I have now come to the end of this tome and must express my appreciation of it. I have perhaps sounded a bit dour and curmudgeonly but that is because I have been rather taking for granted the extensive areas where I agree with the authors and looking for what I disagree with. That is not insignificant, but should not blind me to the very good things in this work.
Stephen Wellum wraps up with two chapters taking a systematic view of the material covered by Peter Gentry in biblical-theological form. He has a helpful summary of the idea of 'kingdom' in the Bible, and then proceeds to show how 'kingdom through covenant' is a good way to understand the plot-line of Scripture. This involves some overlap and repetition with previous chapters but it is helpful to remind one of major points in their argument.
Wellum goes through the covenants helpfully. Most interesting is the discussion of the covenant with creation with Adam serving as covenant mediator. Wellum strangely says that 'arguments for rejection of [a covenant of works] were covered in detail in chapter [6] '. In fact they are not - not so far as I can see anyway, unless Wellum and I differ considerably on what such arguments consist of.
However, he then goes on to argue in terms very similar to a covenant theologian for a representative role for Adam as covenant head and the need for perfect obedience, an obedience that is ultimately offered by Christ. He concedes that those who argue for a covenant of of works 'are on the right track' and proceeds to outline a case essentially the same. I was gratified to see that!
The significance of the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel and David are expounded, the big focus being on the preparation for a new Adam, to restore the divine image, of son, servant and king. He argues for the newness of the new covenant being primarily that ALL the covenant members now know God and experience forgiveness of sins and know the indwelling of the Spirit. The old covenant had many unregenerate members, and even those who were regenerate did not experience the indwelling of the Spirit in the way that new covenant members do. Hence - believers' baptism, not circumcision, or infant baptism, and a gathered church, not a 'mixed' community which is what Presbyterianism leads to [Presbyterians may object to that but paedobaptism certainly proceeds on the basis that the new covenant may be broken, which is difficult to see from anywhere in Scripture].
The final chapter looks at implications of the argument in theology 'proper' (doctrine of God); Christology (mainly a very fine argument for particular redemption); ecclesiology (an apologia for believer's baptism) and eschatology (arguing that 'land' is typological for the new creation). These last two sections round off a major element of the book's thesis, that it is a 'via media' between covenant theology and dispensationialism, and that the genealogical argument of covenant theology and the 'land' argument of dispensationalism are reflections of the same mistake of each respective position - a failure properly to apply typological principles and to see the OT covenants in context.
So all in all a good book to read. The weakest part of it is the failure to address the arguments for the Reformed position on the law. For a book proclaiming early on its new covenant credentials this was a surprise. The sabbath is only mentioned once or twice, the threefold division of the law is denied without any substantial argument and the passing of the law as a whole with the old covenant is again asserted without being argued.
I do not think that, if this is the best that new covenant systematic and biblical theology can do, Reformed Baptists need move from the 1689 position on the law. The basic arguments of this book are quite compatible with that position and a much richer position on the moral law, the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath can be maintained within it. There is no need to move towards dispensationalism or find a 'via media'. I would commend Greg Beale's 'New Testament Biblical Theology' (Baker, 2011) for a much stronger position on the moral law and the sabbath within an 'already- not yet' framework'.
Friday, 21 December 2012
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Kingdom through Covenant (4)
Well, I have got to the beginning of the last two major sections, the systematic sections after the biblical theological procession through the biblical covenants. I am looking forward to them.
The sections on the new covenant were helpful but not earth-shattering. Over against covenant theology, Gentry insists that the new covenant is made only with believers and that the key new element about it is that it cannot be broken (contra what many Presbyterians believe about the new covenant). I agree with what is 'Baptist' about his analysis, I disagree with what is 'new covenant'; for he insists that, as the new covenant is a 'new' covenant and not confirming an old covenant, therefore the law code of the old covenant is gone. However the righteousness of God remains the same and will be reflected in the law of the new covenant. There is however no discussion of what law is written on the heart of the believer; nor why, if the laws against adultery, murder and stealing are still valid (as Gentry says they are), the Sabbath is no longer to be kept. Not a mention of that. So the new law code is obviously very selective. All rather unsatisfactory. Maybe they will pick it up later...
There is a useful chapter on the 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel 9:24f, and a rather mediocre chapter on life in the New Covenant community, based on Ephesians 4:20-6:20.
There is a helpful analysis, however, of the identification of the new Zion/Jerusalem with the church and the new creation in Isaiah, leaving no place for fulfilments of promises to national Israel.
So far I am more impressed with the arguments against Dispensationalism than with anything rallied against the Reformed 'Westminster' position on the law. But then, Dispensationalism is a much easier target.
The sections on the new covenant were helpful but not earth-shattering. Over against covenant theology, Gentry insists that the new covenant is made only with believers and that the key new element about it is that it cannot be broken (contra what many Presbyterians believe about the new covenant). I agree with what is 'Baptist' about his analysis, I disagree with what is 'new covenant'; for he insists that, as the new covenant is a 'new' covenant and not confirming an old covenant, therefore the law code of the old covenant is gone. However the righteousness of God remains the same and will be reflected in the law of the new covenant. There is however no discussion of what law is written on the heart of the believer; nor why, if the laws against adultery, murder and stealing are still valid (as Gentry says they are), the Sabbath is no longer to be kept. Not a mention of that. So the new law code is obviously very selective. All rather unsatisfactory. Maybe they will pick it up later...
There is a useful chapter on the 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel 9:24f, and a rather mediocre chapter on life in the New Covenant community, based on Ephesians 4:20-6:20.
There is a helpful analysis, however, of the identification of the new Zion/Jerusalem with the church and the new creation in Isaiah, leaving no place for fulfilments of promises to national Israel.
So far I am more impressed with the arguments against Dispensationalism than with anything rallied against the Reformed 'Westminster' position on the law. But then, Dispensationalism is a much easier target.
Monday, 17 December 2012
Kingdom through Covenant (3)
I have now completed what Gentry (and Wellum) have to say about the Mosaic and Davidic covenants and am beginning the section on the new covenant.
A lot of it is very helpful. It is clearly written . Large chunks of it are rather detailed exegesis which I confess I read lightly as I am interested in finding out the main thrust of the argument. However one can't skip too much or the argument can be missed.
Also, why do scholars feel the need in such books to enter into lengthy debates with other scholars and copy out long citations from them which they then proceed to demolish? I suppose other academics may be interested, but it is not exactly what the busy pastor needs. As with many such books, one skips the detail - I cannot remember it anyway, but at least I know it is there if I need to go back to it.
On the Mosaic covenant, the predictable point is made that the Ten Commandments are part of one indivisible law that is all part of the old covenant, and any attempt to distinguish between civil, moral and ceremonial law is an 'imposition' from outside the text. I don't think any Reformed commentator would disagree that the law is given as a package, but (i) nothing is said of the many good arguments for seeing distinctions, as for example suggested by Philip Ross in 'From the Finger of God'; (ii) nothing is said about the very obviously different way in which the Ten Commandments (or 'Words) are given over against the rest of the law. Surely this is within the domain of biblical theology - one does not have to delve into the mysterious waters of systematics to discuss that.
I look forward to more on the new/everlasting covenant - at present I am looking at what they say about Isaiah 54,55 and Ezekiel before the chapter dealing with Jeremiah.
A lot of it is very helpful. It is clearly written . Large chunks of it are rather detailed exegesis which I confess I read lightly as I am interested in finding out the main thrust of the argument. However one can't skip too much or the argument can be missed.
Also, why do scholars feel the need in such books to enter into lengthy debates with other scholars and copy out long citations from them which they then proceed to demolish? I suppose other academics may be interested, but it is not exactly what the busy pastor needs. As with many such books, one skips the detail - I cannot remember it anyway, but at least I know it is there if I need to go back to it.
On the Mosaic covenant, the predictable point is made that the Ten Commandments are part of one indivisible law that is all part of the old covenant, and any attempt to distinguish between civil, moral and ceremonial law is an 'imposition' from outside the text. I don't think any Reformed commentator would disagree that the law is given as a package, but (i) nothing is said of the many good arguments for seeing distinctions, as for example suggested by Philip Ross in 'From the Finger of God'; (ii) nothing is said about the very obviously different way in which the Ten Commandments (or 'Words) are given over against the rest of the law. Surely this is within the domain of biblical theology - one does not have to delve into the mysterious waters of systematics to discuss that.
I look forward to more on the new/everlasting covenant - at present I am looking at what they say about Isaiah 54,55 and Ezekiel before the chapter dealing with Jeremiah.
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Kingdom through Covenant (2)
I have read as far as the first of two chapters on the Mosaic covenant now and am thoroughly enjoying the book. Peter Gentry is the biblical theologian and I like the way he points out the twin motifs of sonship and servant-kingship in the image of God in Adam and the later covenants - so that Noah, Abraham and Israel are 'new Adams'.
One thing I found puzzling was the complete absence of any mention of any of the traditional Reformed arguments for a 'covenant of works' in Genesis 1-3. He has a good chapter on the 'covenant with creation' but does not mention at all any covenant specifically with Adam, certainly not in his representative capacity, or any probation in Eden. Perhaps this will come later in the 'systematic' sections later on, or in dealing with the new covenant. But there is enough biblical material to have made it worth at least a mention.
Also, though he deals well with the concepts of priesthood and kingship in Eden, and Eden being a temple, he attaches the idea of sonship to the Hebrew word for likeness (demuth) in Gen 1:26, and the idea of servant-kingship to the Hebrew word for image (tselem). I need to read it again to make sure of his arguments but it seems little dangerous to separate two essential concepts in that way.
Further, he makes no mention of the way in which the Fall not only damages the whole image, but does actually obliterate some essential part of it - original righteousness/ holiness. But maybe this will come up later...
One puzzle in the Mosaic section - he seems to support the Roman Catholic exegesis which brackets the first and second commandments together, partly on the basis that there is one 'motivation' - in Exod 20:5 -which applies to them both. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced. He does not deal with the last six commandments so I am not sure what he would say about separating coveting your neighbour's wife from coveting his property! Maybe later, again...
One thing I found puzzling was the complete absence of any mention of any of the traditional Reformed arguments for a 'covenant of works' in Genesis 1-3. He has a good chapter on the 'covenant with creation' but does not mention at all any covenant specifically with Adam, certainly not in his representative capacity, or any probation in Eden. Perhaps this will come later in the 'systematic' sections later on, or in dealing with the new covenant. But there is enough biblical material to have made it worth at least a mention.
Also, though he deals well with the concepts of priesthood and kingship in Eden, and Eden being a temple, he attaches the idea of sonship to the Hebrew word for likeness (demuth) in Gen 1:26, and the idea of servant-kingship to the Hebrew word for image (tselem). I need to read it again to make sure of his arguments but it seems little dangerous to separate two essential concepts in that way.
Further, he makes no mention of the way in which the Fall not only damages the whole image, but does actually obliterate some essential part of it - original righteousness/ holiness. But maybe this will come up later...
One puzzle in the Mosaic section - he seems to support the Roman Catholic exegesis which brackets the first and second commandments together, partly on the basis that there is one 'motivation' - in Exod 20:5 -which applies to them both. Suffice it to say, I am not convinced. He does not deal with the last six commandments so I am not sure what he would say about separating coveting your neighbour's wife from coveting his property! Maybe later, again...
Friday, 14 December 2012
Art, Yellowists and Rothko
Yesterday Wlodzimierz Umaniec was jailed for two years for defacing a painting by the late Russian-American artist Mark Rothko (1903-70). The painting, 'Black on Maroon', was in the Tate Gallery in London and was valued at between $8m - $15m. Umaniec had written on it 'a potential piece of yellowism'.
In Yellowism, according to its manifesto, written by Umaniec and his colleague Marcin Lodyga, 'all interpretations possible in the context of art are reduced to one, are equalized, flattened, to yellow'. Part of this is the belief that art is taking what others have done and developing it.
This and the rest of the rambling manifesto, is either pretentious pseudo-philosophy and not worth bothering with, or it is taking modern art to its logical conclusion (or of course it could be both). And most movements do not like being taken to a logical conclusion. The troublesome eccentric who takes hold of a fashionable principle and pushes it just a little bit further than is socially acceptable, is regarded as a nuisance, a troublemaker, and in this case, a criminal. His real crime apart from concepts of criminal damage, is to expose the pretentiousness of the artistic status quo for what it is. A little boy has cried out 'but the emperor is not wearing any clothes'.
Is the Yellowist idea of art, after all, nonsense as it may be, anything other than the logical extension of the principle at the heart of much modern art - that art is ultimately a way of looking at anything? It is not so much what a thing is objectively, as what the subject thinks of it.
Speaking of which, I thought Rothko with a bit of Yellowist scribble was a lot more interesting than Rothko as Rothko. But then, that is just a way of looking at it.
In Yellowism, according to its manifesto, written by Umaniec and his colleague Marcin Lodyga, 'all interpretations possible in the context of art are reduced to one, are equalized, flattened, to yellow'. Part of this is the belief that art is taking what others have done and developing it.
This and the rest of the rambling manifesto, is either pretentious pseudo-philosophy and not worth bothering with, or it is taking modern art to its logical conclusion (or of course it could be both). And most movements do not like being taken to a logical conclusion. The troublesome eccentric who takes hold of a fashionable principle and pushes it just a little bit further than is socially acceptable, is regarded as a nuisance, a troublemaker, and in this case, a criminal. His real crime apart from concepts of criminal damage, is to expose the pretentiousness of the artistic status quo for what it is. A little boy has cried out 'but the emperor is not wearing any clothes'.
Is the Yellowist idea of art, after all, nonsense as it may be, anything other than the logical extension of the principle at the heart of much modern art - that art is ultimately a way of looking at anything? It is not so much what a thing is objectively, as what the subject thinks of it.
Speaking of which, I thought Rothko with a bit of Yellowist scribble was a lot more interesting than Rothko as Rothko. But then, that is just a way of looking at it.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Kingdom through Covenant (1)
I started reading this major tome on the covenants by Peter Gentry and Steven Wellum today.
It is from an avowedly 'new covenant' perspective and promises to be a good read - particularly as I do not agree with that viewpoint (which they also call 'progressive covenantalism').
It is full of good things so far but one thing does not sit right with me. The authors describe their thesis as a 'via media' between dispensationalism and covenantal theology. Now, trying to set aside all prejudices about any 'via media' because of its Oxford Movement connotations, and also a gut level dislike of anything that purports to sit in the middle of anything theologically, is there not some thing odd about setting out a theological position as a 'via media'?
If their argument is right, standing on its own legs, fair enough. But in that case it does not particularly matter where it lies in relation to other positions. The Reformed Baptist position had its own identity for generations before the advent of dispensationalism and does not need to define itself with reference to it though it may well be useful to clarify the differences. The 1689 tradition is a development, and Baptists would say a more logical development, of the Reformed tradition and within that tradition.
One assumes therefore that it is a reflection of the north American background that these authors feel it necessary to define their position in relation to dispensationalism as well as to covenant theology. Of course, their position is not the classic Reformed Baptist position; to label it as half way to dispensationalism is perhaps a bit of a giveaway.
I look forward to reading on.
It is from an avowedly 'new covenant' perspective and promises to be a good read - particularly as I do not agree with that viewpoint (which they also call 'progressive covenantalism').
It is full of good things so far but one thing does not sit right with me. The authors describe their thesis as a 'via media' between dispensationalism and covenantal theology. Now, trying to set aside all prejudices about any 'via media' because of its Oxford Movement connotations, and also a gut level dislike of anything that purports to sit in the middle of anything theologically, is there not some thing odd about setting out a theological position as a 'via media'?
If their argument is right, standing on its own legs, fair enough. But in that case it does not particularly matter where it lies in relation to other positions. The Reformed Baptist position had its own identity for generations before the advent of dispensationalism and does not need to define itself with reference to it though it may well be useful to clarify the differences. The 1689 tradition is a development, and Baptists would say a more logical development, of the Reformed tradition and within that tradition.
One assumes therefore that it is a reflection of the north American background that these authors feel it necessary to define their position in relation to dispensationalism as well as to covenant theology. Of course, their position is not the classic Reformed Baptist position; to label it as half way to dispensationalism is perhaps a bit of a giveaway.
I look forward to reading on.
John Owen shortened
I have recently been preaching a series on sanctification on Sunday evenings - six so far and possibly two more after Christmas.
The process of preparation has drawn me into reading some of the currently available books on mortification of sin. Highly commended are Kris Lundgaard's 'The Enemy Within' and Brian Hedges' 'Licensed to Kill'. Both deal with the subject from a basis of sound theology with contemporary illustrations and effective application. Both could be safely recommended to young Christians or young people.
Both, of course, also explicitly confess their debt to John Owen's classic on the subject (in volume six of his Works). I have just finished reading the abridged version of 'Indwelling Sin in Believers' by Owen, and have, waiting to be read, similar editions of 'Mortification of Sin' and 'Temptation Resisted and Repulsed' (all Banner of Truth).
I highly recommend the abridgement I have read and anticipate enjoying the other two. They give a good grasp of Owen's basic arguments and are far and away more penetrating and profound than books that have emerged from within contemporary evangelicalism. They are serious reading but not too difficult for people today, though inevitably not quite in the modern idiom (so Lundgaard and Hedges are more helpful in that regard). They also help pressed preachers with limited preparation time.
However - they are not quite Owen himself. Having read the original volumes by Owen some years ago, there is a spirituality and depth that cannot be replicated or conveyed in an abridgement. Owen himself is a feast to be enjoyed, preferably with a little leisure (though he evidently did not write at leisure) and maybe in small doses. Today we are content to take our books in snack form, enough to keep body and soul together but hardly nourishing long term.
Abridgements and brief books based on the Puritans are immensely helpful in our frenetic, hurried and autistic age but they are no substitute for the real thing.
The process of preparation has drawn me into reading some of the currently available books on mortification of sin. Highly commended are Kris Lundgaard's 'The Enemy Within' and Brian Hedges' 'Licensed to Kill'. Both deal with the subject from a basis of sound theology with contemporary illustrations and effective application. Both could be safely recommended to young Christians or young people.
Both, of course, also explicitly confess their debt to John Owen's classic on the subject (in volume six of his Works). I have just finished reading the abridged version of 'Indwelling Sin in Believers' by Owen, and have, waiting to be read, similar editions of 'Mortification of Sin' and 'Temptation Resisted and Repulsed' (all Banner of Truth).
I highly recommend the abridgement I have read and anticipate enjoying the other two. They give a good grasp of Owen's basic arguments and are far and away more penetrating and profound than books that have emerged from within contemporary evangelicalism. They are serious reading but not too difficult for people today, though inevitably not quite in the modern idiom (so Lundgaard and Hedges are more helpful in that regard). They also help pressed preachers with limited preparation time.
However - they are not quite Owen himself. Having read the original volumes by Owen some years ago, there is a spirituality and depth that cannot be replicated or conveyed in an abridgement. Owen himself is a feast to be enjoyed, preferably with a little leisure (though he evidently did not write at leisure) and maybe in small doses. Today we are content to take our books in snack form, enough to keep body and soul together but hardly nourishing long term.
Abridgements and brief books based on the Puritans are immensely helpful in our frenetic, hurried and autistic age but they are no substitute for the real thing.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Westminster Conference 2012 Day 2
We began the day with a survey of the life of Blaise Pascal (1623-62) from David Gregson. Pascal was a mathematical genius who was deeply affected by the Jansenists in the 1640s but whose deeper and perhaps true conversion came in the famous 'night of fire' in 1654. It was thrilling to hear how the record of this remarkable experience was found sewn up in a coat of Pascal's some years after he died.
After his conversion he lived for only eight years but wrote the famous 'Pensees', a series of meditations intended to be the basis of an apologetics work which Pascal never wrote. He remained within the Roman church and never challenged teachings about the supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation etc.
Inevitably questions arose about how much 'content' one needs to believe to be a Christian (described by one as 'an illegitimate question'; why? maybe we can't answer it, but I am not sure it is illegitimate). We also discussed how hard it is to break out of our pre-Christian thought patterns.
