little support? An imagined heaven which rests on the promises of God? Can one really say this? . . .

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (12)

2006-10-12T15:37:00.000-04:00

Continuation of my translation of Scholtens' Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking.

. . . .Of Galatians 6:3, 5, he writes, "This therefore proves that self-examination must also occur with respect to the question, do I indeed do "the work of God" in my work" (John 6:29). The intention of the writer seems to be that self-examination of one’s condition is aroused here in the way of marks. I cannot read that there. And there are a number of other Scripture passages, identified by Dr. Impeta, which on this matter seem to me to be of some significance—namely 2 Cor.13:5; John 3:14; 2 Pet.1:10, 1 Cor.11:28. The discussion of these texts repeatedly demonstrates how significant the starting-point from which one proceeds is.

This also influences the manner in which one interprets the statements of others. When I read Calvin on these texts, for example, I come to the conclusion that he doesn’t address self-examination that leads to assurance concerning the question whether one belongs. I also then don’t believe that this notion ever existed with Calvin. This also explains why Calvin could speak more unreservedly about the connection between faith and works than is presently possible. Today people easily search for something sinister. And Calvin would probably be really surprised to note in which corner some would want to place him. One must, in fact, take "Calvin" here in his entirety and not one single citation.

Nevertheless, again and again, when Calvin talks about the fruit of faith with which the believer is confirmed in assurance that he is God’s child, he makes it very clear that this is primarily a matter of resting in the grace of God, revealed in Christ. Likewise, our fathers who penned the confession write in this vein and therefore we must read these confession from this starting-point. The notion of discriminatory preaching designed to produce assurance of one’s spiritual state is found neither in Calvin, nor in the confessions. And I see it as greater insight given by God that one begins to see these things, no less in the covenant, more clearly than before.

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (11)

2006-10-06T11:49:00.000-04:00

Continuation of translation of Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking

. . . Indeed, neither can someone believe "by himself" nor can he examine himself "by himself." And where the demand of believing acceptance clearly comes to us in Scripture, we must fulfill this requirement and we’re not permitted to voice all sorts of objections and engage in examinations which stand in the way of this simple acceptance, this faith-obedience.

This leads automatically to the second objection, "But don’t the Scriptures require discriminatory preaching and self-examination of our spiritual state?" That’s of course a question of the greatest importance. When the Scriptures exhort us as children of the Covenant in this manner we must obey.

Now this is at once a great challenge. It’s difficult to approach the Scriptures open-mindedly. We’re so easily disposed to read with certain assumptions in place. Whenever folk are convinced, for example, that discriminatory preaching is necessary, they read Scripture with that assumption in mind. This, in my opinion, is clearly evident in Dr. Impeta’s brochure, Self-Examination Necessary!

When he lists on pages 29 and 30, for example, all sorts of fruit of the Spirit (he calls them marks), he immediately assumes that the Scriptures list these fruit in order for us to test whether we are truly believers and he makes no effort to justify this assumption (which would be really difficult).

When on page 31 he poses the question, "wouldn’t these marks be given in order for us to test our zeal and conscientiousness?" and then adds "that it is incomprehensible that someone who regards God’s Word as God’s Word would doubt there but for a moment" then it’s obvious that Dr. Impeta has assumed that self-examination is intended there, that discriminatory preaching is necessary and, on account of the Scriptures, is in fact required.

This is something he has resolved in his mind and this is the assumption from which he proceeds. This appears obvious from the manner in which he handles various Scripture passages. In terms of Hebrews 3:12, he writes, "One possible conclusion: examine yourself, how things are with you . . ." I would certainly not derive this conclusion; I would say that this is about living in covenant-obedience, the refusal to do so leading to your demise . . .

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (10)

2006-09-22T16:38:00.000-04:00

Continuation of translation of Anko Scholten's Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking.

In this way the life of sanctification can blossom. We are no longer always preoccupied with ourselves, but with the object of our faith, our Lord Jesus Christ, who becomes increasingly precious to us, and with whom we increasingly concern ourselves until we are compelled outward to disseminate the rich treasures of the gospel of grace for sinners.

As eager children of God we listen to the Father’s call of duty, as it comes to us from His Word and we pray daily for diligence to fulfill our callings. Our self-examination in preparation for the Lord’s Supper, then, won’t begin with us doubting our status as children, but will involve us asking whether we’re attending to our responsibilities as covenant children and whether we’re producing the fruit of the Spirit. We don’t do this, I repeat, in order thereby to ascertain whether we belong— God has said we do —but to be encouraged in the strength of our Covenant-God, in whom we trust, to persevere until the consummation.

It seems fitting here to address some objections. In the first place, it is asked whether this line of thought doesn’t lead to misunderstanding and whether specifically it doesn’t devalue the work of the Holy Spirit? Isn’t faith a gift of God’s worked through the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t one forget with this line of thought that people, including covenant members, are incapable of doing any good and powerless to believe?

Let me begin by saying that I of course accept that the work of salvation is completely God’s work and that the Holy Spirit works faith through the preaching of the Word, through the covenant-rich preaching of the Word. That word comes to all covenant members with God’s demands, especially the demand of faith. Can the covenant member fulfill this "by himself"? In no way. Nor can anyone’s hand or foot move without the power God provides

But at the same time, the calling comes to us, God’s covenant children, through God’s appointed office-bearers, to fulfil our daily work and to covenant-obedience. In fact, we cannot separate these two. We are, as covenant members, as office-bearers called in all faithfulness to fulfill our offices. This applies to all our lives. And God, who calls us, is faithful. With the demand he also gives the ability, when we in faith anticipate this of Him

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (9)

2006-09-14T09:42:00.000-04:00

Continuation of translation of Anko Scholtens' Verbond and Kenmerken Prediking.

. . . . This preaching comes also with the requirement of self-examination, to which everyone must be summoned. We must examine ourselves to determine whether we indeed believe God at His Word, whether we walk in covenant-obedience, whether we truly live as children of the covenant, whether we are progressing in sanctification. But this must occur only in the context of the rich promises of God which must be embraced. This self-examination, therefore, should never play a part in acquiring the certainty of faith.

Of course, the fruits of faith will gratefully be acknowledged as gifts of God’s grace. And they will lead to more cheerfulness, to richer joy. But they are not to be used as means to attain to the certainty of faith, which faith inherently has. I'd also rather not label them "marks."

What is nevertheless generally meant when the fruits of faith are labeled "marks"? It’s meant that these fruits are signs of new life and evidence that we possess the impulse of faith, that we are regenerate. These signs thus lead to the so-called "assurance of faith," the certainty that we have the character of faith, and on this ground we can conclude that we are thereby saved.