And the thought occurred to me: if Pascal's experience had been recounted by a charismatic of the 1980s, would we be so sure it was a genuine conversion?
The Jansenists, incidentally, were a group who were gripped by the concept of God's grace - Augustinians who remained within the Roman Church but who were suppressed in the later 17th Century. Dr Lloyd-Jones apparently called them 'Calvinistic Methodists before their time'. How closely related are they I wonder to the Jensenists of the Sydney diocese in Australia who are also Augustinians working within the establishment?
Roger Welch gave us an excellent overview of Christian responses to Islam after lunch though it was too heavy going for some who enjoyed a light post-prandial slumber; but the quality of the paper and the knowledge imparted were top class. The discussion tended towards the anecdotal - 'this is my experience of muslim evangelism and how may I do better?' which was not bad, but it revealed how little we as a group knew about Muslim evangelism or had experience of it.
Finally we had a good paper from Peter Law about Henry Martyn, always inspirational.
The next conference is 3rd-4th December 2013 and includes papers on C.S.Lewis; 'Have we got the right gospels?'; Henry Havelock (the Christian general who crushed the Indian mutiny in the mid 19th century); Evangelistic preaching - lessons from great preachers; Isaac Ambrose (a puritan from the north of England); and issues arising from the ministry of Edward Irving. A good mixture and something for everyone. Be there!
After his conversion he lived for only eight years but wrote the famous 'Pensees', a series of meditations intended to be the basis of an apologetics work which Pascal never wrote. He remained within the Roman church and never challenged teachings about the supremacy of the Pope, transubstantiation etc.
Inevitably questions arose about how much 'content' one needs to believe to be a Christian (described by one as 'an illegitimate question'; why? maybe we can't answer it, but I am not sure it is illegitimate). We also discussed how hard it is to break out of our pre-Christian thought patterns.
And the thought occurred to me: if Pascal's experience had been recounted by a charismatic of the 1980s, would we be so sure it was a genuine conversion?
The Jansenists, incidentally, were a group who were gripped by the concept of God's grace - Augustinians who remained within the Roman Church but who were suppressed in the later 17th Century. Dr Lloyd-Jones apparently called them 'Calvinistic Methodists before their time'. How closely related are they I wonder to the Jensenists of the Sydney diocese in Australia who are also Augustinians working within the establishment?
Roger Welch gave us an excellent overview of Christian responses to Islam after lunch though it was too heavy going for some who enjoyed a light post-prandial slumber; but the quality of the paper and the knowledge imparted were top class. The discussion tended towards the anecdotal - 'this is my experience of muslim evangelism and how may I do better?' which was not bad, but it revealed how little we as a group knew about Muslim evangelism or had experience of it.
Finally we had a good paper from Peter Law about Henry Martyn, always inspirational.
The next conference is 3rd-4th December 2013 and includes papers on C.S.Lewis; 'Have we got the right gospels?'; Henry Havelock (the Christian general who crushed the Indian mutiny in the mid 19th century); Evangelistic preaching - lessons from great preachers; Isaac Ambrose (a puritan from the north of England); and issues arising from the ministry of Edward Irving. A good mixture and something for everyone. Be there!
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Westminster Conference 2012 Day 1
The day began with a novel event - a lecture by an Anglican - the Director of the Church Society, Lee Gatiss. He is thoroughly Reformed in theology; probably you could not put a hair between him and most people at the conference (numbering 140) on most divisions of doctrine, other than ecclesiology and perhaps baptism.
His subject was '1662 and all that'.
The address was interesting without being gripping. He quoted one authority to the effect that there were probably only 900 rather than 2000 ejectees when properly counted, and in discussion someone referred to 800; I was fully prepared for it to be down to single figures by lunchtime but thankfully the discussion was called to an end. Not that the principles involved hang on the number who suffered.
The major issues were skirted: what is the biblical nature of the church and whose Word rules the church?
The second address was by an old stalwart of the conference, Andrew Davies, and he gave us outlines of two ejectees in Wales, and a quick glimpse at a third (numbers going up this afternoon - the programme had promised us only two - after this morning's reductionism I am amazed that three could be found). Philip Henry was the best known, the others were Samuel Jones and Thomas Goudge (?)
This paper was followed by a useful discussion of matters of conscience and authority, and the important point that it was the issue of imposition of matters that were not 'vital' but 'significant', rather than the issues themselves, that caused the ejectees (all twelve of them by now, I shouldn't wonder) to stand firm. It was useful to mop up the affairs of the morning.
The third paper was by another Anglican, Andrew Atherstone of Oxford. 'Hagiography or History?' was his title - how should Christians write biography? It was a shame that he did not really define his terms - what exactly do we mean by hagiography, and how does it differ from what he later called 'confessional' writing, as opposed to 'professional' or academic writing? It is unfortunate that there was a contrast posited between the two - after all, cannot one write confessionally and professionally?
It is unfortunate too that he made it all rather personal in using Iain Murray to bounce off (in a very respectful way, I should say) but doubly unfortunately, Iain Murray was not there to answer for himself, having had to leave early, we were told. It was a pity too that someone called the book on Lloyd-Jones ('Engaging with Martyn Lloyd- Jones') which had really sparked of this whole debate, an 'exercise in self-promotion'. After the many exhortations from the chair to be polite, it was uncalled for to treat the speaker in this way, though a little ground was made up by the offender and also by someone else who praised the book.
A mixed day at the office, then, and we look forward to tomorrow.
His subject was '1662 and all that'.
The address was interesting without being gripping. He quoted one authority to the effect that there were probably only 900 rather than 2000 ejectees when properly counted, and in discussion someone referred to 800; I was fully prepared for it to be down to single figures by lunchtime but thankfully the discussion was called to an end. Not that the principles involved hang on the number who suffered.
The major issues were skirted: what is the biblical nature of the church and whose Word rules the church?
The second address was by an old stalwart of the conference, Andrew Davies, and he gave us outlines of two ejectees in Wales, and a quick glimpse at a third (numbers going up this afternoon - the programme had promised us only two - after this morning's reductionism I am amazed that three could be found). Philip Henry was the best known, the others were Samuel Jones and Thomas Goudge (?)
This paper was followed by a useful discussion of matters of conscience and authority, and the important point that it was the issue of imposition of matters that were not 'vital' but 'significant', rather than the issues themselves, that caused the ejectees (all twelve of them by now, I shouldn't wonder) to stand firm. It was useful to mop up the affairs of the morning.
The third paper was by another Anglican, Andrew Atherstone of Oxford. 'Hagiography or History?' was his title - how should Christians write biography? It was a shame that he did not really define his terms - what exactly do we mean by hagiography, and how does it differ from what he later called 'confessional' writing, as opposed to 'professional' or academic writing? It is unfortunate that there was a contrast posited between the two - after all, cannot one write confessionally and professionally?
It is unfortunate too that he made it all rather personal in using Iain Murray to bounce off (in a very respectful way, I should say) but doubly unfortunately, Iain Murray was not there to answer for himself, having had to leave early, we were told. It was a pity too that someone called the book on Lloyd-Jones ('Engaging with Martyn Lloyd- Jones') which had really sparked of this whole debate, an 'exercise in self-promotion'. After the many exhortations from the chair to be polite, it was uncalled for to treat the speaker in this way, though a little ground was made up by the offender and also by someone else who praised the book.
A mixed day at the office, then, and we look forward to tomorrow.
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference 2012
There is a yearning in the puritan heart.
There are many good conservative evangelicals who do not appear to be puritans. They believe the Bible, know it, love it, preach it and teach it. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet there is a difference.
The puritan is not someone who lived in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. He or she is someone who is discontented. It may be with the state of the church; it may be with their own hearts; it may be with man-made solutions and human attempts to get things right - even though he will sometimes use those solutions himself and be glad when something is accomplished.
But at heart he will be dissatisfied and want something more. At his best he will not be self-righteous, critical of others or a grumpy old man or woman, though at his worst he can sound like that.
The puritan is in truth the spiritual pilgrim. His real yearning arises from a weariness with himself and his sin; it is a longing for God and his grace and glory; a hunger and thirst for a righteousness that is found in Christ alone. Such a yearning will make him impatient with relevance. The relevant touches, often brilliantly and necessarily, on the issues of the day. The puritan will be happy enough with a little of that. But it will not satisfy him. The puritan heart has tasted eternity and wants more of it.
The puritan may become concerned with eternal issues in a way that makes him virtually contemptuous of the present and the practical. That is not true puritanism; it is a parody of it; it is self-indulgence. The true puritan wants to be more useful and more fruitful and a better man or woman on this earth; to walk as Jesus walked. But he knows that only as he is touched by the Spirit of God can this be accomplished.
The books the puritan reads, the churches he likes and the conferences he goes to may seem to many to be as relevant as a ship in the desert. This will not bother the puritan too much for above all he wants to meet with God. In order to meet with God he knows he needs preaching. So the puritan's favourite book will be a book that preaches, his favoured church will be one that preaches, and his preferred conference will be one where there is preaching.
There may be other things as well of course, but never expect a puritan to be happy where there is no preaching and expect him to be happiest where the preaching is best.
Which is why puritans (and perhaps a few others besides) love the RRF conference every November. We gather in always cloudy, often wet and sometimes foggy Derbyshire and enjoy excellent ministry. This year Paul Mallard warmed our hearts with three sermons on Elisha, under the title 'Serving God in dark days'. The first sermon looked at his taking over from Elijah: the task he was given; the call he received and the obedience he showed. We then looked at the departure of Elijah and the beginning of Elisha's ministry: a careful preparation, a glorious departure and an unchanging presence. Finally we looked at his first two miracles: the healing of the water which presaged his ministry of grace and the mauling of the 42 boys, typical of the ministry of judgement. This last was for me the most compelling message but I enjoyed them all. The exposition was satisfying and the gospel was clearly and warmly preached each time.
As a fitting complement to Paul, Stephen Clark gave us three rather different sermons. The first was a challenging look at gospel opportunity and opposition (1 Cor 16:7-9); the second looked at marks of a healthy church: be watchful, stand firm, be men of courage, be strong, do all things in love (1 Cor 16:13,14). The third sermon was a challenge to holiness from Rom 8:9-27, especially v 26. The doctrine of mortification of sin was clearly spelled out. The Spirit helps us (in correcting us, in prayer, in assurance and all the way to heaven), in our weakness (which includes indwelling sin, Satan, sickness and suffering). It was a good conclusion to the conference.
In addition, George Mitchell warmly reminded us in the conference sermon of the God who dwells in a high and holy place and also with those who are of a contrite and lowly spirit (Isa 57:15). Before the prayer meeting, George also introduced us to a great but unknown Baptist pastor of early nineteenth century Scotland - Peter Grant.
It was good to be there. There were over eighty of us and there would have been more but some had to pull out at the last minute. Next year (18th -20th Nov 2013) the preachers are Brian Edwards, Matthew Brennan and Jonathan Wood.
CDs are available from jim.lawson@ntlworld.com and the messages (and other information about the Fellowship) will be available at www.reformationandrevival.org.
Why not become a puritan for three days next autumn?
There are many good conservative evangelicals who do not appear to be puritans. They believe the Bible, know it, love it, preach it and teach it. They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet there is a difference.
The puritan is not someone who lived in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. He or she is someone who is discontented. It may be with the state of the church; it may be with their own hearts; it may be with man-made solutions and human attempts to get things right - even though he will sometimes use those solutions himself and be glad when something is accomplished.
But at heart he will be dissatisfied and want something more. At his best he will not be self-righteous, critical of others or a grumpy old man or woman, though at his worst he can sound like that.
The puritan is in truth the spiritual pilgrim. His real yearning arises from a weariness with himself and his sin; it is a longing for God and his grace and glory; a hunger and thirst for a righteousness that is found in Christ alone. Such a yearning will make him impatient with relevance. The relevant touches, often brilliantly and necessarily, on the issues of the day. The puritan will be happy enough with a little of that. But it will not satisfy him. The puritan heart has tasted eternity and wants more of it.
The puritan may become concerned with eternal issues in a way that makes him virtually contemptuous of the present and the practical. That is not true puritanism; it is a parody of it; it is self-indulgence. The true puritan wants to be more useful and more fruitful and a better man or woman on this earth; to walk as Jesus walked. But he knows that only as he is touched by the Spirit of God can this be accomplished.
The books the puritan reads, the churches he likes and the conferences he goes to may seem to many to be as relevant as a ship in the desert. This will not bother the puritan too much for above all he wants to meet with God. In order to meet with God he knows he needs preaching. So the puritan's favourite book will be a book that preaches, his favoured church will be one that preaches, and his preferred conference will be one where there is preaching.
There may be other things as well of course, but never expect a puritan to be happy where there is no preaching and expect him to be happiest where the preaching is best.
Which is why puritans (and perhaps a few others besides) love the RRF conference every November. We gather in always cloudy, often wet and sometimes foggy Derbyshire and enjoy excellent ministry. This year Paul Mallard warmed our hearts with three sermons on Elisha, under the title 'Serving God in dark days'. The first sermon looked at his taking over from Elijah: the task he was given; the call he received and the obedience he showed. We then looked at the departure of Elijah and the beginning of Elisha's ministry: a careful preparation, a glorious departure and an unchanging presence. Finally we looked at his first two miracles: the healing of the water which presaged his ministry of grace and the mauling of the 42 boys, typical of the ministry of judgement. This last was for me the most compelling message but I enjoyed them all. The exposition was satisfying and the gospel was clearly and warmly preached each time.
As a fitting complement to Paul, Stephen Clark gave us three rather different sermons. The first was a challenging look at gospel opportunity and opposition (1 Cor 16:7-9); the second looked at marks of a healthy church: be watchful, stand firm, be men of courage, be strong, do all things in love (1 Cor 16:13,14). The third sermon was a challenge to holiness from Rom 8:9-27, especially v 26. The doctrine of mortification of sin was clearly spelled out. The Spirit helps us (in correcting us, in prayer, in assurance and all the way to heaven), in our weakness (which includes indwelling sin, Satan, sickness and suffering). It was a good conclusion to the conference.
In addition, George Mitchell warmly reminded us in the conference sermon of the God who dwells in a high and holy place and also with those who are of a contrite and lowly spirit (Isa 57:15). Before the prayer meeting, George also introduced us to a great but unknown Baptist pastor of early nineteenth century Scotland - Peter Grant.
It was good to be there. There were over eighty of us and there would have been more but some had to pull out at the last minute. Next year (18th -20th Nov 2013) the preachers are Brian Edwards, Matthew Brennan and Jonathan Wood.
CDs are available from jim.lawson@ntlworld.com and the messages (and other information about the Fellowship) will be available at www.reformationandrevival.org.
Why not become a puritan for three days next autumn?
Anglicans, relevance and women bishops
Amidst all the angst, fury and tears in the Church of England over the failure to secure a mitre for the matrons, the most surreal (and I think I am using that overused word in a proper sense) claim has been that women bishops would help to make the C of E relevant.
Who are these people who, presumably now disenchanted with the church, or with the C of E, or with Christianity, or with religion generally, would suddenly take it seriously because of such a move? I can imagine it meaning a lot to women 'priests'; I can imagine some women outside the church having their prejudices against the church hardened by this show of what they would consider chauvinism or what has been laughably called 'centuries of institutionalised sexism' (brilliant historical perspective that); and no doubt the liberal establishment will be aghast at this exhibition of primeval values. Yet is anyone who might be inclined to take Christianity seriously really going to be put off by the vote in Synod? Would a cynic really be made to take the gospel seriously because under the mitre there is a real woman instead of an old woman?
Equality is one thing; sameness is another. The Christian gospel has since its earliest proclamation been a force for the dignity and liberation of women from all manner of social disadvantages. Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that ultimate leadership is male. This is nothing to do with traditionalism. It is everything to do with God's Word and the authority it has in the church.
The church will be relevant when that same Word is preached in the power of the Spirit; when communities of God's people exhibit the pattern of life established in the Word with sincerity and sacrifice; when people realise their need of a Saviour and that Jesus Christ is that Saviour. When these things become clear to us, it may perhaps be seen that not only should women not be bishops, but men should not be either - at least on the pattern that the C of E has them.
Who are these people who, presumably now disenchanted with the church, or with the C of E, or with Christianity, or with religion generally, would suddenly take it seriously because of such a move? I can imagine it meaning a lot to women 'priests'; I can imagine some women outside the church having their prejudices against the church hardened by this show of what they would consider chauvinism or what has been laughably called 'centuries of institutionalised sexism' (brilliant historical perspective that); and no doubt the liberal establishment will be aghast at this exhibition of primeval values. Yet is anyone who might be inclined to take Christianity seriously really going to be put off by the vote in Synod? Would a cynic really be made to take the gospel seriously because under the mitre there is a real woman instead of an old woman?
Equality is one thing; sameness is another. The Christian gospel has since its earliest proclamation been a force for the dignity and liberation of women from all manner of social disadvantages. Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that ultimate leadership is male. This is nothing to do with traditionalism. It is everything to do with God's Word and the authority it has in the church.
The church will be relevant when that same Word is preached in the power of the Spirit; when communities of God's people exhibit the pattern of life established in the Word with sincerity and sacrifice; when people realise their need of a Saviour and that Jesus Christ is that Saviour. When these things become clear to us, it may perhaps be seen that not only should women not be bishops, but men should not be either - at least on the pattern that the C of E has them.
Friday, 9 November 2012
So you don't want to go to church any more?
There are some books that have an 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' quality. Who is looking at the world upside down - the author or me?
'So you don't want to go to church any more?' is such a book. It is by Wayne Jacobsen and Dave Coleman though I cannot understand why it took two men to write it. Apparently it took them four years. It is from the same publishers as 'The Shack'- 'Windblown Media'.
It is written through the narration of an assistant pastor called Jake who is in the spiritual doldrums. His church is big and successful but all is not well underneath. There is no spiritual reality. He is falling out with his senior pastor. His daughter is ill. Along comes 'John' a kind of angel/disciple/ Jesus figure (whom Jake for much of the book seems seriously to think may actually be the apostle John)who speaks of God as 'Father' and invites people to come to 'Father' (not 'the Father' or 'our Father'). The book has thirteen chapters in each of which John meets Jake in an unlikely situation - turning up just when Jake needs him, in a cafe, or even by a remote lake in the Californian hills. John just drifts around helping people in their relationship with Jesus. God through his prayer heals Jake's daughter.
Much of what 'John' says is fine, except that it is all nice. Everything is relational. He is very good on grace. Jake, who seems to have been living his Christian life as if he were on a treadmill, resigns from his ministry. His senior pastor is found to have had an affair. Jake starts up a home group, to find reality in community, but John reminds them (wise eh?) that changing the outward circumstances is not going to change the experience of relationships if they do not focus on Jesus.
Any organisation, is the message, can damage the relationship 'Father' wants for his people. Religion is bad, it is shame management; what counts is Jesus delivering us from shame. Institutional church is portrayed as universally authoritarian, manipulative, unreal, pressurising. More than once going to church (which we shouldn't say, by the way, as we 'are ' church) is described as going to a 'finely tuned performance' or a 'praise concert' with a 'teaching'. Well, if that is a church service, perhaps the authors have a point.
One could agree with a lot of what 'John' (the mouthpiece for everything the authors think is right) says - we must of course be focused on Christ as a church, though interestingly John never uses the word 'Christ' - it is always 'Jesus' and our relationship is primarily not with a triune God but with 'Father'. The problem is that this relational approach is set in stark contrast to anything institutional as if the church could be all organism but never organisation. Sure, things are bad in many of our organisational set ups, but you don't - indeed you can't - jettison organisation just because of that. This book is not only arrogant in its dismissal of 'institutional' church; it is idealistic and naive in terms of what could replace it.
Here is a Christianity where (i) community and 'real relationships' have become god; (ii) the Bible does not seem to exist except as mediated in some of the things (always positive, relational and encouraging, never challenging or guilt inducing) that John, in his wise style, says to Jake and his friends; (iii) an assistant pastor seems to know absolutely no theology and though he reads his Bible he always needs John to give him the words that actually help him; (iv) commitment is regarded as legalistic; (v) meeting together must be because people really want to and when they have found what they need they will not be able to stay away; (vi)and oh yes - preaching, the heart of worship, does not figure at all. All communication of the Word is done by John-like socratic dialogue. Very unauthoritarian, very egalitarian. You can do it around a cup of Starbucks. If you think I am joking I have this week received an email from a friend recently moved to America who is looking for a church; one he visited had comfy chairs with cup holders which fitted Starbucks cups perfectly; but there was no place for Bibles.
The trouble is, people seem to like this kind of book and think it is fantastic. Is it only in America? I fear not. People like it here. Are all hurt by church? Are all going to dysfunctional churches with anxiety-wrought, driven, driving pastors? Don't tell me that all evangelical churches are harsh, legalistic, manipulative and that they reward achievement, thereby reinforcing the tendency to works salvation. This appears to be the case in Jake's experience of church.
Sadly some churches may be like this. There are people who have been very badly hurt by church. I am not sure, however, that this is the book to help them. I fear this kind of book is fed by and feeds a Christian culture where people want the gospel to meet their needs, provide undemanding church and all with the assurance no doubt of eternal life - though the only mention of sin and forgiveness is in one phrase during a 'Lord's Supper' celebrated with cups of grape juice and bread during a garden BBQ which John assures them is what a church service is all about; worship after all is what we do all the time.
Everything, in other words, focuses on making life cosy here. It is a gospel of good human relationships through 'Jesus'. But who is this Jesus? He has no biblical or doctrinal content. Just think of all the time the early church wasted on Christological disputes - all they need have done was enjoy each other's company in their back gardens. But then, with John around every corner to give good advice, who needs the Bible, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ?
'So you don't want to go to church any more?' is such a book. It is by Wayne Jacobsen and Dave Coleman though I cannot understand why it took two men to write it. Apparently it took them four years. It is from the same publishers as 'The Shack'- 'Windblown Media'.
It is written through the narration of an assistant pastor called Jake who is in the spiritual doldrums. His church is big and successful but all is not well underneath. There is no spiritual reality. He is falling out with his senior pastor. His daughter is ill. Along comes 'John' a kind of angel/disciple/ Jesus figure (whom Jake for much of the book seems seriously to think may actually be the apostle John)who speaks of God as 'Father' and invites people to come to 'Father' (not 'the Father' or 'our Father'). The book has thirteen chapters in each of which John meets Jake in an unlikely situation - turning up just when Jake needs him, in a cafe, or even by a remote lake in the Californian hills. John just drifts around helping people in their relationship with Jesus. God through his prayer heals Jake's daughter.
Much of what 'John' says is fine, except that it is all nice. Everything is relational. He is very good on grace. Jake, who seems to have been living his Christian life as if he were on a treadmill, resigns from his ministry. His senior pastor is found to have had an affair. Jake starts up a home group, to find reality in community, but John reminds them (wise eh?) that changing the outward circumstances is not going to change the experience of relationships if they do not focus on Jesus.
Any organisation, is the message, can damage the relationship 'Father' wants for his people. Religion is bad, it is shame management; what counts is Jesus delivering us from shame. Institutional church is portrayed as universally authoritarian, manipulative, unreal, pressurising. More than once going to church (which we shouldn't say, by the way, as we 'are ' church) is described as going to a 'finely tuned performance' or a 'praise concert' with a 'teaching'. Well, if that is a church service, perhaps the authors have a point.
One could agree with a lot of what 'John' (the mouthpiece for everything the authors think is right) says - we must of course be focused on Christ as a church, though interestingly John never uses the word 'Christ' - it is always 'Jesus' and our relationship is primarily not with a triune God but with 'Father'. The problem is that this relational approach is set in stark contrast to anything institutional as if the church could be all organism but never organisation. Sure, things are bad in many of our organisational set ups, but you don't - indeed you can't - jettison organisation just because of that. This book is not only arrogant in its dismissal of 'institutional' church; it is idealistic and naive in terms of what could replace it.
Here is a Christianity where (i) community and 'real relationships' have become god; (ii) the Bible does not seem to exist except as mediated in some of the things (always positive, relational and encouraging, never challenging or guilt inducing) that John, in his wise style, says to Jake and his friends; (iii) an assistant pastor seems to know absolutely no theology and though he reads his Bible he always needs John to give him the words that actually help him; (iv) commitment is regarded as legalistic; (v) meeting together must be because people really want to and when they have found what they need they will not be able to stay away; (vi)and oh yes - preaching, the heart of worship, does not figure at all. All communication of the Word is done by John-like socratic dialogue. Very unauthoritarian, very egalitarian. You can do it around a cup of Starbucks. If you think I am joking I have this week received an email from a friend recently moved to America who is looking for a church; one he visited had comfy chairs with cup holders which fitted Starbucks cups perfectly; but there was no place for Bibles.
The trouble is, people seem to like this kind of book and think it is fantastic. Is it only in America? I fear not. People like it here. Are all hurt by church? Are all going to dysfunctional churches with anxiety-wrought, driven, driving pastors? Don't tell me that all evangelical churches are harsh, legalistic, manipulative and that they reward achievement, thereby reinforcing the tendency to works salvation. This appears to be the case in Jake's experience of church.
Sadly some churches may be like this. There are people who have been very badly hurt by church. I am not sure, however, that this is the book to help them. I fear this kind of book is fed by and feeds a Christian culture where people want the gospel to meet their needs, provide undemanding church and all with the assurance no doubt of eternal life - though the only mention of sin and forgiveness is in one phrase during a 'Lord's Supper' celebrated with cups of grape juice and bread during a garden BBQ which John assures them is what a church service is all about; worship after all is what we do all the time.
Everything, in other words, focuses on making life cosy here. It is a gospel of good human relationships through 'Jesus'. But who is this Jesus? He has no biblical or doctrinal content. Just think of all the time the early church wasted on Christological disputes - all they need have done was enjoy each other's company in their back gardens. But then, with John around every corner to give good advice, who needs the Bible, the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ?
Defending Constantine
Peter Leithart's fascinating book on Constantine is both a defence of the great emperor and also a demolition of the political theology of John Howard Yoder. I was convinced by both parts of his scholarly polemic but less convinced by the arguments he tries to erect as an alternative to Yoder.
Leithart's portrayal of Constantine is lively and persuasive. He believes the emperor was a true Christian who throughout his reign promoted the interests of the church as far as possible but without persecuting pagans. There was therefore a measure of religious toleration for pagans under him that was lost under later emperors such as Theodosius.
There were certainly inconsistencies in Constantine and stains on his reign - the deaths of his wife Fausta and son Crispus are not fully explained, though sexual immorality probably lay behind their executions/deaths. But it is easy to criticise a man in a unique position. There was no clear blueprint for a Christian Roman emperor.
Leithart is concerned above all to unravel the myth of the 'fall' of the church at the time of Constantine. He does this pretty well, showing that there was no consistent policy of merging church and empire under Constantine or after him. There were 'moments' as Leithart calls them, when this happened, but it was not an ideological or political shift. If the church became corrupted in a time of peace was this due to alignment with the state or to too common temptations of the flesh? Does such corruption amount to the introduction of the dark ages of the church which lasted till the end of the middle ages? Was it all dark? Was the church pristine at the beginning of the 4th century anyway? Were not church and empire at loggerheads for much of the time afterwards?
If the emperor at times saw it as his duty to interfere in church affairs, did this amount to a taking over of the church?
John Howard Yoder uses 'Constantinianism' as a label, a symbol, for the view that the church was swallowed up by the state for over a thousand years and this still plagues the church today (sometimes in an even worse way than before the Reformation).
Where Leithart is in my mind quite unconvincing is in his attempt to describe Rome as nonetheless baptised, by which he means that Constantine stopped sacrifices in Rome and introduced a new political regime based on the sacrifice of Christ. Constantine 'desacrificed' Rome 'but at the same time...welcomed into his city another city, a truly just city, a city of the final sacrifice that ends sacrifice...This is the "Christianisation" achieved by Constantine, Rome baptised.' Leithart's final chapter is almost an apologia for baptism - 'all baptism is infant baptism' - as the measure of a 'Christianised' state. At least, that is what appears to come across but Leithart is a somewhat elusive writer at times.
Leithart finally is unconvincing in dismissing Yoder's pacifism, yet trying to establish the acceptability of Christian soldiers on biblical grounds when he has rejected the distinction between private and public ethics and between nature and grace. All is one for Leithart, so he is left with trying to establish that warfare is permissible for Christians without being able to restrict the ethics of 'turn the other cheek' to the private realm. He has some rather elaborate arguments based on the Old Testament and its continuity, but I shall not go into them here.
It is such an 'external' view of the blessings of the gospel which comes through in Leithart's 'federal vision' theology.
But this is still a good book, particularly for what it says about Constantine and in demythologising the rather glib way in which we speak of 'Constantinianism' as the bane of the church. There is a merger of state and church which is invariably harmful for the church but maybe Constantine was not to blame, and Constantinianism is not the best name for it.
Leithart's portrayal of Constantine is lively and persuasive. He believes the emperor was a true Christian who throughout his reign promoted the interests of the church as far as possible but without persecuting pagans. There was therefore a measure of religious toleration for pagans under him that was lost under later emperors such as Theodosius.
There were certainly inconsistencies in Constantine and stains on his reign - the deaths of his wife Fausta and son Crispus are not fully explained, though sexual immorality probably lay behind their executions/deaths. But it is easy to criticise a man in a unique position. There was no clear blueprint for a Christian Roman emperor.
Leithart is concerned above all to unravel the myth of the 'fall' of the church at the time of Constantine. He does this pretty well, showing that there was no consistent policy of merging church and empire under Constantine or after him. There were 'moments' as Leithart calls them, when this happened, but it was not an ideological or political shift. If the church became corrupted in a time of peace was this due to alignment with the state or to too common temptations of the flesh? Does such corruption amount to the introduction of the dark ages of the church which lasted till the end of the middle ages? Was it all dark? Was the church pristine at the beginning of the 4th century anyway? Were not church and empire at loggerheads for much of the time afterwards?
If the emperor at times saw it as his duty to interfere in church affairs, did this amount to a taking over of the church?
John Howard Yoder uses 'Constantinianism' as a label, a symbol, for the view that the church was swallowed up by the state for over a thousand years and this still plagues the church today (sometimes in an even worse way than before the Reformation).
Where Leithart is in my mind quite unconvincing is in his attempt to describe Rome as nonetheless baptised, by which he means that Constantine stopped sacrifices in Rome and introduced a new political regime based on the sacrifice of Christ. Constantine 'desacrificed' Rome 'but at the same time...welcomed into his city another city, a truly just city, a city of the final sacrifice that ends sacrifice...This is the "Christianisation" achieved by Constantine, Rome baptised.' Leithart's final chapter is almost an apologia for baptism - 'all baptism is infant baptism' - as the measure of a 'Christianised' state. At least, that is what appears to come across but Leithart is a somewhat elusive writer at times.
Leithart finally is unconvincing in dismissing Yoder's pacifism, yet trying to establish the acceptability of Christian soldiers on biblical grounds when he has rejected the distinction between private and public ethics and between nature and grace. All is one for Leithart, so he is left with trying to establish that warfare is permissible for Christians without being able to restrict the ethics of 'turn the other cheek' to the private realm. He has some rather elaborate arguments based on the Old Testament and its continuity, but I shall not go into them here.
It is such an 'external' view of the blessings of the gospel which comes through in Leithart's 'federal vision' theology.
But this is still a good book, particularly for what it says about Constantine and in demythologising the rather glib way in which we speak of 'Constantinianism' as the bane of the church. There is a merger of state and church which is invariably harmful for the church but maybe Constantine was not to blame, and Constantinianism is not the best name for it.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Elders' Day, John Owen Centre
Yes this has happened - long ago, on 20th October to be exact.
I spoke on 'The Shepherd for Undershepherds', giving a biblical overview of the Lord as our shepherd and what that means for pastors/ elders; Garry Williams gave an introduction to covenant theology; and Trevor Archer spoke on 'Nurturing the Eldership'.
Over 40 men attended and it was a stimulating day with lively discussion groups in the afternoon before a final panel session. The feedback was encouraging and we shall probably do one next year as well.
If you want to see the papers, look at the John Owen Centre Website; they should be up soon, if not already. See: http://www.ltslondon.org/joc/index.php
I spoke on 'The Shepherd for Undershepherds', giving a biblical overview of the Lord as our shepherd and what that means for pastors/ elders; Garry Williams gave an introduction to covenant theology; and Trevor Archer spoke on 'Nurturing the Eldership'.
Over 40 men attended and it was a stimulating day with lively discussion groups in the afternoon before a final panel session. The feedback was encouraging and we shall probably do one next year as well.
If you want to see the papers, look at the John Owen Centre Website; they should be up soon, if not already. See: http://www.ltslondon.org/joc/index.php
Reformation and Revival Fellowship Conference
If you are interested in revival - or indeed in the Lord's work at all - why not make a late booking for the RRF conference? It is to be held at Swanwick from Monday 19th - Wednesday 21st November . The speakers are Stephen Clark, Bridgend, Paul Mallard, Birmingham and George Mitchell, Glasgow. The addresses are always of the highest order, whether expository or historical. The fellowship is warm and stimulating and the countryside in Derbyshire is great to explore in the little free time we have.
Contact George McIntyre on 01564 774966; geomac@talktalk.net.
Contact George McIntyre on 01564 774966; geomac@talktalk.net.
Westminster Fellowship
On Monday I attended the meeting of the Westminster Fellowship at Westminster chapel in London. This is the ministers' fraternal(meeting) that began under Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones in the 1950s and thrived under his leadership, but it is safe to say that since his death it has been steadily in numerical decline. There are rarely more than 18 or so men there, and only 14 on Monday.
Monday was an open meeting, when men bring matters for discussion. The morning is often a more theological subject, the afternoon is more pastoral. All the men contributed to discussion this time, and as always I found it helpful and encouraging to have been there. I started going again two years ago after a long absence of six years or so, but in the last two years I have not missed a meeting unless it couldn't be avoided.
Perhaps the most refreshing thing is to be in the fellowship of kindred minds. One can express one's views knowing that on the big issues and most of the small ones we are agreed. We also know we are in a minority, theologically speaking, representing a conservative end of the spectrum in both doctrine and practice. But the fraternal is open to any minister who can agree with the statement of faith which I should have thought would be acceptable to most evangelicals. It is not specifically Reformed but it rather looks to Evangelicals coming together on an uncompromising gospel basis, rejecting the doctrinal indifference of the 'Ecumenical movement'.
Our next meeting (we meet six times a year) is planned for 4th February when Jeremy Walker will be addressing us on the 'New Calvinism'.
Monday was an open meeting, when men bring matters for discussion. The morning is often a more theological subject, the afternoon is more pastoral. All the men contributed to discussion this time, and as always I found it helpful and encouraging to have been there. I started going again two years ago after a long absence of six years or so, but in the last two years I have not missed a meeting unless it couldn't be avoided.
Perhaps the most refreshing thing is to be in the fellowship of kindred minds. One can express one's views knowing that on the big issues and most of the small ones we are agreed. We also know we are in a minority, theologically speaking, representing a conservative end of the spectrum in both doctrine and practice. But the fraternal is open to any minister who can agree with the statement of faith which I should have thought would be acceptable to most evangelicals. It is not specifically Reformed but it rather looks to Evangelicals coming together on an uncompromising gospel basis, rejecting the doctrinal indifference of the 'Ecumenical movement'.
Our next meeting (we meet six times a year) is planned for 4th February when Jeremy Walker will be addressing us on the 'New Calvinism'.
The Republican - and Christian - Opportunity
There have been innumerable analyses of the American election result by many people far better qualified than I, but I can't resist chipping in.
The Republicans must feel devastated. They got a good proportion of the popular vote, but as one commentator said, if you can't beat a president when unemployment is high and the economy is in a bad way, you should really be looking for another job.
They say the electoral college system is unfair on the Republicans in which case things do not look good for the future. Will they change the system? The Democrats won't!
Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of who votes for whom. Very broadly, if you are white, male, old and Christian you will vote Republican; if you are black/ coloured, young, female and non-Christian you will vote Democrat. There are countless exceptions to such a broad generalisation but that is pretty well how it is. As the country grows increasingly 'secular', younger generations move away from church and the values behind opposition to abortion and gay marriage recede in influence and popularity, it is difficult to see the Republican vote growing.
One brief interview with an Hispanic man on TV spoke volumes. 'The Republicans could appeal to us' he said. 'We are conservative minded, and we are religious. But the trouble is, the Republicans don't want us here'. So Christian in morals but not in compassion - that is how Republicans are perceived.
The party will need to do some hard thinking. Perhaps this is time of opportunity.
Now is also the time for Christians to ask themselves, 'what is our responsibility in politics?' A separation between Christians and a single political party may be no bad thing. It is not necessarily healthy for Christians to think they can enforce morality through the ballot box. And in practice, what could Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have done about abortion anyway? And how long would the stance against gay marriage have been able to hold? Nor is it healthy for the evangelical church to be identified with one socio-political power bloc, even if it does hold the right moral views. The church should always be bigger than one or two moral issues.
Some time for Christians to think things through will be useful; they must adjust to new a ideological reality in America. 'One nation under God and 'In God we trust' have never been as absolutely true as some would have liked to think; they are getting less and less so. Maybe for Christians the realisation of that is no bad thing.
The Republicans must feel devastated. They got a good proportion of the popular vote, but as one commentator said, if you can't beat a president when unemployment is high and the economy is in a bad way, you should really be looking for another job.
They say the electoral college system is unfair on the Republicans in which case things do not look good for the future. Will they change the system? The Democrats won't!
Perhaps the biggest issue is the question of who votes for whom. Very broadly, if you are white, male, old and Christian you will vote Republican; if you are black/ coloured, young, female and non-Christian you will vote Democrat. There are countless exceptions to such a broad generalisation but that is pretty well how it is. As the country grows increasingly 'secular', younger generations move away from church and the values behind opposition to abortion and gay marriage recede in influence and popularity, it is difficult to see the Republican vote growing.
One brief interview with an Hispanic man on TV spoke volumes. 'The Republicans could appeal to us' he said. 'We are conservative minded, and we are religious. But the trouble is, the Republicans don't want us here'. So Christian in morals but not in compassion - that is how Republicans are perceived.
The party will need to do some hard thinking. Perhaps this is time of opportunity.
Now is also the time for Christians to ask themselves, 'what is our responsibility in politics?' A separation between Christians and a single political party may be no bad thing. It is not necessarily healthy for Christians to think they can enforce morality through the ballot box. And in practice, what could Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have done about abortion anyway? And how long would the stance against gay marriage have been able to hold? Nor is it healthy for the evangelical church to be identified with one socio-political power bloc, even if it does hold the right moral views. The church should always be bigger than one or two moral issues.
Some time for Christians to think things through will be useful; they must adjust to new a ideological reality in America. 'One nation under God and 'In God we trust' have never been as absolutely true as some would have liked to think; they are getting less and less so. Maybe for Christians the realisation of that is no bad thing.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Darwin or Design?
Last Friday and Saturday I attended an interesting conference of the above name organised by the Centre for Intelligent Design (ID). The venue was the very comfortable and attractive Elim Pentecostal Conference Centre in the beautifully situated village of West Malvern.
The speakers were firstly Professor John Lennox , professor of mathematics at Oxford, well known for his books ('God's Undertaker - Has Science buried God?'; 'God and Stephen Hawking'; and more recently 'Seven Days that Divide the World' and 'Gunning for God'); and also for being one of the few men that Richard Dawkins is willing to debate in public; and secondly Doug Axe of the Biologic Institute in California, an ID organisation. Axe gave us two clear and careful papers on how areas of biology are undermining the theory of evolution, but it was John Lennox's two more general papers that were the main attraction for me at least - along with two very stimulating Q&A sessions.