What therefore is the ground of assurance? The impulse of faith and not the faithfulness and truth of God. We have thus, unintentionally, shifted assurance from God’s faithfulness to our own inner, spiritual life. Is God’s Word, is His promise then insufficient? Is something else necessary?

I know full well that good works are gifts of God’s grace, worked through the Holy Spirit. And we may and must daily thank God for the fruits of the Spirit He gives us. But for the certainty of salvation, God’s Word in his covenant promise is sufficient. Resting in this, trusting only in His Word, we shall live a life of thankfulness. . . . .

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (8)

2006-08-30T13:01:00.000-04:00

Continuation of translation of Anko Scholtens' Verbond and Kenmerken Prediking.

" . . . . Certainly, when we live through faith, we will constantly see better and with great gratitude persistently admit how we are redeemed from such great need and death. This is possible, however, only through the believing embrace of God’s promises and of the cross of Christ, as the salvation of sinners.

Covenantal preaching is preaching of God’s fatherly right and of our right and duty as children, but can it, may it revolve persistently around the question whether we are in fact children? Must preaching arouse doubt? People will probably say, "That’s a silly question, who wants to do that?" And I grant that this is no one’s intention. But I also readily understand how routinely and repeatedly people pose the question, "do you also partake in this?"

When people intend with this question to determine whether one is living in the obedience of faith, then I don’t object, though I wish they would word it differently. But when people intend with this question to incite the children of the kingdom to pursue the so-called marks of whether they really belong, then I object greatly, and believe this question does great damage to the souls of God’s children which then live in sinful darkness and doubt.

"But," some say, "the Scriptures do in fact say, "Woe to you who are complacent in Zion, and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria. Isn’t false security a real danger?" Well, this prophecy from Amos addresses those who are explicitly unbelieving, who toss God’s covenant-demands to the wind, don’t respect his covenant-threats and thus are unmistakably covenant-breakers. And if such a situation were to arise in the congregation of Christ then such extremely sharp preaching would be necessary.

"But, won't 'the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these' be repeatedly heard as the proper address of those who without reflection trust that everything is in order because they are baptized and thus are God’s children?

Let me note, first of all, that it’s not a mistake of course when people say that the congregation of Christ is "temple of the Lord." This she is indeed and this is her honor and furthermore her responsibility. The problem with those who used these words improperly is that they themselves refused to walk in obedience to God’s covenant demands and neglected their duty as children and yet wanted to maintain their right as children."

And the summons to covenant-obedience, the demand to personal covenant-acceptance, to live as children of the covenant, with, as background, the covenant-threat for those who are disobedient to the covenant God, is sufficient warning also for those who would be of the mind that blessing comes only on account of their birth into the covenant. . . . ."

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (7)

2006-07-21T14:11:00.000-04:00

Translation of Anko Scholten’s Verbond and Kenmerken-Prediking (Cont’d):

“Don’t people too infrequently proceed from the covenant in their view of the congregation and in their preaching — and because of that, isn’t the demand of covenant-obedience for all of life often sidelined? Is the doubt, the disobedience, the sinful doubt not too often lamented and too infrequently judged? Is there indeed enough proceeding from God’s covenant right, His covenant blessing and His covenant demand?

Doesn’t the continual insistence on self-examination among God’s children ultimately cause real damage? Many have said: “No, the reason for the paucity of a joyful celebration of faith lies in the paucity of acquaintance with sin. That’s where our insistence ought to be. There is far too little genuine sorrow, too little profound knowledge of sin. Whenever people see their own sin better, they will glory in Christ more.”

This can only be the case where people already enjoy the certainty of faith and already embrace God’s promises. That’s, after all, where you find the celebration of forgiveness, and this is accompanied, in the way of faith, by deeper insight into one’s sin.

But here also one must be careful not to over-exaggerate, which so easily becomes morbid; here too one must warn of the continual prying into the life of one’s own soul, and let one not forget that also precisely the knowledge of sin is deepened by faith in the Christ of God, who bore our sins on Golgotha.

Our prayer is for forgiveness. That’s a daily prayer, for the forgiveness of daily guilt and it must, as such, be real and concrete. Our prayer doesn’t emerge from the depth every day. Psalm 51 was not a daily phenomenon for David, but sung only once.

We must glory in forgiveness. We must do that as children of promise: we are justified. But because we, like children, are repeatedly disobedient, we must confess our guilt to our Father and pray for forgiveness. And then we shall certainly see our sin more as guilt, and live as God’s children through faith and we shall walk, in daily repentance, always more concerned about our sin.

But we shall not pray each day for the forgiveness of all our sins from the moment of our conception and birth. That would actually be a denial of our status as children. We must see things concretely, from the perspective of covenant.

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (6)

2006-07-12T14:41:00.000-04:00

Translation cont'd:

"But then covenant preaching, which I mentioned at the outset, must preclude discriminatory preaching. The question here is not whether faith must bear fruit—of course it must—nor is it whether there’s a connection between faith and works—that escapes none of us. The question here is whether you can rest exclusively in God’s promises; in fact, whether you must do that or whether you first must examine yourself to see whether you are a true believer, whether you have the impulse of faith.

The latter option, in my opinion, impairs the assurance of salvation among God’s children at its root, can and shall do great injury to the message of faith in the congregation of Christ and is to be judged especially for this reason—it undervalues God’s paternal loyalty.

Isn’t it terribly ungrateful repeatedly to doubt and to question whether God will in fact give what He has promised? Isn’t it sad that an elder in a Reformed church says with approval from many others, "We must not tell our young people that they must believe; we don’t know whether they are regenerate"? And isn’t it just as sad when the wealth of God’s covenant dealings is repeatedly set forth before the congregation of Christ only to occasion from the children of the kingdom the question, "Is this really for me?"

Doesn’t this necessarily produce in one’s spiritual life a continuous churning, a constant oscillation, a recurring doubt? Won’t this result, for the most part, in people worrying about themselves, never attaining to the assurance of their salvation with clarity, putting their own need repeatedly to fore and forgetting that God calls his children to a life in His service and, through that, for the advantage of others?

It can’t be ignored that in our churches the message of faith and the certainty of faith are enjoyed by far too few and that we show ourselves to the outside to be God’s children far too infrequently. Where does that come from? What’s the source of all this worrying, materially and spiritually? Why is it that our attitude in times of trouble is little different the world’s? Why do we live so little by faith?

Can this problem lie with preaching which tends to overemphasize the personal appropriation of salvation and to neglect the vast wealth of God’s revelation in Christ for everyone who believes in him, the wealth in particular of God’s covenant people?"