Prof Lennox began by saying that every scientist is confronted with evidence of a designed universe and that most will admit this even if they reject a designer. The reason why the idea of design is controversial is that religion and science are deemed to be inimical and intelligent agency is usually identified with God. What we have is a world-view conflict. He helpfully discussed the case of Galileo who was not challenging 'the church' initially, so much as an Aristotelian world-view held by the scientific establishment as well as by the church of his time. The irony is, said Prof Lennox, that (following Whitehead etc) modern science would not have been possible without confidence in a lawgiver.
There are two mutually opposed world-views - materialism, and that which allows for transcendence. The result of materialism is that one ends up with a 'very tiny' human being - the'self-contempt of man' as Nietzsche said. 'Scientism' (Peter Atkins, Dawkins, Sam Harris et al) says 'What science cannot tell us man cannot know'. But where, for example, do ethical convictions come from? 'Bottom up or top down'? 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world' (Wittgenstein).
There are two questions in ID which should be kept separate: 1. Is there evidence of design? and 2. Who is the designer? The first question is scientific; the second is religious.
In his second paper Prof Lennox addressed the wide ranging question: why does it matter? He embraced a number of questions that had been asked during the conference. He touched on issues he had raised earlier, discussed world-views a little (materialism, pantheism, theism) and dealt with two matters which he believes are crucial in dealing with atheism: the first is that it undermines rationality - how can an atheist/evolutionist trust his own brain? How can an evolved brain be interested in truth? Why is it not simply interested in successful reproduction? Secondly, theists must insist that the existence of a law (eg gravity) does not do away with a designer. A law in itself is not an explanation for anything. It simply describes how something works. Yet even top scientists keep saying that because we have a law, we can dispense with the lawgiver.
Other important arguments are: from cosmology which provides evidence for design and is quite independent of evolution; and the highly current issue of information (DNA, the human genome etc) which is supremely important and with which evolutionist struggle at present.
All design, he insisted more than once, begins with a complete idea - it does not begin with one bit and then add another bit and grow piecemeal, which is what evolutionists expect us to believe.
So it was very stimulating. But what of the ID movement itself? Why, some people there were asking, are scientists so sceptical of it (well they knew that really) but more, why are some Christians sceptical of it?
Let me suggest briefly two reasons - both limitations which I believe ID should acknowledge and work with - I am not suggesting they are fatal flaws with ID but simply issues which cause reserve in some quarters.
The first is to do with the limits of science. Intelligent design is really a scientific theory. It is a theory of great explanatory power, but from the scientific point of view it should be based on evidence (no problem there ) but also be willing to yield to any contrary evidence and better theories. An 'ID movement' gives the impression that people are committed to a theory and want to promote that rather than be 'scientific' and be willing to follow the evidence wherever it takes them. ID as a 'movement' gives the impression that it is science with an agenda and that inevitably that agenda may just interfere with the objectivity to be rightly expected of scientists. It is in danger, if that were the case, of being little better than what we accuse the evolutionists of being.
One may say that a Christian of course will inevitably believe in a designer. Correct, in that he believes in God, but in his science he should be prepared to cope with any evidence he might find that, say, contradicted the theory of design. That is not impossible; there are plenty of things that challenge our faith in a good God and a purposeful God - evolutionists are throwing them up all the time, even though we know in the big picture God will always be vindicated. But science is not about God's ultimate vindication; it is about what can be discovered and analysed here and now. And ID may be suspected, as some at the conference said, of being a cover for crypto- creationists unless they can show they really do science wherever the evidence leads, and for the sake of Truth, not just supporting their theory of design.
I am not suggesting ID scientists are anything other than scientists of complete integrity ; I am saying that they perhaps need to do more to make sure this comes across.
The second reason for reserve is theological. There is firstly the issue as to where belief in a designer gets you - Muslims can give you a good argument for design or from design which in many ways differs little from a Christian's account. I know unbelievers who will often say they are convinced of God's existence because of the wonderful world we live in. But there is another argument along these lines. In Romans 1:19,20 Paul says 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and invisible nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.'
Now where is there mention of a designer there? We tend to assume Paul is speaking of people knowing that God is the designer in these verses. But is he? 'Eternal power' and 'divine nature' may include the fact that God is designer, but then again it may not, and may include things that are deeper than and perhaps different from 'design'.
So perhaps design, and the fact that God is designer, are not the most important things that can be said about God. It certainly is not the thing Paul seems to major on here. So when we are evangelising, we know we have a good friend in the mind of the believer - a witness to God's existence, eternal power and divine nature (and knowledge of judgement - Rom 1:32), but it seems that Paul is saying that this is something more powerful than the inference from nature that he is a designer. And is not perception (Rom 1:20) a different and deeper thing than inference or induction?
This is not to say that the argument from design has no uses, and with some people and in some contexts it may be very helpful, but it is not perhaps the hugely important thing that some people think - and they think so largely, one suspects, because it is the most obvious response to evolutionism and it is also the thing to which scientific evidence can point most easily. But that is to limit theology by the limits of science where we should be guided by the Word of God.
The speakers were firstly Professor John Lennox , professor of mathematics at Oxford, well known for his books ('God's Undertaker - Has Science buried God?'; 'God and Stephen Hawking'; and more recently 'Seven Days that Divide the World' and 'Gunning for God'); and also for being one of the few men that Richard Dawkins is willing to debate in public; and secondly Doug Axe of the Biologic Institute in California, an ID organisation. Axe gave us two clear and careful papers on how areas of biology are undermining the theory of evolution, but it was John Lennox's two more general papers that were the main attraction for me at least - along with two very stimulating Q&A sessions.
Prof Lennox began by saying that every scientist is confronted with evidence of a designed universe and that most will admit this even if they reject a designer. The reason why the idea of design is controversial is that religion and science are deemed to be inimical and intelligent agency is usually identified with God. What we have is a world-view conflict. He helpfully discussed the case of Galileo who was not challenging 'the church' initially, so much as an Aristotelian world-view held by the scientific establishment as well as by the church of his time. The irony is, said Prof Lennox, that (following Whitehead etc) modern science would not have been possible without confidence in a lawgiver.
There are two mutually opposed world-views - materialism, and that which allows for transcendence. The result of materialism is that one ends up with a 'very tiny' human being - the'self-contempt of man' as Nietzsche said. 'Scientism' (Peter Atkins, Dawkins, Sam Harris et al) says 'What science cannot tell us man cannot know'. But where, for example, do ethical convictions come from? 'Bottom up or top down'? 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world' (Wittgenstein).
There are two questions in ID which should be kept separate: 1. Is there evidence of design? and 2. Who is the designer? The first question is scientific; the second is religious.
In his second paper Prof Lennox addressed the wide ranging question: why does it matter? He embraced a number of questions that had been asked during the conference. He touched on issues he had raised earlier, discussed world-views a little (materialism, pantheism, theism) and dealt with two matters which he believes are crucial in dealing with atheism: the first is that it undermines rationality - how can an atheist/evolutionist trust his own brain? How can an evolved brain be interested in truth? Why is it not simply interested in successful reproduction? Secondly, theists must insist that the existence of a law (eg gravity) does not do away with a designer. A law in itself is not an explanation for anything. It simply describes how something works. Yet even top scientists keep saying that because we have a law, we can dispense with the lawgiver.
Other important arguments are: from cosmology which provides evidence for design and is quite independent of evolution; and the highly current issue of information (DNA, the human genome etc) which is supremely important and with which evolutionist struggle at present.
All design, he insisted more than once, begins with a complete idea - it does not begin with one bit and then add another bit and grow piecemeal, which is what evolutionists expect us to believe.
So it was very stimulating. But what of the ID movement itself? Why, some people there were asking, are scientists so sceptical of it (well they knew that really) but more, why are some Christians sceptical of it?
Let me suggest briefly two reasons - both limitations which I believe ID should acknowledge and work with - I am not suggesting they are fatal flaws with ID but simply issues which cause reserve in some quarters.
The first is to do with the limits of science. Intelligent design is really a scientific theory. It is a theory of great explanatory power, but from the scientific point of view it should be based on evidence (no problem there ) but also be willing to yield to any contrary evidence and better theories. An 'ID movement' gives the impression that people are committed to a theory and want to promote that rather than be 'scientific' and be willing to follow the evidence wherever it takes them. ID as a 'movement' gives the impression that it is science with an agenda and that inevitably that agenda may just interfere with the objectivity to be rightly expected of scientists. It is in danger, if that were the case, of being little better than what we accuse the evolutionists of being.
One may say that a Christian of course will inevitably believe in a designer. Correct, in that he believes in God, but in his science he should be prepared to cope with any evidence he might find that, say, contradicted the theory of design. That is not impossible; there are plenty of things that challenge our faith in a good God and a purposeful God - evolutionists are throwing them up all the time, even though we know in the big picture God will always be vindicated. But science is not about God's ultimate vindication; it is about what can be discovered and analysed here and now. And ID may be suspected, as some at the conference said, of being a cover for crypto- creationists unless they can show they really do science wherever the evidence leads, and for the sake of Truth, not just supporting their theory of design.
I am not suggesting ID scientists are anything other than scientists of complete integrity ; I am saying that they perhaps need to do more to make sure this comes across.
The second reason for reserve is theological. There is firstly the issue as to where belief in a designer gets you - Muslims can give you a good argument for design or from design which in many ways differs little from a Christian's account. I know unbelievers who will often say they are convinced of God's existence because of the wonderful world we live in. But there is another argument along these lines. In Romans 1:19,20 Paul says 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and invisible nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.'
Now where is there mention of a designer there? We tend to assume Paul is speaking of people knowing that God is the designer in these verses. But is he? 'Eternal power' and 'divine nature' may include the fact that God is designer, but then again it may not, and may include things that are deeper than and perhaps different from 'design'.
So perhaps design, and the fact that God is designer, are not the most important things that can be said about God. It certainly is not the thing Paul seems to major on here. So when we are evangelising, we know we have a good friend in the mind of the believer - a witness to God's existence, eternal power and divine nature (and knowledge of judgement - Rom 1:32), but it seems that Paul is saying that this is something more powerful than the inference from nature that he is a designer. And is not perception (Rom 1:20) a different and deeper thing than inference or induction?
This is not to say that the argument from design has no uses, and with some people and in some contexts it may be very helpful, but it is not perhaps the hugely important thing that some people think - and they think so largely, one suspects, because it is the most obvious response to evolutionism and it is also the thing to which scientific evidence can point most easily. But that is to limit theology by the limits of science where we should be guided by the Word of God.
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Why Easter means I'm a Sabbatarian
I was referred last week to a blog by John Stevens the National Director of FIEC on his excellent blog 'Dissenting Opinion' on 14th April. It was entitled 'Why Easter means I'm not a Sabbatarian'. It seems late to respond to a blog but as it is a very important subject and I only read it last week I can be excused. I would have liked to comment on his blog direct but cannot find a way to do so, so I am putting it on this blog instead. You will find that you are reading one side of a conversation but I hope it makes enough sense as it stands; you can always read John's blog if you wish.
Reply to John Stevens’ blog: Theology: Why Easter means I’m not a Sabbatarian.
Dissenting Opinion - 14th April 2012.
I am only going to give a brief response to this blog as the literature is immense and most arguments have been rehearsed several times!
Taking the arguments in order:
1. The evidence of the New Testament teachings:
a) There is substantial teaching on the Sabbath in the gospels as you say eg ‘The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 3:27). This suggests something for all mankind not just for the Jews, and neither was it just a ceremonial law. Also the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mk. 3:27). This is in the context of the Sabbath being a good thing for man. It is strange to think of the Lord’s lordship being limited to the period of his earthly existence; and also for something that is such a blessing for man under the old covenant, being taken away from the new covenant believer. It will not do to say that we have something better in Christ, because it was the Sabbath as a day of rest that was good, not just as a type of Christ’s salvation; and surely we still need rest and surely we still have something in terms of spiritual rest too to look forward to?
b) Acts 15: If the Jerusalem letter was supposed to give believers an exhaustive set of rules for Christian living, this point would have some weight; but it wasn’t. The precise purpose of the letter’s provisions is debated, but it is likely to be either to keep new Christians away from practices that had particularly pagan connotations; or simply to make relations with Jewish believers harmonious. The mere fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned is of no more consequence than that the fifth, sixth or eighth commandments are not mentioned.
c) Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16: these are not easy texts and probably give anti-Sabbatarianism its strongest arguments, though much depends on the biblical framework within which one approaches them. Let me just quote Greg Beale’s handling of these texts in his helpful discussion of the Sabbath in 'A New Testament Biblical Theology' p 792: ‘Each of these texts is best understood through viewing the “sabbath day” to be the Sabbath as it was particularly observed in Israel, since most commentators agree that all these texts [he deals with Gal 4:9-10 as well] involve false teachings that entailed a return to Israel’s old laws in disregard of how Christ’s coming has changed those laws.’ What is being annulled is both the Sabbath day as Israel was to observe it and also the whole system of Sabbaths- months and seasons and years and festivals and new moons (Gal 4:9,10; Col 2:16-17). It is not inconsistent to say that Christians should still observe the Sabbath /Lord’s Day on non-ceremonial grounds, what one may call creational or eschatological grounds. Beale is convinced of the Creation mandate, as I am, and shall come to it later. But these arguments do not seem to me to be ‘extreme’ or ‘unconvincing’ ‘exegetical gymnastics’. People who have observed the Lord’s day for centuries have been quite aware of these New Testaments texts and have not regarded them as glaringly inconsistent with their practice.
2. New Testament practice: the Lord appeared to the disciples on the day of his resurrection. He appeared to them one week later. Is that not already saying something special about the ‘Lord’s Day’? He poured out his Spirit on them on the first day of the week – Pentecost, fifty days after Easter. The church was clearly used to meeting on the first day of the week as you say - Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 – and I am not sure it can be limited to ‘the Lord’s Supper’ - 1 Cor16 makes no reference to that meal. 1 Cor 16:2 is explicit however that the early Christians were expected to meet on the first day of every week and put aside some money on that day. Clearly a pattern was established. The use of the word kuriake in Rev 1:10 (‘Lord’s Day’), suggests at least that the day was of known significance to the early Christians, rather like the ‘Lord’s Supper’.
3. The evidence of the Old Testament purpose of the Sabbath.
a) Was Genesis 2:2,3 meant for man? God rested; man is made in his image. Part of that must be to imitate him so far as a finite creature can imitate an infinite Creator. For example, in exercising dominion over the earth, Adam and Eve are reflecting the kingship of God. In their holiness they are reflecting God. In creativity and thought and speech they are reflecting God. Are we to suppose that they would not reflect God in following his pattern of a day of rest? The Sabbath as our Lord said, was made for man, not just to be utilised as a sign for the Israelites.
If that is not sufficient, then Hebrews 4 should help. The argument of Hebrews 4 depends on their being an expectation that man is to rest after the pattern the Lord laid down. God entered his rest on the seventh day and provided a rest that his people could enter on entering the Promised Land. God showed man what the goal of created life was to be – rest. Canaan would not satisfy that principle. Ultimately our rest is in heaven though inaugurated though faith in Christ here. It makes little sense to think that this goal of creation was not known to Adam and Eve in the Garden and the seventh day enjoyed as a foretaste of it.
Further, in v 9 the use of the word sabbatismos instead of katapausis (the normal word for rest) suggests strongly that the writer has something other than eschatological rest in mind at this point. There is a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God – a probable link with the Sabbath of Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
b) No mention is made in your paper of Exodus 16:22-26 where the Sabbath principle is clearly known before Sinai – the manna is only to be collected on six days.
c) Exod 31:12-18 - yes the Sabbath is a sign but that is far from saying that that is all it is. It would only cease on the ending of the old covenant if it was only a sign. But it was far more than that. It was rooted, as Exod 31:12f makes clear, in creation, a sign not only that God sanctifies his people (v 13) but that he made the heaven and earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested (v 17). The two tablets with the fourth commandment on them as permanent as any of the other nine, was given to Moses, written with the finger of God, directly after the Lord said that. The Ten Commandments were certainly not a set of laws given just as part of an entire covenant framework. It is important to distinguish between covenant and law; the old covenant could become obsolete; that does not mean the Ten Commandments have.
d) Christians do experience true spiritual redemption in Christ but it is over-realised eschatology to say that because of that there is no place for a Sabbath day. We are not there yet!
e) I am not sure that Jesus’ teaching was about what the Sabbath commanded under the old covenant but ‘not what it means for Christians’. It seems he is making clearly general statements about the purpose of the Sabbath and his authority over it ( eg Mk 3:27) , which did not come to an end once he was risen.
4. The fact that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. I really do not follow why the great event that inaugurated the true rest for God’s people should be seen as a picture of its opposite! We work on six days, sure, but we begin the week now with a reminder of the fact that Christ is risen, that our salvation is already accomplished and precedes our work, rather than follows it, and that the new creation has been inaugurated. An epoch change has been introduced which makes it entirely appropriate to see the Lord’s Day as the replacement of the seventh day Jewish Sabbath, to remember the resurrection and look forward to the consummation as well as rest physically so far as possible. We are still human creatures as well as redeemed people.
As Greg Beale concludes, ‘Accordingly, the weekly sign of rest still continues for believers living on earth until all that it points to is completely fulfilled at the very end of the age in the bodily resurrection…those who contend that a weekly Sabbath is annulled because believers have begun to experience salvific rest in Christ appear not to be consistent in their already-not yet eschatology’ ( p 791).
If I may make one general point: I find it odd that the adjective ‘Sabbatarian’ is becoming popular in circles that wish to deny the abiding validity of the fourth commandment, as if those of us who hold to it were a rather small and sectarian minority! It is rather as if we were called life-ists because we believe in the sixth commandment or purists because we believe in the seventh, or honourarians because we uphold the fifth. This is the belief of the great majority of Christians throughout the world! It has been the belief of Reformed Baptists. Puritans and Non-conformists have been particularly devoted to the Lord’s Day and cannot be dismissed as legalists. There is a great onus of proof on those who seek to take one of the Ten Commandments and say it is no longer valid.
Reply to John Stevens’ blog: Theology: Why Easter means I’m not a Sabbatarian.
Dissenting Opinion - 14th April 2012.
I am only going to give a brief response to this blog as the literature is immense and most arguments have been rehearsed several times!
Taking the arguments in order:
1. The evidence of the New Testament teachings:
a) There is substantial teaching on the Sabbath in the gospels as you say eg ‘The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 3:27). This suggests something for all mankind not just for the Jews, and neither was it just a ceremonial law. Also the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mk. 3:27). This is in the context of the Sabbath being a good thing for man. It is strange to think of the Lord’s lordship being limited to the period of his earthly existence; and also for something that is such a blessing for man under the old covenant, being taken away from the new covenant believer. It will not do to say that we have something better in Christ, because it was the Sabbath as a day of rest that was good, not just as a type of Christ’s salvation; and surely we still need rest and surely we still have something in terms of spiritual rest too to look forward to?
b) Acts 15: If the Jerusalem letter was supposed to give believers an exhaustive set of rules for Christian living, this point would have some weight; but it wasn’t. The precise purpose of the letter’s provisions is debated, but it is likely to be either to keep new Christians away from practices that had particularly pagan connotations; or simply to make relations with Jewish believers harmonious. The mere fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned is of no more consequence than that the fifth, sixth or eighth commandments are not mentioned.
c) Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16: these are not easy texts and probably give anti-Sabbatarianism its strongest arguments, though much depends on the biblical framework within which one approaches them. Let me just quote Greg Beale’s handling of these texts in his helpful discussion of the Sabbath in 'A New Testament Biblical Theology' p 792: ‘Each of these texts is best understood through viewing the “sabbath day” to be the Sabbath as it was particularly observed in Israel, since most commentators agree that all these texts [he deals with Gal 4:9-10 as well] involve false teachings that entailed a return to Israel’s old laws in disregard of how Christ’s coming has changed those laws.’ What is being annulled is both the Sabbath day as Israel was to observe it and also the whole system of Sabbaths- months and seasons and years and festivals and new moons (Gal 4:9,10; Col 2:16-17). It is not inconsistent to say that Christians should still observe the Sabbath /Lord’s Day on non-ceremonial grounds, what one may call creational or eschatological grounds. Beale is convinced of the Creation mandate, as I am, and shall come to it later. But these arguments do not seem to me to be ‘extreme’ or ‘unconvincing’ ‘exegetical gymnastics’. People who have observed the Lord’s day for centuries have been quite aware of these New Testaments texts and have not regarded them as glaringly inconsistent with their practice.