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (5)

2006-07-07T18:39:00.000-04:00

Herewith I continue my translation of Anko Scholten's Verbond en Kenmerken Prediking (Kampen, 1936):

"That’s why self-examination is necessary—daily self-examination—so that we constantly question whether we indeed live for our God as we must live, whether we give Him, as the faithful covenant God, the honor due His Name. We must have a holy walk and live in godliness through faith. That is the requirement of "childlike obedience." But never—no, never—do we have the right to doubt God’s faithfulness or the truth of His Word. Such doubt is a great sin.

This holy walk or the internal state of the heart, therefore, must never, ever be set forth as a condition for the reception of God’s promises. The same applies to our repentance, our acknowledgment of sin. We must not say, "we’re first going to examine ourselves to determine whether our spiritual life is aright in order thereafter, if we have found this —and who in truth would ever find that?—to believe God at his Word."

Our objective is not first to see sanctification in order then to exalt in justification. We must not first examine ourselves in order to determine whether our faith is genuine. Rather, we must begin by simply resting in God’s truth, first by acknowledging Him as Father and then in that faith fighting against all sin in the power of Him who gave His Word, His promise.

Isn’t it the case, however, that we often go to the requirement of the covenant only after we have examined ourselves whether we belong in the covenant. I can’t see this in any other way than a shortchanging of the trust and truth of God."

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (4)

2006-06-30T14:39:00.000-04:00

Herewith I continue my translation of Anko Scholtens’ booklet, Verbond and Kenmerken Prediking (1936). . . . “In our formulary for baptism it says so clearly that through baptism the Triune God signifies and seals that the Father adopts as His children and heirs, that the Son washes us of all our sins in His blood and that the Holy Spirit desires to live in our hearts and sanctify us as members of Christ.

Baptism, therefore, is not about what is in that child, or whether that child is regenerate, but about what God says about that child, what He has signified and sealed. I believe that much of the debate over “presumptive regeneration” could have been avoided if baptism had been seen in this light.

We must understand this now in terms of preaching. We are of course all convinced that God means what He says and that His promise is firm. This must be our starting point and thus we must embrace this covenant-promise in its full and rich meaning as the background of preaching.

The covenant of God, one-sided in its origin, is two-sided in its outworking. We are therefore required to acknowledge God’s covenant rights, accept his covenant promises and live according to his covenant demands. And the first of these covenant demands is the embrace of God’s promises, saying ‘Amen’ to what God promises, and therefore faith, true faith. That is the first of these covenant demands which must be proclaimed; this must also be proclaimed in preaching as the beginning of covenant obedience. “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (John 6:29). “And this is his command, to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23).

Of course it must always be stated that what does not embrace what God promises is unbelief. Unbelief is thus all worrying about and doubting about our state before God. God’s children must first of all say ‘amen’ to what God says, to his covenant promises as well as his covenant threats. In this way the demand of the covenant is automatically included—namely, to walk in all of life as obedient children.”

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (3)

2006-06-23T18:05:00.000-04:00

I’ve been using this forum to introduce my grandfather’s uncle, Anko Scholtens who, though a layman, was somewhat influential in the development of covenant theology in the Netherlands. His most important contribution is probably a booklet he wrote (which I recently acquired) entitled, Verbond and Kenmerken Prediking, which was published in 1936. In the coming weeks I’ll be translating and reproducing this booklet on my blog with the goal of eventually publishing a complete English translation of this important historical document. Here’s the first section . . .

In all the differences of opinion which have become apparent in our churches lately there appears to be one thing with which people are still inclined to agree—namely, the desirability of so-called covenant-preaching. This unity, however, is only apparent because whenever people are asked what is meant by this we encounter quite diverse opinions. Clearly there's little agreement about what this notion, in fact, entails.

Warnings are often expressed against one-sided covenant-preaching and against covenant-methodism in which it's clarified that textual covenant preaching is really what's desired. This one-sided covenant-preaching appears to be only a caricature of covenant-preaching and not something actually proclaimed from any pulpit in our churches. Regarding covenant-methodism, about which people warn, I have yet to hear a reasonable definition, while the character of textual covenant preaching, which people crave, is not clearly demarcated. These popular terms in use among us often obstruct the clarity of expositions and viewpoints.

Is this notion of covenant-preaching in fact so obscure? Not in my opinion. And I want to try in this article to say in simple terms how I see covenant preaching, especially in connection with so-called discriminatory (Kenmerken) preaching . Regarding this, I understand the impulse to seek personal assurance of salvation through the investigation of certain marks (kenmerken) of grace by means of which people can discern whether faith is really true.

Covenant-preaching is about the reality that God has established covenant-loyalty, his marriage-covenant, with his bride-church (see, e.g., Ezekiel 16:20-21), such that the children of believing parents are God's children, which God signifies and seals to them by baptism. God therefore says to his bride-church in her entirety, to us and our children: "You are mine."

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (2)

2006-06-08T21:37:00.000-04:00

In my previous post I introduced Anko Scholtens, my grandfather's uncle after whom I was indirectly named. After I had completed the memoirs of Douwe Van Dijk, My Path to Liberation, which I mentioned last time, I sent an email to Roelof Janssen, the book's publisher, to express my appreciation for the book and to inform him of my relationship to Anko Scholtens, who of course was mentioned in the book.

Roelof forwarded my email to the book's translator, Dr.Theodore Plantinga of Redeemer University College, who indicated that he, one of few people who knows that my first name is Anko, had thought of me while translating the book. Dr. Plantinga also alerted me to an essay he had published tracing the history of the Reformational movement in the Netherlands--essentially the history neo-Calvinistic worldview thinking, in which he indicates that according to Cornelis Veenhof, the main players in the early history of this movement were, among others, Herman Dooyeweerd, Dirk Vollenhoven, Klaas Schilder and Anko Scholtens.

Dr Plantinga was referring to Veenhof's book Unica Catholica: Een Beschouwing over de Positie van de Bezwaarden onder en over de Synodocratie (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le+Cointre, 1949) in which Veenhof writes, "In Groningen God awakened the incomparable Anko Scholtens. In his inner communion with the Scriptures, something had come to life for him. He came to understand what believing is: relying directly on the Word of God and living out of it. And he understood again that God's Word is a word of promise, a word of grace, that it is always up-to-date and is spoken by God directly. Naturally, he came to realize that a regimen of self-examination coming between believing and the assurance of salvation, or between believing and Christ or His Word, is an absurdity; he realized that both believing and the Word of God are thereby denatured, with the life of faith being affected in its root. Through his faithful service, the eyes of many in the North were opened to the reformational sola fide. And it was especially the powerful voice of Douwe van Dijk [1887-1985] that carried this ancient and ever new treasure into the hearts of thousands!"