2. New Testament practice: the Lord appeared to the disciples on the day of his resurrection. He appeared to them one week later. Is that not already saying something special about the ‘Lord’s Day’? He poured out his Spirit on them on the first day of the week – Pentecost, fifty days after Easter. The church was clearly used to meeting on the first day of the week as you say - Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 – and I am not sure it can be limited to ‘the Lord’s Supper’ - 1 Cor16 makes no reference to that meal. 1 Cor 16:2 is explicit however that the early Christians were expected to meet on the first day of every week and put aside some money on that day. Clearly a pattern was established. The use of the word kuriake in Rev 1:10 (‘Lord’s Day’), suggests at least that the day was of known significance to the early Christians, rather like the ‘Lord’s Supper’.
3. The evidence of the Old Testament purpose of the Sabbath.
a) Was Genesis 2:2,3 meant for man? God rested; man is made in his image. Part of that must be to imitate him so far as a finite creature can imitate an infinite Creator. For example, in exercising dominion over the earth, Adam and Eve are reflecting the kingship of God. In their holiness they are reflecting God. In creativity and thought and speech they are reflecting God. Are we to suppose that they would not reflect God in following his pattern of a day of rest? The Sabbath as our Lord said, was made for man, not just to be utilised as a sign for the Israelites.
If that is not sufficient, then Hebrews 4 should help. The argument of Hebrews 4 depends on their being an expectation that man is to rest after the pattern the Lord laid down. God entered his rest on the seventh day and provided a rest that his people could enter on entering the Promised Land. God showed man what the goal of created life was to be – rest. Canaan would not satisfy that principle. Ultimately our rest is in heaven though inaugurated though faith in Christ here. It makes little sense to think that this goal of creation was not known to Adam and Eve in the Garden and the seventh day enjoyed as a foretaste of it.
Further, in v 9 the use of the word sabbatismos instead of katapausis (the normal word for rest) suggests strongly that the writer has something other than eschatological rest in mind at this point. There is a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God – a probable link with the Sabbath of Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
b) No mention is made in your paper of Exodus 16:22-26 where the Sabbath principle is clearly known before Sinai – the manna is only to be collected on six days.
c) Exod 31:12-18 - yes the Sabbath is a sign but that is far from saying that that is all it is. It would only cease on the ending of the old covenant if it was only a sign. But it was far more than that. It was rooted, as Exod 31:12f makes clear, in creation, a sign not only that God sanctifies his people (v 13) but that he made the heaven and earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested (v 17). The two tablets with the fourth commandment on them as permanent as any of the other nine, was given to Moses, written with the finger of God, directly after the Lord said that. The Ten Commandments were certainly not a set of laws given just as part of an entire covenant framework. It is important to distinguish between covenant and law; the old covenant could become obsolete; that does not mean the Ten Commandments have.
d) Christians do experience true spiritual redemption in Christ but it is over-realised eschatology to say that because of that there is no place for a Sabbath day. We are not there yet!
e) I am not sure that Jesus’ teaching was about what the Sabbath commanded under the old covenant but ‘not what it means for Christians’. It seems he is making clearly general statements about the purpose of the Sabbath and his authority over it ( eg Mk 3:27) , which did not come to an end once he was risen.
4. The fact that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. I really do not follow why the great event that inaugurated the true rest for God’s people should be seen as a picture of its opposite! We work on six days, sure, but we begin the week now with a reminder of the fact that Christ is risen, that our salvation is already accomplished and precedes our work, rather than follows it, and that the new creation has been inaugurated. An epoch change has been introduced which makes it entirely appropriate to see the Lord’s Day as the replacement of the seventh day Jewish Sabbath, to remember the resurrection and look forward to the consummation as well as rest physically so far as possible. We are still human creatures as well as redeemed people.
As Greg Beale concludes, ‘Accordingly, the weekly sign of rest still continues for believers living on earth until all that it points to is completely fulfilled at the very end of the age in the bodily resurrection…those who contend that a weekly Sabbath is annulled because believers have begun to experience salvific rest in Christ appear not to be consistent in their already-not yet eschatology’ ( p 791).
If I may make one general point: I find it odd that the adjective ‘Sabbatarian’ is becoming popular in circles that wish to deny the abiding validity of the fourth commandment, as if those of us who hold to it were a rather small and sectarian minority! It is rather as if we were called life-ists because we believe in the sixth commandment or purists because we believe in the seventh, or honourarians because we uphold the fifth. This is the belief of the great majority of Christians throughout the world! It has been the belief of Reformed Baptists. Puritans and Non-conformists have been particularly devoted to the Lord’s Day and cannot be dismissed as legalists. There is a great onus of proof on those who seek to take one of the Ten Commandments and say it is no longer valid.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Democracy in America
Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' is full of nuggets of interest and value. For instance...
On Equality
Men's taste for freedom and equality are two different things but their passion for equality is greater. 'Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality but during certain ages their passion for it verges on excess...The passion for equality sinks deeply into every corner of the human heart, expands and fills it entirely...Do not bother to show men that their freedom is slipping from their fingers as their gaze is elsewhere; they are blind, or rather they can see only one advantage worth pursuing in the whole world.
'I think that democratic nations have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they seek it out, become attached to it, and view any departure from it with distress. But they have a burning, insatiable, constant, and invincible passion for equality; they want equality in freedom and, if they cannot have it, they want it in slavery. They will endure poverty, subjection, barbarism but they will not endure aristocracy.'
On Individualism
'Individualism is a recently coined expression prompted by a new idea, for our forefathers knew only of egoism. Egoism is an ardent and excessive love of oneself... Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which persuades each citizen to cut himself off from his fellows and to withdraw into the circle of his family and friends in such a way that he creates a small group of his own and willingly abandons society at large to its own devices. Egoism springs from a blind instinct; individualism from wrong-headed thinking rather than from depraved feelings...Egoism is a perversity as old as the world...; Individualism is democratic in origin and threatens to grow as conditions become equal.'
On American love of associating
'Americans of all ages, conditions and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, distribute books, dispatch missionaries to the antipodes. They establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method...The English often perform great things as single individuals, whereas scarcely any minor initiative exists where Americans do not form associations... A government could take the place of some of the largest American associations and several individual states have already tried to do so. But what political power could ever substitute for the countless small enterprises which American citizens carry out daily with the help of associations?'
And thus - my 100th blog-post since beginning this digital pin-board in December 2009!
On Equality
Men's taste for freedom and equality are two different things but their passion for equality is greater. 'Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality but during certain ages their passion for it verges on excess...The passion for equality sinks deeply into every corner of the human heart, expands and fills it entirely...Do not bother to show men that their freedom is slipping from their fingers as their gaze is elsewhere; they are blind, or rather they can see only one advantage worth pursuing in the whole world.
'I think that democratic nations have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they seek it out, become attached to it, and view any departure from it with distress. But they have a burning, insatiable, constant, and invincible passion for equality; they want equality in freedom and, if they cannot have it, they want it in slavery. They will endure poverty, subjection, barbarism but they will not endure aristocracy.'
On Individualism
'Individualism is a recently coined expression prompted by a new idea, for our forefathers knew only of egoism. Egoism is an ardent and excessive love of oneself... Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which persuades each citizen to cut himself off from his fellows and to withdraw into the circle of his family and friends in such a way that he creates a small group of his own and willingly abandons society at large to its own devices. Egoism springs from a blind instinct; individualism from wrong-headed thinking rather than from depraved feelings...Egoism is a perversity as old as the world...; Individualism is democratic in origin and threatens to grow as conditions become equal.'
On American love of associating
'Americans of all ages, conditions and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, distribute books, dispatch missionaries to the antipodes. They establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method...The English often perform great things as single individuals, whereas scarcely any minor initiative exists where Americans do not form associations... A government could take the place of some of the largest American associations and several individual states have already tried to do so. But what political power could ever substitute for the countless small enterprises which American citizens carry out daily with the help of associations?'
And thus - my 100th blog-post since beginning this digital pin-board in December 2009!
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Zeal for Godliness
My attachment to devotional books is not as great as it used to be and that may say something about me, but occasionally I find a good one and 'Zeal for Godliness' is one.
It is subtitled 'Devotional Meditations on Calvin's Institutes'. Would it make any difference, I think to myself, if 'Devotional' had been left out of that title?
However...
It consists of about 240 meditations of three or four paragraphs, each one covering a few chapters of the Institutes. The contributors comprise some of the great and the good of Reformed theology: Sinclair Ferguson, Paul Helm, Philip Ryken,Iain D. Campbell, Ligon Duncan, Justin Taylor, Derek Thomas, Carl Trueman and others. Inevitably the content is theological but with a challenge to the heart. Sometimes one feels the need to refer to Calvin himself - which is I suppose no bad thing but could be time-consuming if it happens too often.
There is a certain danger in doing one's devotions not only at one remove (comments on the Bible) but at two removes (comments on a book based on the Bible) so it is no substitute for biblical meditation. But it is fresh and stimulating.
If you want something a little different to refresh your spiritual exercises, then this could be the book for you.
(Published by EP, 2011).
It is subtitled 'Devotional Meditations on Calvin's Institutes'. Would it make any difference, I think to myself, if 'Devotional' had been left out of that title?
However...
It consists of about 240 meditations of three or four paragraphs, each one covering a few chapters of the Institutes. The contributors comprise some of the great and the good of Reformed theology: Sinclair Ferguson, Paul Helm, Philip Ryken,Iain D. Campbell, Ligon Duncan, Justin Taylor, Derek Thomas, Carl Trueman and others. Inevitably the content is theological but with a challenge to the heart. Sometimes one feels the need to refer to Calvin himself - which is I suppose no bad thing but could be time-consuming if it happens too often.
There is a certain danger in doing one's devotions not only at one remove (comments on the Bible) but at two removes (comments on a book based on the Bible) so it is no substitute for biblical meditation. But it is fresh and stimulating.
If you want something a little different to refresh your spiritual exercises, then this could be the book for you.
(Published by EP, 2011).
Monday, 20 August 2012
Green pastures in Brittany
The time has gone incredibly quickly but a week last Saturday we returned home from a wonderful family holiday in Brittany.
Our home for two weeks was a cottage on 'Le Venec', a farm near the village of Loperec in central Finistere, about 8 miles inland and slightly north from Chateaulin. John and Jo Bryant who own the farm (which has two other attached cottages on it) live next door and their generosity and warmth made the holiday special. John would pop in each day with something - courgettes the size of marrows, eggs, beans or an invitation for the boys to go to walk the dogs or paint the hen house with him. They did not really need much more to make their holiday. They could go out early in the morning; we could relax. Vacances completes.
But of course we did do a lot of other things. The beach - Pentrez Plage was the best with acres of clean sand and free parking on the edge of the beach so no miles to walk over pebbles carrying chairs, tent, spades and bags. A little beach near Douarnenez was good too but a bit hot and very busy the afternoon we visited. A swimming pool with water chute and wave machine was a good alternative one day when we visited Quimper.
Pont l'Abbe was the little town where I lived for 6 months in 1975 working as an assistant in the Lycee Laennec. It has not changed much. I could see the room in which I had lived and the classrooms in which I had conversed in English with groups of French teenagers.
We walked along the riverside path in Huelgoat, strewn with massive boulders, and revisited a week later for the boating lake - Thomas and Hilary in the 'police' boat, Nathaniel and I in the 007 boat. Then a family pedallo round the lake.
We visited Locronan, a highly commercialised but very picturesque medieval town, and the abbey at Landevennec, founded, like a lot of religious establishments in Brittany by a Welsh monk (this one by St Guenole, a big noise in early Breton Christianity). I had once stayed a night in a guest room there on a hitch-hiking trip, in the absence of a local youth hostel.
We twice visited the nearby village of Pleyben, with an immense junk-shop about two kilometres away, to which we walked, and poked around at loads of interesting and not so interesting stuff sourced from house and shop clearances. Pleyben also has a chocolaterie!
We could not stay in Brittany without eating crepes which we did in style twice, once in Le Faou and once in a delightful creperie on the edge of a lake a few miles north of Le Venec - a lake which has its own beach, so no problem in entertaining the boys afterwards.
Our one visit to church (the first Sunday we listened to a sermon in the house and sang some hymns with the help of a CD) was to an evangelical church in Brest where we were given a warm welcome and heard a good message on Jeremiah 1, translated for us by Jo Bryant. In the afternoon we took a picnic into a local botanical garden where it rained heavily for a while but we had a lovely walk down to the beach and back.
Meanwhile back at the ranch - we read, played Scrabble (Hilary usually wins), watched the Olympics and the boys enjoyed playing around on the farm, 'helping' John or scooting in the yard.
A great holiday; it went too quickly. Even the 11 hour drive back to Dunkerque did not erase the relaxation or the memories!
Our home for two weeks was a cottage on 'Le Venec', a farm near the village of Loperec in central Finistere, about 8 miles inland and slightly north from Chateaulin. John and Jo Bryant who own the farm (which has two other attached cottages on it) live next door and their generosity and warmth made the holiday special. John would pop in each day with something - courgettes the size of marrows, eggs, beans or an invitation for the boys to go to walk the dogs or paint the hen house with him. They did not really need much more to make their holiday. They could go out early in the morning; we could relax. Vacances completes.
But of course we did do a lot of other things. The beach - Pentrez Plage was the best with acres of clean sand and free parking on the edge of the beach so no miles to walk over pebbles carrying chairs, tent, spades and bags. A little beach near Douarnenez was good too but a bit hot and very busy the afternoon we visited. A swimming pool with water chute and wave machine was a good alternative one day when we visited Quimper.
Pont l'Abbe was the little town where I lived for 6 months in 1975 working as an assistant in the Lycee Laennec. It has not changed much. I could see the room in which I had lived and the classrooms in which I had conversed in English with groups of French teenagers.
We walked along the riverside path in Huelgoat, strewn with massive boulders, and revisited a week later for the boating lake - Thomas and Hilary in the 'police' boat, Nathaniel and I in the 007 boat. Then a family pedallo round the lake.
We visited Locronan, a highly commercialised but very picturesque medieval town, and the abbey at Landevennec, founded, like a lot of religious establishments in Brittany by a Welsh monk (this one by St Guenole, a big noise in early Breton Christianity). I had once stayed a night in a guest room there on a hitch-hiking trip, in the absence of a local youth hostel.
We twice visited the nearby village of Pleyben, with an immense junk-shop about two kilometres away, to which we walked, and poked around at loads of interesting and not so interesting stuff sourced from house and shop clearances. Pleyben also has a chocolaterie!
We could not stay in Brittany without eating crepes which we did in style twice, once in Le Faou and once in a delightful creperie on the edge of a lake a few miles north of Le Venec - a lake which has its own beach, so no problem in entertaining the boys afterwards.
Our one visit to church (the first Sunday we listened to a sermon in the house and sang some hymns with the help of a CD) was to an evangelical church in Brest where we were given a warm welcome and heard a good message on Jeremiah 1, translated for us by Jo Bryant. In the afternoon we took a picnic into a local botanical garden where it rained heavily for a while but we had a lovely walk down to the beach and back.
Meanwhile back at the ranch - we read, played Scrabble (Hilary usually wins), watched the Olympics and the boys enjoyed playing around on the farm, 'helping' John or scooting in the yard.
A great holiday; it went too quickly. Even the 11 hour drive back to Dunkerque did not erase the relaxation or the memories!
The Power of Parliament
In 1796 in 'The Constitution of England, or An Account of the English Government' J.L. De Lolme wrote: 'It is a fundamental principle with English lawyers, that Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man, and a man a woman'.
Perhaps the expected proposals to legislate for same sex marriage will be the next best thing, and the most self-exalting ambition yet for the sovereignty of Parliament.
Perhaps the expected proposals to legislate for same sex marriage will be the next best thing, and the most self-exalting ambition yet for the sovereignty of Parliament.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Casualness
You can of course lead a service of worship perfectly well wearing a tee-shirt and jeans. You can lead it very badly with a suit and tie and snow white shirt. Spirituality and ability are not affected by what we wear. Casualness is not just about our appearance.
In recent months I have for various reasons had occasion to worship in other churches in this country and abroad. 'Casualness' is the abiding impression left with me - due mainly to the person or persons leading the service, but also to some extent to the congregation. On one occasion (abroad) I did come away feeling I had worshipped God. The way things were led was conducive to worship and I felt edified. In other cases sadly I came away feeling as if I had not worshipped.
Casualness. What is it? Not just what we wear, though that may be an expression in some cases of a desire to be casual. Sometimes it is seen in the use of jargon. In two services recently in quite different places the preacher described the teaching of his text as 'heavy stuff'. Is that language coming back from the sixties?
Casualness is really more an attitude of mind.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: Sunday is no different from any other day.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: church is no different from any other place, and what we do there is no different from any other activity.
Above all it comes across as a refusal to show that we are making any effort. It is not 'cool' (there you are, jargon) to put effort into anything. We can dawdle into church (can we say 'God's presence' today - do people believe church gatherings are any more in God's presence than watching the Olympics or relaxing on the beach?) and be casual about how we dress, how we behave and how - we worship. We sing casually, read Scripture casually, pray (if we do at all - one service was horribly lacking in anything approaching serious prayer, certainly of intercession), and preach casually. And - yes, listen casually, of course.
Then, perhaps we live casually.
We are bound to absorb something of our culture. No generation of Christians can avoid that. What we can and must do is be sure that we are not absorbing worldliness. Is casualness sometimes at least a form of worldliness?
Does not God deserve, indeed demand, effort? One of the earliest books I read as a young Christian was entitled 'The Best that I can Be'. That doesn't sit easily with casualness. As Christians our worship and all else we do should be the best that we can do. God is worth no less.
Perhaps it is a sense of God that was most lacking in those services where worship did not seem to happen. God is not a casual God. Spiritual worship is the most difficult thing we can attempt. Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our meetings.
Especially in those charged with leading the worship of the people of God.
In recent months I have for various reasons had occasion to worship in other churches in this country and abroad. 'Casualness' is the abiding impression left with me - due mainly to the person or persons leading the service, but also to some extent to the congregation. On one occasion (abroad) I did come away feeling I had worshipped God. The way things were led was conducive to worship and I felt edified. In other cases sadly I came away feeling as if I had not worshipped.
Casualness. What is it? Not just what we wear, though that may be an expression in some cases of a desire to be casual. Sometimes it is seen in the use of jargon. In two services recently in quite different places the preacher described the teaching of his text as 'heavy stuff'. Is that language coming back from the sixties?
Casualness is really more an attitude of mind.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: Sunday is no different from any other day.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: church is no different from any other place, and what we do there is no different from any other activity.
Above all it comes across as a refusal to show that we are making any effort. It is not 'cool' (there you are, jargon) to put effort into anything. We can dawdle into church (can we say 'God's presence' today - do people believe church gatherings are any more in God's presence than watching the Olympics or relaxing on the beach?) and be casual about how we dress, how we behave and how - we worship. We sing casually, read Scripture casually, pray (if we do at all - one service was horribly lacking in anything approaching serious prayer, certainly of intercession), and preach casually. And - yes, listen casually, of course.
Then, perhaps we live casually.
We are bound to absorb something of our culture. No generation of Christians can avoid that. What we can and must do is be sure that we are not absorbing worldliness. Is casualness sometimes at least a form of worldliness?