I indicated earlier that Van Dijk was a powerful and popular preacher in the city of Groningen where he ministered. He was also the main spokesperson for Dr. Klaas Schilder's view of the covenant at the famous synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands that wrongly and regretably deposed Schilder in 1944. A subsequent synod expressed regret at this action, but the damage was done and a new federation of Reformed churches was born, occasioned largely by the ouster of Schilder."

Anko Scholtens: Lay Leader of Reformational Movement (1)

2006-06-07T12:22:00.000-04:00

Many of you know (and some of you are amused!) that my full name is Anko William DeJong. Anko is an unusual name my Dutch immigrant parents gave me in honor of my uncle Anko who in turn had been named after his father's uncle Anko. The original uncle Anko (Scholtens) was a remarkable man and my recent foray into Dutch Reformed theological literature has uncovered his legacy at several places.

From what I can gather Anko Scholtens’ career began as a math teacher (whose genes I evidently did not inherit) and ended as the principal of a Teacher’s College. During the second world war he was arrested (possibly for affiliations with underground resistance) and shipped off to a concentration camp in Germany where he would donate his blankets to Jews who had none. The Germans were infuriated by his mercy and in the cold of winter they stripped him naked and put on water hose on him till he died. The year was 1943.

There are many accounts of his piety and tenderheartedness as a father and a teacher. But he was also theologically astute. As an elder in his church he influenced many, including his own pastors. This became apparent to me this past December when I read My Path to Liberation (Neerlandia: Inheritance, 2005), the memoirs of the late Douwe Van Dijk, a powerful Dutch Reformed minister who for many years pastored the largest Reformed congregation in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands. These memoirs were translated from the Dutch by my friend and former philosophy professor Dr. Theodore Plantinga.

Van Dijk records his own theological and spiritual pilgrimage as a pastor and at one point writes (p.212), "It took me a long time to understand these things, which is why I believe some of the points I am making here bear repeating. The man who helped me especially in gaining insight regarding these matters was brother Anko Scholtens, one of our elders, who later died while he was a prisoner of the Nazis. Brother Scholtens was a means in God’s hand to open my eyes to the great truth that our certainty is to be sought only in God’s promise. I thank God repeatedly for all that He has given me through my contact with this brother."

Next time I’ll say more about his life and legacy.

Dr. Tremper Longman on Emergence of Kings

2006-04-06T19:00:00.000-04:00

Why is Saul chosen? He is tall. When David is chosen it's said that God does not look at external appearance, but at the heart. Saul's heart turns out to be a cowardly heart. David Gunn's study of David and Saul takes a more sympathetic view of Saul and a more suspicious view of David, and that's the case with many other contemporary scholars.

In 1 Samuel 9 you get the designation phase in the private anointing of Saul. "Do what you must do" (10:7) Long argues, refers to attacking the Philistine garrison. Saul of course does not do this. Therefore there's a second designation, but this time it's public (10:17-27).

This is followed by a demonstration phase where the king shows that he can behave like a king -- this was supposed to be his attack on Philistia. Now we get a substitute demonstration in Saul's attack on Ammon and freeing the people of Jabesh-Gilead (chapter 11). Then at Gilgal Israel makes Saul king.

This leads to chapter 12 which is a covenant renewal ceremony--the confirmation phase--which negotiates the role of the human king and the role of the divine king. It begins with an historical prologue (12:6-12), followed by stipulations and sanctions--blessing and curse (12:13ff.). Here you have the transformation of Samuel from judge to prophet (esp. v.23; the prophet is first and foremost one who prays).

Jonathan ends up defeating Philistine garrison Saul was supposed to defeat. When Saul offers the sacrifice at Gilgal before Samuel arrived, Saul loses the dynasty.

Dr. Tremper Longman on Samuel-Kings and Chronicles

2006-04-06T18:12:00.000-04:00

Deuteronomy has blessings and curses in chapters 27-28 with the pivotal warning that disobedience will incur covenant curses, which curses of course were applied to Jerusalem in her disobedience. Samuel-Kings makes the case that people experience the covenant curse of exile because of covenant-breaking.

Chronicles, on the other hand, is situated in the post-exilic period and underscores first continuity between the post-exilic generation with the earlier generation--to wit, the genealogies. The are several unique features to Chronicles, as distinct from Samuel-Kings, including:

The enormous amount of space devoted to the construction of the temple. This is because in post-exilic times so much attention is devoted to the construction of the second temple.
The interesting tendency not to include negative info about David (with Bathsheba) or even Solomon. One sinful moment in David's life is found in 1 Chronicles 21 where David orders a census though this is reported by the Chronicler as something the devil initiates (v.1).
The decided emphasis on Judah. The north is mentioned but only insofar as it intersects with southern history.
The emphasis on immediate retribution in the sense that the consequences of sin come quickly. This serves the didactic purpose in post-exilic Israel of motivating obedience.

Regarding the issue of harmonization, was a particular king good, as one book alleges, or bad, as another book argues? That's easy to harmonize in that a king can have a good period followed by a bad period. The narrators aren't interested in providing biographies. Regarding different names, one narrator names a king after one ancestor; another after another ancestor.

Regarding the emergence of kingship in Israel, the early chapters in Samuel seem simultaneously pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical. It was God's intention all along to establish kingship. In God's assurance to Abraham in Genesis 17 he promises that kings will be among his descendants. In Genesis 49, among the curses and blessings to the children of Jacob, we read in verses 8-12 that Judah's relatives will bow before him and that the scepter will not depart from him. In Numbers 24:15-19, in Balaam's oracles, we read that about the emergence of a star and scepter from Judah, a ruler in Jacob, etc.

Israel has a king in none other than God himself. Moses is a great leader, as is Joshua. Judges records the story of imperfect deliverers, which is followed by 1 Samuel where we encounter the emergence of kingship. Welhausen and his ilk divide this into two or three sources, some pro-monarchical and others anti-monarchical. Phil Long points out that kingship stories often have three phases, a designation phase, a demonstration phase and a confirmation phase (see next post).

First, 1 Samuel 8: people want a king like the nations round about. One motivation is that Samuel's kids are bad (were children successors to judges?) and another is the looming threat of the Philistines. The solution is a strong central authority. The question of the Israelites seems to be legitimate, according to Deuteronomy 17, but the tone is illegitimate. Thus the request is granted, but Samuel doesn't hesitate to voice the danger in terms of their relationship with God. God gives Israel Saul partially to tweak them.