Does not God deserve, indeed demand, effort? One of the earliest books I read as a young Christian was entitled 'The Best that I can Be'. That doesn't sit easily with casualness. As Christians our worship and all else we do should be the best that we can do. God is worth no less.
Perhaps it is a sense of God that was most lacking in those services where worship did not seem to happen. God is not a casual God. Spiritual worship is the most difficult thing we can attempt. Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our meetings.
Especially in those charged with leading the worship of the people of God.
Friday, 20 July 2012
The Origins of Life: Calling, union with Christ and regeneration
This snappy title is not guaranteed to attract the crowds but accurately tries to describe what this brief post is about.
For some time, and for some reason I cannot now recall, I have been interested in a matter which is not of earth-shattering importance but which has a certain attraction for those who love systematic theology and particularly the mysterious stages of the origins of the Christian life. If we are intrigued by how life in the universe began, should we not be at least as interested in how our personal spiritual lives began?
In what order do we place effectual calling, regeneration and union with Christ? Effectual calling and regeneration have often been treated as virtually or actually the same thing, or the same thing from different viewpoints. Union with Christ (and here we are talking about experiential or actual union with Christ, not union with Christ in eternity) is sometimes seen as the fruit of faith, sometimes its origin. How do we sort it out?
I shall begin with writings of Dr Lloyd -Jones. In his sermons on doctrine in 'God the Holy Spirit' (the second of three volumes) he has several sermons dealing with the issues of calling, regeneration and union with Christ. In one of them, 'A Child of God and in Christ' he writes: 'Regeneration and union must never be separated. You cannot be born again without being in Christ; you are born again because you are in Christ. The moment you are in him you are born again...Regeneration and union must always be considered together and at the same time because the one depends upon the other and leads to the other; they are mutually self-supporting.' He then goes on to look at how the union is established and says that logically (but not chronologically) union should be put first.'We are regenerated because of our union with Christ; it is from him we derive our life; it is from him we derive everything'. He then says of the origin of the union, firstly, it is a work of the Holy Spirit, quoting Eph 2:5 - God 'hath quickened us together with Christ'. 'So in the effectual call, in our regeneration and in all that we have been considering, the main work is done by the Holy Spirit'. Secondly, he looks at the role of faith. Our faith 'helps to sustain the union, to develop it and to strengthen it...It is only as faith becomes active that we become aware of the union and of our regeneration...'
Dr Lloyd Jones therefore appears to see the Holy Spirit through the effectual call bringing us into union with Christ and at that point we are regenerated. Faith begins to operate and 'strengthens' and 'develops' union with Christ, it does not originate it.
Similarly on page 112 of his second volume on Ephesians, dealing with Eph 2:4-7, he again says:'We have already seen that what makes us Christians is our union with Christ. This doctrine of our union with Christ is absolutely vital. The first thing to which it leads is regeneration, as we have already seen'.
This seems to be right. The use of Eph 2:5 supports it. 1 Peter 1:3 where Peter says we are 'born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead' again seems to support the idea of our spiritual life coming through Christ and union with him. Regeneration is the beginning of spiritual life and it is surely wrong to see any spiritual life coming to God's people, who after all have been elected in eternity in Christ, outside Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit is after all to take what is Christ's and declare it to us (John 16:14). This taking of what is Christ's must include regeneration. Regeneration is not an independent work of the Holy Spirit apart from Christ. As Dr Lloyd Jones says, we derive everything from him.
John Murray in 'Redemption Accomplished and Applied' affirms that even the elect remain 'Christless' until we are effectually called into fellowship with him (p 165). In his essay on 'faith' however he describes justifying faith as 'the initial and primary act of faith in Jesus Christ by which in our effectual calling we are united to Christ' ( p 129). So does faith effect union with Christ? This seems to go against Lloyd Jones who by insisting that regeneration is effected by union with Christ must be placing faith after union with Christ, as faith (as all parties here agree) follows regeneration. However, in discussing effectual calling (p 93) Murray says, that it is 'calling that is represented in Scripture as that act of God by which we are actually united to Christ. And surely union with Christ is that which unites us to the inwardly operative grace of God. Regeneration is the beginning of inwardly operative saving grace.'
This latter statement seems to be consistent with Lloyd Jones' position, and I take Murray's statement about faith uniting us to Christ as being rather the conscious awareness of union with Christ, the grace that sustains and strengthens union with Christ, as Lloyd Jones says, but which itself is the fruit of regeneration which itself only comes in union with Christ and is therefore prior to faith.
The blessings of special grace, says Louis Berkhof, 'can be received and enjoyed only by those who are in union with Christ...Every spiritual blessing which believers receive flows to them out of Christ' (Systematic Theology, p. 447). This is not eternal union with Christ, but actual. God elects us in Christ, calls us in Christ to actual union with Christ and in that calling we are regenerated, the first exercise of the regenerate person being saving faith and repentance.
What of the distinction between logical and chronological order? I see the point; we cannot separate chronologically these acts of God at the beginning of the spiritual life. Yet I fail to see how any 'order' in the finite world can be without some time sequence. Can anything be logical in order but not chronological? They may be inseparable but I cannot see how they can be anything but in a certain order - which, to my small time-bound mind at least, must be, for want of a better word, chronological.
For some time, and for some reason I cannot now recall, I have been interested in a matter which is not of earth-shattering importance but which has a certain attraction for those who love systematic theology and particularly the mysterious stages of the origins of the Christian life. If we are intrigued by how life in the universe began, should we not be at least as interested in how our personal spiritual lives began?
In what order do we place effectual calling, regeneration and union with Christ? Effectual calling and regeneration have often been treated as virtually or actually the same thing, or the same thing from different viewpoints. Union with Christ (and here we are talking about experiential or actual union with Christ, not union with Christ in eternity) is sometimes seen as the fruit of faith, sometimes its origin. How do we sort it out?
I shall begin with writings of Dr Lloyd -Jones. In his sermons on doctrine in 'God the Holy Spirit' (the second of three volumes) he has several sermons dealing with the issues of calling, regeneration and union with Christ. In one of them, 'A Child of God and in Christ' he writes: 'Regeneration and union must never be separated. You cannot be born again without being in Christ; you are born again because you are in Christ. The moment you are in him you are born again...Regeneration and union must always be considered together and at the same time because the one depends upon the other and leads to the other; they are mutually self-supporting.' He then goes on to look at how the union is established and says that logically (but not chronologically) union should be put first.'We are regenerated because of our union with Christ; it is from him we derive our life; it is from him we derive everything'. He then says of the origin of the union, firstly, it is a work of the Holy Spirit, quoting Eph 2:5 - God 'hath quickened us together with Christ'. 'So in the effectual call, in our regeneration and in all that we have been considering, the main work is done by the Holy Spirit'. Secondly, he looks at the role of faith. Our faith 'helps to sustain the union, to develop it and to strengthen it...It is only as faith becomes active that we become aware of the union and of our regeneration...'
Dr Lloyd Jones therefore appears to see the Holy Spirit through the effectual call bringing us into union with Christ and at that point we are regenerated. Faith begins to operate and 'strengthens' and 'develops' union with Christ, it does not originate it.
Similarly on page 112 of his second volume on Ephesians, dealing with Eph 2:4-7, he again says:'We have already seen that what makes us Christians is our union with Christ. This doctrine of our union with Christ is absolutely vital. The first thing to which it leads is regeneration, as we have already seen'.
This seems to be right. The use of Eph 2:5 supports it. 1 Peter 1:3 where Peter says we are 'born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead' again seems to support the idea of our spiritual life coming through Christ and union with him. Regeneration is the beginning of spiritual life and it is surely wrong to see any spiritual life coming to God's people, who after all have been elected in eternity in Christ, outside Christ. The work of the Holy Spirit is after all to take what is Christ's and declare it to us (John 16:14). This taking of what is Christ's must include regeneration. Regeneration is not an independent work of the Holy Spirit apart from Christ. As Dr Lloyd Jones says, we derive everything from him.
John Murray in 'Redemption Accomplished and Applied' affirms that even the elect remain 'Christless' until we are effectually called into fellowship with him (p 165). In his essay on 'faith' however he describes justifying faith as 'the initial and primary act of faith in Jesus Christ by which in our effectual calling we are united to Christ' ( p 129). So does faith effect union with Christ? This seems to go against Lloyd Jones who by insisting that regeneration is effected by union with Christ must be placing faith after union with Christ, as faith (as all parties here agree) follows regeneration. However, in discussing effectual calling (p 93) Murray says, that it is 'calling that is represented in Scripture as that act of God by which we are actually united to Christ. And surely union with Christ is that which unites us to the inwardly operative grace of God. Regeneration is the beginning of inwardly operative saving grace.'
This latter statement seems to be consistent with Lloyd Jones' position, and I take Murray's statement about faith uniting us to Christ as being rather the conscious awareness of union with Christ, the grace that sustains and strengthens union with Christ, as Lloyd Jones says, but which itself is the fruit of regeneration which itself only comes in union with Christ and is therefore prior to faith.
The blessings of special grace, says Louis Berkhof, 'can be received and enjoyed only by those who are in union with Christ...Every spiritual blessing which believers receive flows to them out of Christ' (Systematic Theology, p. 447). This is not eternal union with Christ, but actual. God elects us in Christ, calls us in Christ to actual union with Christ and in that calling we are regenerated, the first exercise of the regenerate person being saving faith and repentance.
What of the distinction between logical and chronological order? I see the point; we cannot separate chronologically these acts of God at the beginning of the spiritual life. Yet I fail to see how any 'order' in the finite world can be without some time sequence. Can anything be logical in order but not chronological? They may be inseparable but I cannot see how they can be anything but in a certain order - which, to my small time-bound mind at least, must be, for want of a better word, chronological.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
The Desire of the Nations (2)
Long ago, and far far away, I set out with the good intention of summarising Oliver O'Donovan's book of the above title. Having completed a summary of chapters 1 and 2 I got lost in time and inertia. Meanwhile, however, I have discovered a good brief abstract of the book by David vanDrunen in 'Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms'. It is a footnote on page 431 (yes, it is one of those books with half page footnotes). So here is vanDrunen's precis of O'Donovan, slightly abridged by me.
Remember that vanDrunen is approaching O'Donovan from the perspective of the latter's handling of the 'two kingdoms' doctrine in Reformed theology, but it is nonetheless a helpful outline of O'Donovan's thesis.
O'Donovan acknowledges something of a two kingdoms reality in parts of the Old Testament, but he emphasizes Christ's proclamation of the kingdom which announces the unity of the religious and political realms under the reign of God and challenges the two kingdoms situation (ch.3).
In Christ's resurrection, the earthly powers have been subdued and made subject to divine sovereignty; yet the sovereignty of God is not now completely manifest, and the powers are still given a certain (secular) space and authority to exercise their judicial function, though they ought to serve the church's mission (ch. 4).
After Christ's ascension, therefore, the terms on which political authorities function are not the same as they were before; see also O'Donovan's 'The Ways of Judgment' (Eerdmans 2005), p 5. Society is to be transformed and its rulers disappear. Christendom (" the idea of a confessionally Christian government") is not a project of, but a response to, the church's mission, as the alien powers become attentive to the church. The Christian state may be disclosed from time to time but it should not coerce belief or try to protect its own existence (ch.6).
In 'The Ways of Judgment' he speaks of the redemptive, transforming work of the church, gospel, and Holy Spirit on the state as the sphere of human judgment and therefore argues that there is a place for mercy in civil judgement (ch. 6). Here he also discusses the proclamation of the cross and the coming of the kingdom as a challenge to the conditions of the earthly political authority and opposes an a-political theology disinterested in social life (231-34).
From the other direction, in 'The Ways of Judgment', he critiques the two swords idea, originating with Gelasius, for teaching that there are certain spheres of social life that are in principle beyond the reach of governmental intervention (62).
Remember that vanDrunen is approaching O'Donovan from the perspective of the latter's handling of the 'two kingdoms' doctrine in Reformed theology, but it is nonetheless a helpful outline of O'Donovan's thesis.
O'Donovan acknowledges something of a two kingdoms reality in parts of the Old Testament, but he emphasizes Christ's proclamation of the kingdom which announces the unity of the religious and political realms under the reign of God and challenges the two kingdoms situation (ch.3).
In Christ's resurrection, the earthly powers have been subdued and made subject to divine sovereignty; yet the sovereignty of God is not now completely manifest, and the powers are still given a certain (secular) space and authority to exercise their judicial function, though they ought to serve the church's mission (ch. 4).
After Christ's ascension, therefore, the terms on which political authorities function are not the same as they were before; see also O'Donovan's 'The Ways of Judgment' (Eerdmans 2005), p 5. Society is to be transformed and its rulers disappear. Christendom (" the idea of a confessionally Christian government") is not a project of, but a response to, the church's mission, as the alien powers become attentive to the church. The Christian state may be disclosed from time to time but it should not coerce belief or try to protect its own existence (ch.6).
In 'The Ways of Judgment' he speaks of the redemptive, transforming work of the church, gospel, and Holy Spirit on the state as the sphere of human judgment and therefore argues that there is a place for mercy in civil judgement (ch. 6). Here he also discusses the proclamation of the cross and the coming of the kingdom as a challenge to the conditions of the earthly political authority and opposes an a-political theology disinterested in social life (231-34).
From the other direction, in 'The Ways of Judgment', he critiques the two swords idea, originating with Gelasius, for teaching that there are certain spheres of social life that are in principle beyond the reach of governmental intervention (62).
Friday, 15 June 2012
Packer and Spurgeon on Calvinism
I have just been re-reading Jim Packer's magnificent preface to the 1959 Banner of Truth edition of John Owen's 'The Death of Death' and came across amongst many other gems these comments on Calvinism:
'For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God - the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfillng the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves - does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners - men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners - the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour'.
'C.H.Spurgeon was thus abundantly right when he declared: " I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel...unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called" (Autobiography, Vol I chap XVI, p 172)'.
'For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners. God - the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfillng the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing. Saves - does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners - men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners - the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour'.
'C.H.Spurgeon was thus abundantly right when he declared: " I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel...unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called" (Autobiography, Vol I chap XVI, p 172)'.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Calvin on Preaching
Every so often I like to read a book on preaching. It stops one getting stale. It reminds one of the greatness, indeed the impossibility, of the task. A good book on preaching will point one in the direction of some help to improve, and remind one of the immense resources available to the faithful preacher, both in terms of the Scriptures they preach and of the God who is the source, subject and sustainer of preaching.
Recently I re-read T.H.L. Parker's book on the preaching of Calvin, 'The Oracles of God'. There is something of neo-orthodox mysticism in Parker's writing, but it cannot hide the grandeur of Calvin's views on and practice of preaching. Some brief extracts:
On the nature of preaching: unlike Luther, Calvin insisted that without the attendant operation of the Holy Spirit, preaching is ineffective. He also taught however that insofar as it is the exposition and interpretation of the Bible, which is as much the Word of God as if men 'heard the very words pronounced by God himself', preaching is itself (derivatively or by association) the Word of God. Preaching must be from the Bible; it is only in the Bible that God speaks clearly and savingly to man. Biblical preaching is truly God speaking to the congregation.
Preaching is, secondly, the Word of God also because the preacher is sent and commissioned by God. He treads a fine line between Luther who said that whenever he got up to speak it was not his word but his pen was 'the tongue of a ready writer' and the opposite extreme of the Spirit being a fitful and unreliable presence. The fact that the pastor has been chosen by God to preach means that God will give him His Word to speak. He may be assured that God will as it pleases him give his Holy Spirit to make the preacher's words his Word. But the preacher cannot take for granted the presence of the Spirit.
Preaching is thirdly, revelation. It is by God's Word that God is known. Preaching is the Word of God when God speaks through the human words revealing himself through them and using them as the vehicle of grace.'In preaching, God shows himself, as much as is expedient for us' (Sermon on Ephesians). 'And what is the mouth of God? It is a declaration that he makes to us of his will when he speaks to us by his ministers' (Sermon on Deuteronomy). 'For St Paul does not want a man to make a parade of himself so that everyone applauds him and says "Oh what fine speaking..." No, not at all! He preaches so that God may speak to us by the mouth of man' (Sermon on 1 Timothy).
On the preacher's need for preparation and humility: 'When the preacher has done all that he can, there remains to him only to cry in helplessness, "Come, Holy Ghost!"'. What he has received, he must faithfully pass on. His life must ratify his doctrine. He must remember above all that he is sent 'to procure the salvation of souls'.
On the congregation: an absolute unconditional obedience is demanded of those who hear the Word of God preached. No-one has the right to disregard the preached Word merely because of the humbleness of the preacher, provided he is called of God.
As to form and style in preaching: gifts of eloquence are useful but everything must be subordinate to the great purpose of the preacher: to be understood by his congregation. All is aimed at proclaiming Christ to the people.
One final word on the nature of the Christian life: 'But assurance of salvation does not rest upon any earthly or human basis but only on the grace which God has shown us in Jesus Christ...When God's children reach the end of their endurance, so that they know not which way to turn, and there is no escape, yet they must not cease to hope that God will show himself to be their Father and Saviour, and that he will never fail them, as long as they trust in the promise that there shall be hope for hereafter for the oppressed; and they must not cease to look to the life that is prepared for them, though they see death before their eyes'.
Recently I re-read T.H.L. Parker's book on the preaching of Calvin, 'The Oracles of God'. There is something of neo-orthodox mysticism in Parker's writing, but it cannot hide the grandeur of Calvin's views on and practice of preaching. Some brief extracts:
On the nature of preaching: unlike Luther, Calvin insisted that without the attendant operation of the Holy Spirit, preaching is ineffective. He also taught however that insofar as it is the exposition and interpretation of the Bible, which is as much the Word of God as if men 'heard the very words pronounced by God himself', preaching is itself (derivatively or by association) the Word of God. Preaching must be from the Bible; it is only in the Bible that God speaks clearly and savingly to man. Biblical preaching is truly God speaking to the congregation.
Preaching is, secondly, the Word of God also because the preacher is sent and commissioned by God. He treads a fine line between Luther who said that whenever he got up to speak it was not his word but his pen was 'the tongue of a ready writer' and the opposite extreme of the Spirit being a fitful and unreliable presence. The fact that the pastor has been chosen by God to preach means that God will give him His Word to speak. He may be assured that God will as it pleases him give his Holy Spirit to make the preacher's words his Word. But the preacher cannot take for granted the presence of the Spirit.
Preaching is thirdly, revelation. It is by God's Word that God is known. Preaching is the Word of God when God speaks through the human words revealing himself through them and using them as the vehicle of grace.'In preaching, God shows himself, as much as is expedient for us' (Sermon on Ephesians). 'And what is the mouth of God? It is a declaration that he makes to us of his will when he speaks to us by his ministers' (Sermon on Deuteronomy). 'For St Paul does not want a man to make a parade of himself so that everyone applauds him and says "Oh what fine speaking..." No, not at all! He preaches so that God may speak to us by the mouth of man' (Sermon on 1 Timothy).
On the preacher's need for preparation and humility: 'When the preacher has done all that he can, there remains to him only to cry in helplessness, "Come, Holy Ghost!"'. What he has received, he must faithfully pass on. His life must ratify his doctrine. He must remember above all that he is sent 'to procure the salvation of souls'.
On the congregation: an absolute unconditional obedience is demanded of those who hear the Word of God preached. No-one has the right to disregard the preached Word merely because of the humbleness of the preacher, provided he is called of God.
As to form and style in preaching: gifts of eloquence are useful but everything must be subordinate to the great purpose of the preacher: to be understood by his congregation. All is aimed at proclaiming Christ to the people.
One final word on the nature of the Christian life: 'But assurance of salvation does not rest upon any earthly or human basis but only on the grace which God has shown us in Jesus Christ...When God's children reach the end of their endurance, so that they know not which way to turn, and there is no escape, yet they must not cease to hope that God will show himself to be their Father and Saviour, and that he will never fail them, as long as they trust in the promise that there shall be hope for hereafter for the oppressed; and they must not cease to look to the life that is prepared for them, though they see death before their eyes'.
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Francis Schaeffer - published
My Bitesize Biography of Francis Schaeffer is now out - retailing at £5.99. About 140 pages.
Should be available at bookshops or from Evangelical Press via IVP at this website: http://trade.ivpbooks.com/series/Bitesize%20Biographies
Friday, 18 May 2012
The Desire of the Nations
Oliver O'Donovan is a fine intellect but I don't think he could write something simple to save his life. Or maybe it is just the books of his I have read.
'The Desire of the Nations' is an exercise in political theology. He moves swiftly to the issue of authority which he says is 'the objective correlate of freedom' and which evokes free action, unlike mere power or force. Human authority is both authorised and, therefore, authoritative. A theological study of authority must begin with the kingdom of God and to understand that we need to understand politics and Israel - including understanding Israel for today.
Did Israel crying 'the Lord is King' mean that as a spiritual or political reality ? What do those words mean? What does 'my kingdom is not of this world' mean? So the scene is set.
Yhwh's kingship is established in four realities: (i)victorious deliverance of his people (salvation); (ii)justice - bringing right and wrong to light; (iii)the possession of a community - his people (and Yhwh as his people's possession) - which was expressed in the special relationship between the people and the land. These three points reveal the nature of political authority (see thesis '1' below). Here lies the continuity between Israel and the western tradition.
(iv)Then there is praise - which does not contribute to authority but responds to it, though it is through his people's praise (proper acknowledgement) that God's rule takes effect. There is an act of worship at the heart of every political society. State authority (idolatry) begins when people forget who gives the authority. See thesis '3' below.
Six theses perhaps unfold his thinking well enough:
1. Political authority arises where power, the execution of right and the perpetuation of tradition are assured together in one co-ordinated agency.
2. That any regime should actually come to hold authority and should continue to hold it is a work of divine providence in history, not a mere accomplishment of the human task of political service.
3. In acknowledging political authority society proves its political identity.
4. The authority of a human regime mediates divine authority in a unitary structure but is subject to the authority of law within the community, which bears independent witness to the divine command.
5. The appropriate unifying element in international order is law rather than government.
6. The conscience of the individual members of a community is a repository of the moral understanding which shaped it, and may serve to perpetuate it in a crisis of collapsing morale or institution.
Mediators (kings, priests) are there to mediate God's authority - in salvation, justice and possession / tradition. See thesis 4 above. But international rule is bestial - empire in Scripture is anti God - God will not provide a world ruler - this is anti-Christian. See thesis '5'. International order is by law, which is often identified as Natural Law.
Meanwhile individualism grew in importance but is not the radical individualism of today but serves to preserve the faith in the community - the new covenant. The individual is always seen in the context of community. See thesis '6'.
Well,that brings us to the end of chapter 2...
'The Desire of the Nations' is an exercise in political theology. He moves swiftly to the issue of authority which he says is 'the objective correlate of freedom' and which evokes free action, unlike mere power or force. Human authority is both authorised and, therefore, authoritative. A theological study of authority must begin with the kingdom of God and to understand that we need to understand politics and Israel - including understanding Israel for today.
Did Israel crying 'the Lord is King' mean that as a spiritual or political reality ? What do those words mean? What does 'my kingdom is not of this world' mean? So the scene is set.
Yhwh's kingship is established in four realities: (i)victorious deliverance of his people (salvation); (ii)justice - bringing right and wrong to light; (iii)the possession of a community - his people (and Yhwh as his people's possession) - which was expressed in the special relationship between the people and the land. These three points reveal the nature of political authority (see thesis '1' below). Here lies the continuity between Israel and the western tradition.
(iv)Then there is praise - which does not contribute to authority but responds to it, though it is through his people's praise (proper acknowledgement) that God's rule takes effect. There is an act of worship at the heart of every political society. State authority (idolatry) begins when people forget who gives the authority. See thesis '3' below.
Six theses perhaps unfold his thinking well enough:
1. Political authority arises where power, the execution of right and the perpetuation of tradition are assured together in one co-ordinated agency.
2. That any regime should actually come to hold authority and should continue to hold it is a work of divine providence in history, not a mere accomplishment of the human task of political service.
3. In acknowledging political authority society proves its political identity.
4. The authority of a human regime mediates divine authority in a unitary structure but is subject to the authority of law within the community, which bears independent witness to the divine command.
5. The appropriate unifying element in international order is law rather than government.
6. The conscience of the individual members of a community is a repository of the moral understanding which shaped it, and may serve to perpetuate it in a crisis of collapsing morale or institution.
Mediators (kings, priests) are there to mediate God's authority - in salvation, justice and possession / tradition. See thesis 4 above. But international rule is bestial - empire in Scripture is anti God - God will not provide a world ruler - this is anti-Christian. See thesis '5'. International order is by law, which is often identified as Natural Law.
Meanwhile individualism grew in importance but is not the radical individualism of today but serves to preserve the faith in the community - the new covenant. The individual is always seen in the context of community. See thesis '6'.
Well,that brings us to the end of chapter 2...
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Crime wave
Many , I know, will entertain the ludicrous idea that Welwyn in Hertfordshire is a sleepy little village on the edge of Welwyn Garden City where nothing much happens and the biggest excitement of the year is the Welwyn Festival, street market and fete every June (wow - only a few weeks away).
The monthly bulletin in the Parish Magazine from our local bobby tells a different story. Read this...
'During March I continued to tackle the issues which are repeatedly raised at beat meetings in my area, namely speeding and drivers obstructing the zebra controlled area on High Street, Welwyn. One driver obstructing the crossing selected to go to court and the case was heard on 20th March. I attended court but the driver failed to appear and was found guilty in his absence, given 3 penalty points and ordered to pay a total of £795 in costs. The courts are clearly taking this issue as seriously as I am.
'Crime in the area remains low, with only six crimes being recorded for March 2012. There was a theft of number plates, a smashed residential window, a theft of copper pipes from a building site, two non-residential burglaries and one common assault (which is the lowest form of assault, incurring no injuries).
'One of the burglaries was at the old Clock Hotel site. We promptly attended, arrested three people and, following their admissions, they were issued with Police cautions, having previously been of good character. [The Clock Hotel, I should add, is a derelict and crumbling old hotel site]. The other burglary was from a cupboard in Ottway Walk, but unfortunately we have no leads and no one has yet been arrested. Following the common assault in a pub in Welwyn, a man was arrested and charged, and will soon be appearing in court.' [People should obviously not leave leads in cupboards in Ottway Walk].
My only is concern is that our bobby describes this as a 'low' crime rate; I hope he is not getting complacent. It is a wonder we sleep easy in our beds.
The monthly bulletin in the Parish Magazine from our local bobby tells a different story. Read this...
'During March I continued to tackle the issues which are repeatedly raised at beat meetings in my area, namely speeding and drivers obstructing the zebra controlled area on High Street, Welwyn. One driver obstructing the crossing selected to go to court and the case was heard on 20th March. I attended court but the driver failed to appear and was found guilty in his absence, given 3 penalty points and ordered to pay a total of £795 in costs. The courts are clearly taking this issue as seriously as I am.
'Crime in the area remains low, with only six crimes being recorded for March 2012. There was a theft of number plates, a smashed residential window, a theft of copper pipes from a building site, two non-residential burglaries and one common assault (which is the lowest form of assault, incurring no injuries).
'One of the burglaries was at the old Clock Hotel site. We promptly attended, arrested three people and, following their admissions, they were issued with Police cautions, having previously been of good character. [The Clock Hotel, I should add, is a derelict and crumbling old hotel site]. The other burglary was from a cupboard in Ottway Walk, but unfortunately we have no leads and no one has yet been arrested. Following the common assault in a pub in Welwyn, a man was arrested and charged, and will soon be appearing in court.' [People should obviously not leave leads in cupboards in Ottway Walk].
My only is concern is that our bobby describes this as a 'low' crime rate; I hope he is not getting complacent. It is a wonder we sleep easy in our beds.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Zippo's Circus
One evening last week our younger boy asked 'Dad, what do people do at a circus?' I tried to answer.
On my way home from the church on Monday lunchtime, walking through the village, I saw a big poster in Pete Morgan the barber's, advertising 'Zippo's Circus', in Hitchin on Monday and Tuesday evenings. I conferred quickly with Hilary and bought four tickets for the 5.00 show.
Ringside seats, the smell of the sawdust, young men dressed up like 'Buttons' in smart jackets selling popcorn, a clown or two warming up the audience, and Norman Barrett MBE in immaculate red tail coat and top hat checking everything out and having a friendly chat with a few of the crowd.
Then we were off. Clowns (a young couple called the Delbosqs), then a girl juggling amazing things on her feet, then a palomino and a Shetland pony, Norman Barrett and his performing budgies, a clown or two on a trampoline, a girl on a high rope, amazing acrobatics from the 'The Kenyan Boys', a trapeze artist, four palominos with Yasmine Smart, more juggling and fire-eating, more clowns, and an incredible finale with three Brazilians on motorbikes whizzing around inside a cage ball which looked about 12 feet in diameter; then two went around with a girl standing in the middle. Oh yes, there as an interval. The whole thing lasted not far short of two hours.
The boys loved it. So did we. It was not as sophisticated as what one sees on telly, but it was real, it was live, three dimensional, and we were three feet away from it. What is more, there were no hyped-up people whooping and hollering or judges to make rude remarks. One could just enjoy, get lost in it, maybe a fading world, which we thought the boys will be unlikely to have many opportunities of seeing again.
There were only about 100 - 120 people there. It was probably a bad time - no doubt at weekends or later in the evening there would be more. But what impressed me was the way the performers gave their all; there were no half measures and no cynicism about the small audience; all the bowing and swaggering and playing to the crowd was there. True professionalism. Made me think a bit about ever letting my preaching be affected by a small congregation!
Thank you Zippo's - a great evening to remember for all of us.
On my way home from the church on Monday lunchtime, walking through the village, I saw a big poster in Pete Morgan the barber's, advertising 'Zippo's Circus', in Hitchin on Monday and Tuesday evenings. I conferred quickly with Hilary and bought four tickets for the 5.00 show.
Ringside seats, the smell of the sawdust, young men dressed up like 'Buttons' in smart jackets selling popcorn, a clown or two warming up the audience, and Norman Barrett MBE in immaculate red tail coat and top hat checking everything out and having a friendly chat with a few of the crowd.
Then we were off. Clowns (a young couple called the Delbosqs), then a girl juggling amazing things on her feet, then a palomino and a Shetland pony, Norman Barrett and his performing budgies, a clown or two on a trampoline, a girl on a high rope, amazing acrobatics from the 'The Kenyan Boys', a trapeze artist, four palominos with Yasmine Smart, more juggling and fire-eating, more clowns, and an incredible finale with three Brazilians on motorbikes whizzing around inside a cage ball which looked about 12 feet in diameter; then two went around with a girl standing in the middle. Oh yes, there as an interval. The whole thing lasted not far short of two hours.
The boys loved it. So did we. It was not as sophisticated as what one sees on telly, but it was real, it was live, three dimensional, and we were three feet away from it. What is more, there were no hyped-up people whooping and hollering or judges to make rude remarks. One could just enjoy, get lost in it, maybe a fading world, which we thought the boys will be unlikely to have many opportunities of seeing again.
There were only about 100 - 120 people there. It was probably a bad time - no doubt at weekends or later in the evening there would be more. But what impressed me was the way the performers gave their all; there were no half measures and no cynicism about the small audience; all the bowing and swaggering and playing to the crowd was there. True professionalism. Made me think a bit about ever letting my preaching be affected by a small congregation!
Thank you Zippo's - a great evening to remember for all of us.
Monday, 30 April 2012
Spiritual angst at 20
I was intrigued, on delving into a couple of old notebooks in which I worked my way through 'Search the Scriptures' in my university days, to find the following:
'O Lord, you know that now I am utterly confused about my spiritual condition. But you have given me certain lights to follow in my reading and talks I have heard.
1. My salvation is an objective fact, not a subjective feeling. I AM dead to sin.
2. My sanctification will only follow by God revealing to me more of His Son.
3. I can do nothing to precipitate this revelation; it can only come as a sequel to faith.
4. I can do nothing to generate faith; it will only come by God's Grace.
5. God's Grace will only have effect as long as I realise and act on the fact that I am saved and believe and trust in His Word. I do have the power to conquer sin through Jesus Christ; I must open my soul to that power, and rejoice in the love that makes it available to me. Only thus, can I, as salt, not lose my taste...'
A mixture of the good and slightly ambiguous so far as theology is concerned. Indeed considering the lack of any real teaching I was getting then, apart from Christian Union Bible studies and my own reading, I am surprised it is not worse. I had been a Christian about 12-15 months at this time but had not learned the importance of going to a good 'Bible teaching' church, much less did I have any clue about 'Reformed' things or even what a Calvinist was as opposed to an Arminian. I was, I think, instinctively, by my Calvinist-Methodist (though theologically very liberal) upbringing and by common grace a Calvinist, if such a thing is possible - is it truer for Celts? -, and the experience of regeneration by grace made this spiritually real and developed it. I remember over a college lunch once defending Calvin against a rabid Arminian supporter of Roger Forster (of Ichthus Fellowship fame - remember?)even though I had read nothing by Calvin at that stage. It wasn't until I went to L'Abri in 1981 that I really appreciated what Calvinism meant biblically, theologically and spiritually. I read the 'Institutes' in 1981-82.
A couple of pages/studies later in the same notebook I found the following:
'I realise that this parable [I think it must have been the parable of the 'dishonest steward' in Luke 16] speaks to me. I am not trustworthy with the riches that God showers on me, I spend too extravagantly on myself, to enjoy myself or to boost my ego (e.g. clothes)... At the moment I have a big question mark looming over my head as to whether I should spend £10 on a pair of jeans. I honestly do not know whether it is just a fad - an expensive, selfish desire - or whether it is justified i.e in accordance with God's will...'
Over-scrupulous perhaps?
'O Lord, you know that now I am utterly confused about my spiritual condition. But you have given me certain lights to follow in my reading and talks I have heard.
1. My salvation is an objective fact, not a subjective feeling. I AM dead to sin.
2. My sanctification will only follow by God revealing to me more of His Son.
3. I can do nothing to precipitate this revelation; it can only come as a sequel to faith.
4. I can do nothing to generate faith; it will only come by God's Grace.
5. God's Grace will only have effect as long as I realise and act on the fact that I am saved and believe and trust in His Word. I do have the power to conquer sin through Jesus Christ; I must open my soul to that power, and rejoice in the love that makes it available to me. Only thus, can I, as salt, not lose my taste...'
A mixture of the good and slightly ambiguous so far as theology is concerned. Indeed considering the lack of any real teaching I was getting then, apart from Christian Union Bible studies and my own reading, I am surprised it is not worse. I had been a Christian about 12-15 months at this time but had not learned the importance of going to a good 'Bible teaching' church, much less did I have any clue about 'Reformed' things or even what a Calvinist was as opposed to an Arminian. I was, I think, instinctively, by my Calvinist-Methodist (though theologically very liberal) upbringing and by common grace a Calvinist, if such a thing is possible - is it truer for Celts? -, and the experience of regeneration by grace made this spiritually real and developed it. I remember over a college lunch once defending Calvin against a rabid Arminian supporter of Roger Forster (of Ichthus Fellowship fame - remember?)even though I had read nothing by Calvin at that stage. It wasn't until I went to L'Abri in 1981 that I really appreciated what Calvinism meant biblically, theologically and spiritually. I read the 'Institutes' in 1981-82.
A couple of pages/studies later in the same notebook I found the following:
'I realise that this parable [I think it must have been the parable of the 'dishonest steward' in Luke 16] speaks to me. I am not trustworthy with the riches that God showers on me, I spend too extravagantly on myself, to enjoy myself or to boost my ego (e.g. clothes)... At the moment I have a big question mark looming over my head as to whether I should spend £10 on a pair of jeans. I honestly do not know whether it is just a fad - an expensive, selfish desire - or whether it is justified i.e in accordance with God's will...'
Over-scrupulous perhaps?
Friday, 27 April 2012
The anchor to the gospel
‘Do this and live’
Every gospel preacher, wanting to emphasise that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, will have contrasted this gospel with the attempt to gain salvation by works. It is worth reflecting, therefore, on the fact that when the Lord Jesus Christ is asked by a lawyer ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ he answers, ‘What is written in the Law? How do you read it?’ When the lawyer repeats the two great commandments, concerning loving God and loving your neighbour, Jesus says, ‘You have answered correctly; do this and you will live’ (Luke 10: 25-28). When a rich young man asks him virtually the same question, Jesus tells him ‘If you would enter life, keep the commandments’ (Matt 19:17). He then, in the one case by a personal challenge and in the other by a parable, quickly reveals the spiritual bankruptcy of both men. However valid the principle, they cannot fulfil it.
Why does Jesus start here? He is referring to Leviticus 18:5; ‘You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.’ Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:5 in contrasting a righteousness of the law, which the Jews pursued, with a righteousness of faith which the gospel provides; and again in Galatians 3:12, also to contrast justification by faith with reliance on the law and its works.
Further, in Romans 2:6-10 Paul states as a general principle that ‘to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality he will give eternal life’. In Romans 7:10 Paul talks of the ‘commandment that promised (“is unto”) life’. In Romans 8:3,4 he says that God did ‘what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do’ and sent his Son, that ‘the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us’. What, however, gives the expectation (not, it seems, betrayed by any failure in the law itself) that the law could do something for us anyway?
Some basic principles
Certain things appear to follow. First, there is a connection between doing good works, or obeying the law, and eternal life. It is not self-evident that obedience should receive a reward of that nature. We tend to assume it, but there is no automatic nexus between obeying God’s commands and attaining eternal life. Why should there be? As creatures we are duty bound to obey God with or without reward. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 7:1, ‘The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant’. If reward there is, and particularly a reward of this magnitude, God must have so determined it at some point. When was that?
Second, the life of which Jesus and Paul are speaking is ‘eternal’. It is probable that in the context of the Sinai covenant, ‘you will live’ means, or at least is applied to, continued enjoyment of the land. Leviticus 18:5 is quoted in Ezekiel 20:11,13,21. Both in the wilderness and while in the land the people rebelled against God and did not obey his laws ‘which, if a person does them, he shall live’ (v 21), and were in the first case kept out of the land for forty years and then experienced exile. A similar use of Leviticus18:5 is made in Nehemiah 9:29. The ‘life’ which is the reward of obedience seems in these cases to mean ‘life in the land’ but in the New Testament it is clearly the eternal life of which ‘the land’ is a type. Where did the wider scope of the promise (eternal life), to which Jesus and Paul allude, come from? Some suggest it was from Jewish traditions in the intertestamental period , but it seems highly unlikely that the Lord and Paul would base something so important on the traditions of the Jews without Scriptural warrant. We are still looking therefore for a convincing answer to the question: since when did obedience lead to eternal life?
Third, the principle is universal and not just applicable to Israel – this is clear from its use in the New Testament.
Fourth, the nature of the obedience required was perfect. It is difficult to see why there should be any doubt about the need for the obedience to be perfect in view of the character of God, his assessment of his creation as ‘very good’ and his later commands to ‘be holy as I am holy’ . The consequence of the one sin of Adam was death; the curse of the law attaches to any who do not do all of it (Deut. 27: 26; Gal 3:10); if one breaks the law at one point one is accountable for all of it (Jas.2:10).
We are therefore in search of the source of the principle whereby eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience should be universally promised to humanity, such that Jesus can use it in his evangelism and Paul cite it in his expositions of the gospel.
Where the connection?
Was the connection made at some point during the Old Testament era? The most obvious choice, and probably the one to which people instinctively turn to see a ‘salvation by works’ principle established, is the context of Leviticus 18:5 itself, the Mosaic covenant. Yet we must remember that Leviticus is addressed to those who already belong to the Lord. They are the people whom God has chosen because he loved them, for no reason in them (Deut. 7:6-8). The required response of obedience is not a way of salvation but a grateful response to what God has already done, as the preface to the Ten Commandments makes clear (Exod 20:1,2). For the ‘works principle’ we need to go further back in biblical history.