Dr. Richard Gaffin on the Resurrection of Christ

2006-04-06T11:04:00.000-04:00

The center of Paul's theology is the resurrection of Christ. Dr. Gaffin is going to lecture today on the soteriological significance of Christ's resurrection and its connection therefore to our bodily resurrections. Paul rarely concieves of the resurrection of Christ apart from the resurrection of believers. Everywhere he expounds the tremendous solidarity between the resurrection of Christ and of believers. The solidarity is nowhere presented as clearly and vividly as in 1 Corinthians 15, an epochal chapter on the resurrection.

"Firstfruits" is an agricultural terms with an Old Testament background, ordinarily used of those sacrifices brought at the beginning of harvest time (Exod.23:19; Lev.23:10-11) which brings into view the initial portion of the harvest, the first installment and in so doing indicates not only temporal priority, but organic connection.

All of this begs the question, to what does the firstfruits in Corinthians 15 refer? The reference here is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest. The resurrection of unbelievers is not in Paul's purview here. In fact there is no reference to the resurrection of unbelievers in Paul's writings, though he does mention this reality in a speech in Acts.

Often it's been said that Christ's resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection. That's true, but here we have to see that it doesn't go far enough. It's a guarantee in the sense that it is actually the beginning of the general epochal event. Paul is affirming, in other words, that the general resurrection event begins with the resurrection of Christ. In the resurrection of Christ, the harvest has arrived and is visible.

We see here the eschatological significance of Jesus's resurrection. It has taken place in the past, in all of its full-bodied historicity three days after the cross, but as Paul looks at things here, it is not an isolated event in the past, but belongs to the future. That future has entered history and has become a present reality. The coming aeon is now present; the new creation has dawned; the eschaton has been realized or inaugurated.

The two resurrection, Christ's bodily resurrection and our's, are not so much two events as they are two episodes, temporarly distinct to be sure, of the same event; two installments of the same harvest.

Likewise, Colossians 1:18. "Firstborn" is not the same as firstfruits in that it doesn't necessarily bring out organic connection, for example, though the thought here again is plainly that of solidarity of Christ with the dead believers (firstborn from the dead) who are to be raised. The term here has derivative sense, as in the Old Testament, indicating special dignity or exalted status, as in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God's firstborn, meaning the elect people of God. Psalm 89:27 calls David the firstborn. This is corroborated in the context where in verse 15 we find the phrase, "firstborn of all creation," not meaning "first creature" (as JWs assert), but as supremacy over creation, i.e. firstborn over creation. Firstborn can also denote source or origin, as in Gen. 49:3. The general resurrection begins with the resurrection of Christ who is the head of the church in solidarity with that church. Firstborn emphasizes uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, but it's a uniqueness in solidarity with believers.

Likewise, Romans 8:29. The goal of God's entire electing purposes can be seen in his predestination of those foreknown to be confirmed to the image of Christ that he might be "firstborn among many brothers." "Firstborn from the dead" and "firstborn among many brothers" are clearly correlative. The resurrected Christ is the firstborn of many brothers.

Other passages to consider: 2 Corinthians 4:14 and1 Thessalonians 4:14; Colossians 2:12-13; Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:2ff.

Dr. John Hannah on Medieval Monasticism

2006-04-05T21:09:00.000-04:00

Medieval monastic orders are as follows:

1. The Benedictine order, founded by Benedict of Nursia in Tuscany, northern Italy (480-547), the father of western monasticism (Recall that monasticism is born in the East [Athanasias]). Benedict was discouraged by the decadence of the church and its moral and spiritual neglect and thus founded a monastery in Monte Casino where men would enjoy possessions in common and spend a lot of time in spiritual reading.
2. The Cisterian order, founded by Robert of Citreaux, of which Bernard of Clairveaux was a part. Bernard was the pope's advisor and favored the rise of papal power (without material wealth) and pushed the role of Mary and of the rosary in prayer. He was first and foremost a monk and a strong advocate of austerity. Bernard claimed that knowledge of God comes through devotion to God in poverty, simplicity and solitude. To be poor with Christ was his one concern and thus he lived in primitive huts.
3. The Cluny order, founded by William, Duke of Acquitaine
4. The Dominican order, founded by Dominic of Osma (1170-1221). Most famous participant is Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest theologian of the Roman church.
5. The Fransican order, founded by Francis of Assisi (c.1181-1226). Most famous participant is Bonaventure.
6. The Augustinian order. Most famous participant is Martin Luther, who was a hermetic Augustinian -- radical, fundamentalist.

In the medieval period the word for mysticism was contemplation. You had to be isolated to have quiet time with God. Some stressed rational contemplation; others, like Bernard, stressed affective contemplation. The contemplative life, the life of solitude, stressed the development of spirituality and the regression of attachment to the world. Contemplation is impossible apart from ascetisim.

Dr. John Hannah on the Crusades

2006-04-05T20:48:00.000-04:00

We normally restrict the word 'crusade' to denote the enormous European military operations from 1095 to 1291 to mitigate the oppression of the Islamic faith in the Middle East and in particular to rescue holy sites in Palestine from desecration. This begs the question, what constitutes a holy site? For the first 300 years of church history, prior to the conversion of Constantine, there were no pilgrimages. Constantine’s mother, Helen, a genuine convert, visited Palestine and located places mentioned in Scripture (some incorrectly) which then attracted pilgrimages.

Typically, there are eight crusades. The earlier crusades took the land route and have been dubbed the most successful failures of human history; the latter crusades take the sea.

At the first Lateran council, Pope Innocent III initiated the first crusade to overcome the tyranny of Islamic infidels. Soldiers who lost their lives in this cause were promised eternal life and care for their families. Many of them in fact offered property to the church in exchange for care over their souls and their families. Thirty thousand people travelled by land to recapture Tiberius. These Europeans, unaccustomed to the heat, wore heavy armor, travelled on horses and didn't perform well in battle. Saladin caught them on the plateau of Tiberius and burned them, massacring all thirty thousand in a stunning defeat.

The second crusade was occasioned by the fall of Odesa and initiated by Bernard of Clairveaux, a mystic, though he himself probably didn’t go. Calvin, incidentally, always quoted Bernard favorably and thought he was a Protestant before his time. The third crusade, the most famous of them all, was occasioned by the fall of the kingdom of Jerusalem to Saladin and was led by Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart who ultimately couldn't reclaim the city, but were able to negotiate access for pilgrimages. The fifth crusade was initiated by Francis of Assissi who joined the crusaders. The last crusade occured in 1291 when the Europeans were in some decisive manner kicked out of Palestine.

The most disheartening is the Children's crusade of 1212. It was led by a 16 year old lad by the name of Steven who claimed, on account of a vision, that he could accomplish by a miracle what previous crusaders couldn’t. Thirty thousand young people joined him, believing they could travel down the boot of Italy only to have God part the Mediterranean sea before them so they could march into Palestine. They got down the boot, but the Sea didn’t part. Two merchants, Hugh the Iron and William the Pig (oddly enough), promised them safe passage to Palestine by Sea and subsequently sold them into Islamic slavery.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Canonicity

2006-04-05T20:47:00.000-04:00

The creeds of Eastern orthodoxy disagree about what constitutes the canon of Scripture and whether, in particular, the apocryphal books are canonical. This in Dr. Hannah’s estimation illustrates the difficulty with the claim that tradition (or confessions) is necessary for the right understanding of Scripture. This begs the question, what tradition or whose confessions?

Dr. John Hannah on Lent

2006-04-05T19:42:00.000-04:00

Well, I enjoyed a relaxing though productive afternoon here at WTS in Dallas preparing for my morning sermon on Mark 11, which preparation I would like to complete soon. Presently I'm preparing to hear Dr. John Hannah lecture on aspects of medieval church history and I will relay summary notes of that lecture here on my blog, primarily for myself, but also for my cyber-groupies and my otherwise vast cyber-audience (joke).

Dr. Hannah argues that in the early church there was a three year period of catechetical instruction before converts could be admitted to the Christian church. In the first year, such a convert, called a Weeper, was not permitted to enter the worship service. In the second year he, now called a Hearer, could hear the preaching of the Word, but had to leave after the sermon. In the third year he, now called a Kneeler, could hear the preaching of the Word and pray with the saints, but then had to leave.

After three years the convert would be examined by his bishop and, upon approval, would undergo a fast prior to Easter. On Easter morning he would be baptized and access the great symbol of conversion---namely, baptism. Lent symbolishes the preparation for baptism, beginning with Ash Wednesday.

Dr. Richard Gaffin on the Law

2006-04-05T12:39:00.000-04:00

I interrupt my posts on infant baptism, as I sit here at Westminster's extension campus in Dallas, TX, to take and relay notes on Dr. Gaffin's lecture this morning.

The law has primarily a positive function in Israel's economy. It was a delight to the Israelites, as Psalm 119 makes clear (e.g, v.97). What must not be missed in this Psalm is the use of the personal pronoun. It is not a love being expressed for a law in general -- rules per se; it's a delight in YOUR commands and laws. This is evident in the case of Abraham (and his descendancy) for whom the substance of the coming Mosaic law is already present.

But the law also has an important negative function which the apostle Paul especially underscores in, among other places, Galatians 3:19: "the law was added because of transgressions," i.e, given to intensify sin and to set it in its sharpest and unmistakable light (cf. Rom.3:20; 5:20; 7:7,9-13). The law is given to manifest sin and to multiply sin, to illumine and to intensify it. Through this, the law reveals the total inability of sinful humanity to save itself, the total impossibility of obedience as the way out of death into eschatological life and therefore the absolute necessity of the obedience of Christ.

Even the law in its positive capacity underscores the necessity of Christ. In their delighting in the law, the will of God, it was clear to Abraham and his remnant seed through Israel's history that it was not through their delight and obedience that they were securing their eschatological inheritance. Only the righteousness of Christ -- not moral righteousness -- is title to eschatological life.

The covenant of grace restores the covenant of works in believers through Christ and the Spirit. Works, understood as human obedience, and grace, are not in ultimate opposition.

What is the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant in Christ or the relationship between law and gospel? Is the Mosaic covenant in some respect a covenant of works for Israel? Is it a republication of the covenant of works? Is the Mosaic covenant intended as a principle of inheritance, a means of acquiring righteousness?

There are various proposals that answer that question affirmatively. Some say there's a different soteriology set for Israel; others see the law functioning as a covenant of works in a typological or pedagogical fashion to illustrate that works merit reward.

Aaargggh. End of lecture. I was hoping to hear Dr. Gaffin dismantle this silly idea perpetuated by Meredith Kline and his cling-ons.

Parallels between Circumcision and Baptism, Part Four

2006-04-01T14:43:00.000-05:00

In this post I want to further my thesis that, in spite of some differences, there are substantial parallels between circumcision and baptism. In particular I want to draw attention to the similar relationship of sacrament to family in both old and new covenants.

Ordinarily Reformed theologians begin in this connection with the Abrahamic covenant as that covenant was inaugurated in Genesis 15 and 17. We could, however, go further back into history, to the Adamic covenant which, interestingly and significantly, included Eve and the children. The obligations of the Adamic covenant to subdue the earth, for instance, and have dominion over it, were binding not just upon Adam, but upon his family. The same applied to the promises and threats of the Adamic covenant. Already here, at the outset of human history, we see a principle that will characterize God's modus operandi in all succeeding covenants: when God claims a household head, he claims a family.

Adam of course miserably botched the terms of this covenant, disregarded the command of God and listened to the voice of the serpent and thereby plunged himself and his family into human misery and just condemnation. In response to this tragic fall of Adam's, God responded with extraordinary compassion and initiated with Adam a new covenant commonly called the covenant of grace. What is instructive for us, in this connection, is that God, in establishing enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, once again claimed Adam's children (Gen.3:15).

I fully understand that Satan gets his seed by stealing them from the woman. This, however, does not diminish the point that the children of the woman were included in the covenant of grace and commissioned, by implication, to engage the seed of the serpent in spiritual warfare (Gen.4:25). Moreover, the blessings of the covenant of grace, among which we would include covering (garments) at the expense of blood sacrifice, were presumably available for the children.

In summary: already in the prelapsarian (before-fall) and initial postlapsarian (after-fall) covenants one of the characteristic principles of God's covenant-making is apparent---namely, when God claims a household head, he claims a family.

Parallels between Circumcision and Baptism, Part Three

2006-03-30T13:17:00.000-05:00

Well, I've climbed out of my den of blog hibernation to resume my discussion of infant baptism and of the relationship between circumcision and baptism in particular.

Baptists are fond of saying that baptism and circumcision are different because circumcision was national (pertaining to Israel) while baptism is multi-national (pertaining to all nations). The difficulties with this position are multiple.

First, Paul calls circumcision "a sign of the righteousness of faith" in Romans 4. There's no identification in Paul's mind at this point between nationality and circumcision, but between faith and circumcision and specifically between the "righteousness" of faith and circumcision.

Second, the nation of Israel had not been inaugurated at the time of Genesis 17. National identity was established at the Exodus (18-19). Therefore, circumcision could not have been a sign of nationality for those infants who were circumcised prior to Israel's formation as a nation. I concede that the sign of circumcision included a national dimension, but initially at least it was trans-national.

Third, circumcision was never intended to be exclusively a national sign. God told Abraham, "I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful and I will make nations of you," etc. When Abraham circumcised both Isaac and Ishmael the promise began to be fulfilled. These two infants developed into two nations.

Circumcision and baptism are parallel in that both are multi-national in scope and herein we also see the continuity between these two rites. The Abrahamic covenant, whose sign and seal was circumcision, had in view all the nations of the world. When the commission came to spread the blessing of the seed of Abraham to these nations the sign and seal specified is no longer circumcision, but baptism (see Matt.28:18-20). One cannot read the so-called great commission without realizing that it is the program for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

'Nuff for now.

Parallels Between Circumcision and Baptism, Part Two

2006-02-16T11:48:00.000-05:00

Circumcision and baptism are both rites of death and resurrection. In this post I want to underscore how both circumcision and baptism are also cleansing rituals.

It's obvious how the waters of baptism are a cleansing ritual. The Heidelberg Catechism (in answer 69) compares the waters of baptism to the blood of Christ which washes away our sins. But the "cutting off" of circumcision is also a means of cleansing. That the foreskin was regarded as something unclean is obvious from Paul's equating of the removal of the foreskin with the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" in Colossians 2. The "flesh" is synonymous with foreskin and represents man's need for cleansing.

Consider in this connection the Israelite leper. The "flesh" of the leper was unclean and could be cleansed in two ways. One, he could be "cut off" (Lev.14), and since the verb here is the same as in Genesis 17, this must be construed as a circumcising process. Two, he could receive a ceremonial cleansing with water, identified in Heb.9:10 as a baptism. The leper thus personifies death and impurity and thus pictures the condition of man in general. The paradigms of cleansing and purification for the leper are circumcision and baptism.

Parallels Between Circumcision and Baptism, Part One

2006-02-16T11:29:00.000-05:00

Because so many evangelical Christians regard comparisons between circumcision and baptism to be "apples and oranges," I'm interested here in identifying parallels between circumcision and baptism.

1. Circumcision and baptism, first of all, are both rites of death.

When Paul talks in Colossians 2:11-13 about the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ he is referring to the death of Jesus. In some sense God was telling Abraham in the rite of circumcision that life would come through the spilling of blood and the cutting off of flesh, pointing ultimately to the cross. In its application, therefore, circumcision pointed to the death of Christ and union between Christ's death and recipient of circumcision.

Baptism serves the same purpose. Jesus' death is called a baptism in Mark 10:38 and Paul speak of baptism as a "burial" with Christ (Col.2:12). One who is baptized into Christ has been placed into union with Christ's death-baptism (Romans 6:3ff.). [Incidentally, the Heidelberg Catechism in this connection poses the theologically relevant question (#69): "How is it signified and sealed to you in holy baptism that you have part in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross?"

2. Similarly, and this is something I've observed only recently, circumcision and baptism are both rites of resurrection.

The infant boys of the covenant were to be circumcised on the eighth day, not the seventh and not the nineth. Because God doesn't waste his breath there must be some significance about the eighth day. The eighth day in Scripture is the day of newness because it marks the first day of a new week. If there are seven days in a week, the eighth day is the first day of a new week. Through the rite of circumcision God was promising newness to covenant children who had been corrupted by original sin which they inherited from Adam. This points forward ultimately to the eighth day (the first day of a new week) on which Christ arose from the dead in newness of life.

Baptism is also a a rite of resurrection. Paul stresses in Colossians 2 and in Romans 6 that we are not only buried with Christ in baptism, we are also resurrected with him. Implicit in both baptism and circumcision there is the promise of life. Circumcision depicts that promise through the violent means of shedding blood; baptism depicts that promise through the bloodless means of water sprinkling.

More to follow . . .

Circumcision

2006-02-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

I only have so much time in a day to give to this discussion. The next issue I would like to tackle is circumcision. Charlie's of the mind that comparing baptism to circumcision is like comparing apples and oranges. I'm fully aware of the differences. But there are certain similarities that cannot be ignored and which in fact substantially support the case for infant baptism. I'll give some attention to this issue tomorrow or perhaps Thursday. Till then.

Continuity of Covenants, Part Two

2006-02-14T17:13:00.000-05:00

There are several other passages in the New Testament that clearly assume continuity between old and new covenants, one of which is 1 Corinthians 10. Paul refers to the baptism of the Israelites into Moses, in the cloud and sea, and he uses that word 'baptism' clearly because he wants the Corinthians to think of their own baptisms.

His argument in 1 Corinthians 10 is that Christian baptism does not guarantee our eternal security regardless of how we live. For proof, Paul appeals to the baptism of the Israelites. They were baptized folk just as we are baptized folk. They had the covenant promise just as we have the covenant promise. But covenant promises must be "mixed with faith" (Hebrews 4). Because the Israelites were unbelieving and disobedient their bodies are scattered in the wilderness. Therefore we baptized folk must be believing and obedient unlike the wilderness Israelites. If we stand, we must take heed, lest we fall.

This passage makes sense only if we grant substantial continuity between old and new covenants.

Continuity of Covenants, Part One

2006-02-14T16:41:00.000-05:00

This is a general response to some things Charlie raised.

One of the pillars of the argument for infant baptism is the theological continuity apparent in Scripture between old and new covenants. It is very instructive to us that in Romans 4 the apostle Paul, in his polemic (argument) with Judaizers, appealed to Abraham to make his case. The Judaizers were insisting that, in order to be a true Christian believer, one must be circumcised and rigidly follow the ceremonial laws (regarding food and feasts) unique to the Mosaic (old) administration. Essentially Paul says, "But it wasn't so for Abraham."

Paul regards Abraham as the normative believer, the prototypical believer. God regarded Abraham as righteous before he was circumcised, quite apart from any adherence on his part to any Mosaic ceremonies and rituals. Ergo, we today can be regarded as righteous in God's eyes apart from circumcision and Mosaic ceremonies and rituals. Our relationship with God is unlike the relationship the Israelites had with God in the Mosaic covenant (which relationship involved all these rituals and ceremonies) and comparable to the relationship God had with Abraham.

So, if Abraham is the prototypical believer, and his children were included in covenant with God, our children today ought to be included in covenant with God. As Paul says to the Galations the Mosaic covenant did not annul the Abrahamic covenant.

Responses to Charlie

2006-02-11T10:54:00.000-05:00

Well it's Saturday morning and, in view of tomorrow, I've got a ton of work to do before I can get to Charlie's good and thoughtful responses. Please excuse me until Tuesday when I'll have time to interact with Charlie. Stay tuned.

Other Relevant Issues

2006-02-10T18:22:00.000-05:00

1. Baptism is a testimony of God’s gracious work, not our faith. In one of the most important passages on baptism, we learn that through baptism God unites us with Christ, in his death and resurrection (Rom.6:1-6; cf. Gal.3:27, Col.2:12-13). Thus, those who are joined to Christ by baptism must live for Christ in faith and obedience, lest they be cut off like dead branches (John 15:1-8).

2. Those who are baptized are not automatically saved. Peter tells us that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), meaning it unites us by covenant to Christ in whom there is salvation. But Paul explains in no uncertain terms in 1 Corinthians 10 that the privileges entailed in baptism cannot make one presumptuous and careless. He tells the story of the Israelites who were "baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea" and how they "all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink." And then Paul says, "But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness."

3. There is no explicit command not to baptise. And this is more significant than it first appears. It was assumed in Israel that children were included in God’s gracious covenant. It was assumed that they would be given the sign of the covenant. If things were going to change in God’s economy, you would need an explicit command. If you travel on the highway from Missouri into Kansas, there’ll be no sign indicating that drivers must now drive on the right side of the road. That’s the law in Missouri too. And where there’s continuity from one state to the next, officials post nothing at the border. Where there are differences, they post signs (different speed limits perhaps).

4. The book of Hebrews repeatedly describes the new covenant as a superior covenant. He calls it "a better covenant, which was established on better promises" (10:6). If the old covenant included children of believers in its privileges and provisions and the new covenant didn’t, wouldn’t that make the new covenant an inferior covenant?

The Positive Case for Infant Baptism, Part Two

2006-02-10T18:20:00.000-05:00

To follow up from the previous post, we want, secondly, to substantiate the claim that the sign in the new covenant is baptism. For this we appeal to:

1. Acts 2:28, where Peter says, "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . . For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."
Note: The Jews believed in God, but now they also had to believe in Jesus (John 14:1).Those who believed were baptised as sign of the covenant and as a seal of the righteousness they had by faith (cf. Rom.4:11).

2. Matthew 28:19, where Jesus say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Note: Here we receive the commission for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham regarding the blessing of all the nations. But the sign of covenant inclusion is not circumcision, but baptism.

3. Colossians 2:11-12, where Paul says, "In Him you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands . . . buried with Him in baptism, in which you were raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead."
Note: Paul identifies baptism as a new covenant correspondent to circumcision. Therefore: Children of believing parents are included in covenant with God and ought to receive the sign which today is baptism.

The Positive Case for Infant Baptism, Part One

2006-02-10T18:16:00.000-05:00

To establish any theological position one must take the whole of Scripture into purview, not just the New Testament. Once this is done, I think it can easily be established that children of believers are included in covenant with God and ought to receive its sign. After this is established I will argue that the covenant sign in the new dispensation (or covenant) is baptism

To substantiate the claim that children of believers are included in covenant with God and ought to receive the sign, we can appeal to:

1. Genesis 17:7, where God says, "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."
Note: The Abrahamic covenant is some sense the normative covenant for all believers. Paul says (Gal.3:17), "And this I say, that the [Mosaic] law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the [Abrahamic] covenant that confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect." Earlier Paul says (Gal.3:9) that "those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." If the Abrahamic covenant is normative for believers today, then our children would be included in covenant just as his were (see also Romans 4).

2. Genesis 17:10-11, where God says, "This is my covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you."
Note: Here male children receive the covenant sign. Females were excluded in the old covenant from participation in the sign just as they were not required to attend the sacrificial feasts. There’s a broadening of privilege in the new covenant, such that women are entitled to things today they weren’t before.

3. Romans 4:11, where Pauls says, "And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe."
Note: Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith. It was not something merely ethnic and outward; it was given to people who believed and to their children.

4. 1 Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."
Note: The sanctification of the unbelieving spouse is purposive. The unbelieving spouse, in other words, is sanctified in such a way that his unbelief does not jeopardise the holiness of his children. You can imagine that this was a troublesome issue for Christian parents married to unbelievers: "Are my children still considered covenant children if my spouse is an unbeliever?" Paul says, "Yes." The unbelieving spouse sanctified to such an extent that his rejection of God does not threaten the covenant status of your child. Thus the children of at least one believer are considered holy, set apart by covenant, whereas children of unbelievers are unclean.

5. Mark 10:13-15. Jesus receives infant children and blesses them, saying, "for of such is the kingdom of God."
Note: Baptists are fond of saying that the kingdom is for those of age and maturity who can repent and believe and not for children. Jesus here says the exact opposite. The kingdom of God is for children: they don’t need to become like us; we all need to become like them. The entrance of children into the kingdom is the norm (cf. Matt.18:3). I think we can safely assume that Jesus is talking here about covenant children. He would not bless non-covenant children or else he would contradict Paul who calls them unclean.

The Legitimacy of Inferences

2006-02-10T18:10:00.000-05:00

In the infamous debate between Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul on the issue of infant baptism the most significant argument Mac Arthur advanced was that "Scripture nowhere advocates, commands, records any instance of infant baptism." If Scripture does not command it, MacArthur concluded, it is forbidden. Because of its simplicity, this argument sounds very attractive initially. It’s as simple and attractive as:

(a) the Jehovah Witness argument that there is no Triune God because the Scriptures repeatedly say: "The Lord our God is one."
(b) the Arian argument that Jesus isn’t God because the Scriptures repeatedly talk about Jesus being "seated at the right hand of God."
(c) the Open Theist argument that God doesn’t know the future and keeps changing his mind because the Scriptures say repeatedly, "God relented of what he had done."
(d) the Roman Catholic argument that Christ is bodily present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper because Jesus, holding the bread in his hand, says, "This is my body."

All of these arguments are initially attractive because of their simplicity. Obviously, simplicity is not the criterion for truth.

In fact, if one were to employ MacArthur’s argument that what is not explicitly commanded is forbidden we would have to forbid women from participation in the Lord’s Supper. Scripture nowhere advocates, commands, records any instance of female participation in the Lord’s Supper. It is very implicit, but only as implicit as infant baptism. Here we have established the legitimacy of inferences.

The Issue of Infant Baptism

2006-02-10T16:12:00.000-05:00

The main reason I'm initiating this blog is to present material on infant baptism and to answer questions especially congregants and parishioners might have, from Kansas City and from Springfield, and thereby to fulfill a promise I made to Charlie. I used to have a xanga here but in all probability I'm going to eliminate it in view of the creation of this blog.