In the beginning
Adam was obliged, as a creature, to obey perfectly. Why should even perfect obedience be considered worthy of eternal life? The most obvious place to look is God’s prohibition to Adam in Eden, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen 2:16,17). The Creator, having made his human creature upright and given him everything good, now stoops to him again and makes an agreement, couched in concessive (‘you may surely eat…’) and prohibitive (‘you shall not…’) terms, with a warning (‘you shall surely die’). The question is: is there also a positive promise here – a promise of life as opposed to death, and life of a different order from that which Adam already enjoyed?
Remember the context. God has created all things ‘good’. The Sabbath has been declared. The garden has been prepared. Eve will shortly be provided. Adam has been given his mandate to rule, with Eve, over creation for God. This prohibition is then issued, with a sanction. Why should God do this? Is it likely that he would do this without something better in mind? If that were the case, the prohibition is a distinctly retrograde step. Is it God’s plan that Adam and Eve live forever under the possibility of losing their happiness, and that observance of the prohibition changes nothing even over aeons of time? This is theoretically possible, but it seems unlikely from what we know of God. Can it be that ‘this is as good as it gets’: to live under the threat of losing paradise, with no compensating thought of either that threat coming at some time to an end, nor of anything better (if only a ‘threat free’ existence’) being held out to Adam and Eve on keeping the law?
The conviction that God is good, that to live in this way is not the fulness of perfection and that Eden was not the apogee of blessing, are some of the considerations that persuade Reformed theologians that there is an implied promise made to obedience to this prohibition. Obedience embraces observance of the ‘creation mandate’ and of course all the other laws of God, written on their hearts, such obedience being literally ‘second nature’ to the pristine pair.
A further consideration is the purposive nature of God’s dealings with his creation. Geerhardus Vos puts it like this: ‘The principle of God’s relation to the world from the outset was a principle of action or eventuation. The goal was not comparative (i.e., evolution); it was superlative (i.e., the final goal).’ To see Eden as a static condition is greatly to underestimate the purposes of God for creation, and for his Son. The implied promise in the garden is part of that.
The implied promise is that, on obedience, Adam would enter into enjoyment of eternal life which could not be lost, ever.
Moreover, this is an obedience that would have implications for the whole human race descended from him and Eve. He is a representative man. This is clear from the parallel Paul draws between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21.
If this is correct, then by definition, his obedience under the prohibition would be for a limited time. He would be a man on probation.
The name given to this arrangement is a covenant. By virtue of the arrangement entered into between God and himself in Genesis 2:16,17, Adam has moved from creature to covenant partner. What could not be assumed from his mere obedience in the former role, is his by promise in the latter - that is, now, obedience will be rewarded by eternal life.
Covenant in Eden?
Covenant, representation and probation are the three key features of Adam’s relationship to God (and his own descendants) in Eden. The concept of ‘covenant’ here however needs further justification.
Is ‘covenant’ a good term for the ‘arrangement’ in Eden? In particular should it be called by its most common title, the ‘covenant of works’? It is variously called the covenant of life, of nature, of creation, of law. The name is not crucial; the virtue of ‘works’ is that it does focus on that element which distinguishes it from other covenants. For the sake of convenience I shall use it here. Perhaps the ‘covenant of Adam’ would be the best alternative.
Should it be called a ‘covenant’ at all? One of the famous objectors to the terminology ‘covenant of works’ is John Murray who prefers to call it ‘the Adamic administration’ It hardly needs to be pointed out that the word ‘covenant’ (berith) does not appear in the text until Gen 6:18 in the account of Noah. Yet this is not decisive. The word covenant does not appear in the promise God makes to David in 2 Samuel 7 either, yet that is called a covenant in Psalm 89:28-39. Scholars will point out the two parties in Eden, a promise (of eternal life, implied) and a condition (perfect obedience). A penalty is stipulated and there is a ‘sign’ or ‘sacrament’ if that is how we interpret the tree of life. More recent authors following Meredith Kline point to the elements of ‘suzerain-vassal’ covenants in Genesis 1-3 and in the arrangement with Adam in particular – a preamble and prologue introducing the Sovereign in relationship to the vassal, the promises and obligations, and the blessing and curse for fidelity or infidelity . One further textual witness to the covenant is Hosea 6:7 which is not as weak as is sometimes made out: ‘But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant…’ is a translation with plenty of pedigree even if one would not rest a case for the Adamic covenant on it alone . If ‘a bond in blood sovereignly administered ’ is a fair definition of a covenant, a bond including promises and obligations, and ‘blood’ signifying life or death issues, then it is not unreasonable to call the arrangement in Eden a covenant.
Arguments against the concept (not just the title) of the covenant of works have come from a number of directions in recent years.
Two criticisms that regularly surface might be called the ‘pro-grace’ argument and the ‘anti-merit’ argument. Really they are two sides of the one coin. The ‘pro-grace’ argument argues that the idea of a covenant of works obscures the grace of God in the administration in Eden. But this is unfounded. Perhaps the words of two staunch proponents of the covenant of works will help to allay fears of obscuring God’s grace: ‘This promise was also in its essence a covenant of grace, in that it graciously promised life in the society of God as the freely granted reward of an obedience already unconditionally due. Nevertheless it was a covenant of works and of law with respect to its demands and conditions’ . Again, J.H. Thornwell insists, ‘Surely, God is love; creation shows it as well as the cross! Surely, our God is grace; the first covenant proves it as truly as the second!’ Some authors prefer to follow the reserve of the Westminster Confession is speaking of God’s ‘condescension’, or similar term, rather than ‘grace’, before the Fall, and we might truly call redemptive grace ‘grace properly so – called’; but there is no objection to seeing God dealing graciously with Adam in the garden.
The other (‘anti-merit’) criticism is the notion that any idea of man gaining salvation by obedience is inherently unworthy of God; the concept of ‘meriting life’ is almost contemptuously ruled out. Typical of this approach is John Piper who asks rather dismissively, ‘Has God ever commanded anyone to obey with a view to earning or meriting life? Would God command a person to do a thing he uniformly condemns as arrogant?’ He quotes Romans 11:35-36 ‘Who has given to [God] that it might be paid back to him?’ and argues that ‘You can’t earn from God by giving him what is already his.’ Conceding that God did command Adam to obey on pain of death for disobedience, he asks, ‘What kind of obedience is required for the inheritance of life – the obedience of earning or the obedience of trusting?’ The former way Piper says is legalism, the second is the way of faith. ‘God does not command us to pursue obedience by works. That is legalism’ . He goes on to the work of Christ: ‘Should we think of the Son of God relating to his Father as a workman earning wages? Are we to think of the role of the “second Adam” as earning what the “first Adam” failed to earn? Is his role not rather to glorify the trustworthiness of his Father, which Adam so terribly dishonoured?’
In a short article it is not possible to give a full answer on these matters, and I have great respect for John Piper, but he does seem here to be misrepresenting the covenant of works somewhat. First, why, if God enters into covenant with man for reward, is that objectionable? Even in the new covenant there are promises of rewards for obedience (Matt 6:6; 25:29; John 14:21). Adam was not ‘earning his life’ but obeying God’s gracious stipulations by which he could attain eternal life that was inalienable. Second, Adam was to exercise faith – his obedience was ‘obedience of trusting’ – no responsible proponent of the covenant of works would assert otherwise. We could add too that it was only with God’s help that he could obey, not in his own strength. Third, the antithesis between ‘earning’ and ‘glorifying the Father’s trustworthiness’ is false. Adam’s sin was disobedience, as Romans 5:18,19 makes clear. The Son obeyed. In the course of it he certainly glorified the Father, but we must not lose sight of the focus on the transgression in the one case and the obedience in the other.
The bogeyman for many seems to be the idea of ‘merit’. Put ideas of sinners earning salvation, however, out of your mind. The ‘covenant of works’ is a formulation to describe God’s dealings with unfallen man; what is obnoxious in ‘earning’ is not the principle of covenant and reward in itself, but the idea of a sinner being able to obey perfectly and thereby ‘putting God in his debt’. Adam’s perfect obedience in the covenant of works was no more ‘putting God in his debt’ than prayer on the basis of God’s promises to answer is ‘putting God in our debt’. The fact that after the Fall ‘by works of the law no human being will be justified’ (Rom 3:20) does not mean it was impossible, much less objectionable, for Adam to be so justified by virtue of a covenant initiated by God.
Adam and Christ
Perhaps the strongest argument for a covenant of works is Romans 5:12-21. Adam and Christ are the representative men; as Thomas Goodwin said, ‘In God’s sight there are two men, Adam and Christ – and these two men have all others hanging on their girdle strings’ . If Christ is representative man, so was Adam. If Christ is covenantally bound to his people, surely Adam was so bound. If the Last Adam’s obedience was the key to his work, then so was that of the First Adam. In relation to God, Christ was in a covenant of works for us; he obeyed where Adam disobeyed. God has made a covenant of grace with us in Christ, and from his obedience we all benefit, as Romans 5 makes clear; but his own task was to stand in the shoes of the First Man and do what he failed to do.
The Law and the Gospel
The benefits of keeping the concept of the covenant of works clearly before us are several:
1. The principle of the covenant of works is theologically fruitful. For example, we can understand the other covenants of the Old Testament better in relation to it. In particular we are helped to see why the Mosaic covenant while at times sounding like a covenant of works, actually is not. The ‘works principle’ is in that covenant (i) to teach the people how to respond gratefully to their Redeemer God; (ii) to remind the people, with expansion on the nature of the law and of the consequences of obedience (blessing) and disobedience (curses), of God’s requirement for perfect obedience, and to reward (even imperfect) obedience temporally ‘in the land’; (iii) to teach them nonetheless the impossibility of perfect obedience but also of God’s grace through the provision of a sacrificial system and (iv) to lead, as a ‘pedagogue,’ the people to Christ. It is in this context that the negative approach to the Mosaic covenant in Galatians is to be understood. Thus the works principle is said to be ‘republished’ in the Mosaic covenant; the ‘teeth’ of the covenant of works however are in the Adamic covenant, not in the Mosaic; and there, not at Sinai, is where eternal life is promised to works. Genesis 2:16,17 is behind the ‘legal’ aspects of the Mosaic covenant as Genesis 3:15 is behind the promise of the Abrahamic.
2. The principle is hermeneutically useful in that we are better equipped to understand Paul’s teaching on the law. He never says anything directly negative about the law itself; it is holy and righteous and good; it even promises life (Rom 7:12,10). Within its remit it does its job perfectly. But it has negative aspects in two directions: (i) the flesh: the law is weakened by the flesh (Romans 8:3), for no sinner can keep the law; and (ii) the relation in which people stand to God. From the perspective of the covenant of grace, in Christ (for those not under law ‘as a covenant of works’ ) the law has a positive function; from that of the covenant of works, a negative. In the latter covenant, one is under the law’s curse and condemnation. The negative comments about the law should be traced back ultimately not to Sinai but to Eden. The curse of the law in Moses, as it applies universally and eternally rather than temporally and typologically, is not inherently from Sinai but from Eden. The covenant of works does not answer all the issues about the law in the New Testament, but it sheds light on much and in particular helps us to harmonise ‘Paul on Moses’ .
3. It is evangelically powerful in that we are in a better position to make and maintain a clear distinction between law and gospel. This vital distinction is under threat from the well-intentioned attempts to subsume all God’s dealing with man under one arrangement from Adam onwards – sometimes called ‘monocovenantalism’. There is, rather, one principle in God’s dealing with man – that eternal life is consequent on obedience - but there are two covenants under which that is expressed – a covenant of works, and of grace. Where Adam failed in the first, Christ succeeded. What the covenant of grace provided was not, in the first place, a new way of relating to God, but a new Man who would fulfil the basic principle. In the covenant of grace, we come to God through faith on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. This is the gospel.
4. It is Christologically rich for we understand better the work of Christ and why obedience had to be the heart of his work (John 4:34; 17:4; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 10:7). If there is no covenant obligation to be righteous, what did Christ gain for us and why? If there is no reward for obedience, then how did he gain it?
5. It is evangelistically penetrating as we see in the teaching of the Lord Jesus, in opening up the human heart, in exposing self- righteousness and in driving home the essential nature of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Law prepares for the Gospel.
6. It is pastorally beneficial as Paul’s letters confirm, in helping people to see where they stand in relation to Christ and the law, and to trust Christ and his righteousness alone. The doctrine of justification by faith stands in no small measure on the contrast between the covenants of works and of grace – that is between Law and Gospel.
Christ, therefore, is not lying or joking when he says to the lawyer ‘Do this and you will live’. He is simply prefacing the gospel with the law. The purpose is (i) to point you to yourself as weak and unable to fulfil that basic principle of relating to God; and (ii) to point out that your relationship to God (the covenant under which you are living) must be changed for you to be saved. You can only live, now, through faith in Christ and his perfect obedience. The covenant of works is truly the background to – even the anchor for - the gospel. We lose touch with it at our peril.
Every gospel preacher, wanting to emphasise that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, will have contrasted this gospel with the attempt to gain salvation by works. It is worth reflecting, therefore, on the fact that when the Lord Jesus Christ is asked by a lawyer ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ he answers, ‘What is written in the Law? How do you read it?’ When the lawyer repeats the two great commandments, concerning loving God and loving your neighbour, Jesus says, ‘You have answered correctly; do this and you will live’ (Luke 10: 25-28). When a rich young man asks him virtually the same question, Jesus tells him ‘If you would enter life, keep the commandments’ (Matt 19:17). He then, in the one case by a personal challenge and in the other by a parable, quickly reveals the spiritual bankruptcy of both men. However valid the principle, they cannot fulfil it.
Why does Jesus start here? He is referring to Leviticus 18:5; ‘You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.’ Paul quotes this verse in Romans 10:5 in contrasting a righteousness of the law, which the Jews pursued, with a righteousness of faith which the gospel provides; and again in Galatians 3:12, also to contrast justification by faith with reliance on the law and its works.
Further, in Romans 2:6-10 Paul states as a general principle that ‘to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality he will give eternal life’. In Romans 7:10 Paul talks of the ‘commandment that promised (“is unto”) life’. In Romans 8:3,4 he says that God did ‘what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do’ and sent his Son, that ‘the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us’. What, however, gives the expectation (not, it seems, betrayed by any failure in the law itself) that the law could do something for us anyway?
Some basic principles
Certain things appear to follow. First, there is a connection between doing good works, or obeying the law, and eternal life. It is not self-evident that obedience should receive a reward of that nature. We tend to assume it, but there is no automatic nexus between obeying God’s commands and attaining eternal life. Why should there be? As creatures we are duty bound to obey God with or without reward. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 7:1, ‘The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant’. If reward there is, and particularly a reward of this magnitude, God must have so determined it at some point. When was that?
Second, the life of which Jesus and Paul are speaking is ‘eternal’. It is probable that in the context of the Sinai covenant, ‘you will live’ means, or at least is applied to, continued enjoyment of the land. Leviticus 18:5 is quoted in Ezekiel 20:11,13,21. Both in the wilderness and while in the land the people rebelled against God and did not obey his laws ‘which, if a person does them, he shall live’ (v 21), and were in the first case kept out of the land for forty years and then experienced exile. A similar use of Leviticus18:5 is made in Nehemiah 9:29. The ‘life’ which is the reward of obedience seems in these cases to mean ‘life in the land’ but in the New Testament it is clearly the eternal life of which ‘the land’ is a type. Where did the wider scope of the promise (eternal life), to which Jesus and Paul allude, come from? Some suggest it was from Jewish traditions in the intertestamental period , but it seems highly unlikely that the Lord and Paul would base something so important on the traditions of the Jews without Scriptural warrant. We are still looking therefore for a convincing answer to the question: since when did obedience lead to eternal life?
Third, the principle is universal and not just applicable to Israel – this is clear from its use in the New Testament.
Fourth, the nature of the obedience required was perfect. It is difficult to see why there should be any doubt about the need for the obedience to be perfect in view of the character of God, his assessment of his creation as ‘very good’ and his later commands to ‘be holy as I am holy’ . The consequence of the one sin of Adam was death; the curse of the law attaches to any who do not do all of it (Deut. 27: 26; Gal 3:10); if one breaks the law at one point one is accountable for all of it (Jas.2:10).
We are therefore in search of the source of the principle whereby eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience should be universally promised to humanity, such that Jesus can use it in his evangelism and Paul cite it in his expositions of the gospel.
Where the connection?
Was the connection made at some point during the Old Testament era? The most obvious choice, and probably the one to which people instinctively turn to see a ‘salvation by works’ principle established, is the context of Leviticus 18:5 itself, the Mosaic covenant. Yet we must remember that Leviticus is addressed to those who already belong to the Lord. They are the people whom God has chosen because he loved them, for no reason in them (Deut. 7:6-8). The required response of obedience is not a way of salvation but a grateful response to what God has already done, as the preface to the Ten Commandments makes clear (Exod 20:1,2). For the ‘works principle’ we need to go further back in biblical history.
In the beginning
Adam was obliged, as a creature, to obey perfectly. Why should even perfect obedience be considered worthy of eternal life? The most obvious place to look is God’s prohibition to Adam in Eden, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen 2:16,17). The Creator, having made his human creature upright and given him everything good, now stoops to him again and makes an agreement, couched in concessive (‘you may surely eat…’) and prohibitive (‘you shall not…’) terms, with a warning (‘you shall surely die’). The question is: is there also a positive promise here – a promise of life as opposed to death, and life of a different order from that which Adam already enjoyed?
Remember the context. God has created all things ‘good’. The Sabbath has been declared. The garden has been prepared. Eve will shortly be provided. Adam has been given his mandate to rule, with Eve, over creation for God. This prohibition is then issued, with a sanction. Why should God do this? Is it likely that he would do this without something better in mind? If that were the case, the prohibition is a distinctly retrograde step. Is it God’s plan that Adam and Eve live forever under the possibility of losing their happiness, and that observance of the prohibition changes nothing even over aeons of time? This is theoretically possible, but it seems unlikely from what we know of God. Can it be that ‘this is as good as it gets’: to live under the threat of losing paradise, with no compensating thought of either that threat coming at some time to an end, nor of anything better (if only a ‘threat free’ existence’) being held out to Adam and Eve on keeping the law?
The conviction that God is good, that to live in this way is not the fulness of perfection and that Eden was not the apogee of blessing, are some of the considerations that persuade Reformed theologians that there is an implied promise made to obedience to this prohibition. Obedience embraces observance of the ‘creation mandate’ and of course all the other laws of God, written on their hearts, such obedience being literally ‘second nature’ to the pristine pair.
A further consideration is the purposive nature of God’s dealings with his creation. Geerhardus Vos puts it like this: ‘The principle of God’s relation to the world from the outset was a principle of action or eventuation. The goal was not comparative (i.e., evolution); it was superlative (i.e., the final goal).’ To see Eden as a static condition is greatly to underestimate the purposes of God for creation, and for his Son. The implied promise in the garden is part of that.
The implied promise is that, on obedience, Adam would enter into enjoyment of eternal life which could not be lost, ever.
Moreover, this is an obedience that would have implications for the whole human race descended from him and Eve. He is a representative man. This is clear from the parallel Paul draws between Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-21.
If this is correct, then by definition, his obedience under the prohibition would be for a limited time. He would be a man on probation.
The name given to this arrangement is a covenant. By virtue of the arrangement entered into between God and himself in Genesis 2:16,17, Adam has moved from creature to covenant partner. What could not be assumed from his mere obedience in the former role, is his by promise in the latter - that is, now, obedience will be rewarded by eternal life.
Covenant in Eden?
Covenant, representation and probation are the three key features of Adam’s relationship to God (and his own descendants) in Eden. The concept of ‘covenant’ here however needs further justification.
Is ‘covenant’ a good term for the ‘arrangement’ in Eden? In particular should it be called by its most common title, the ‘covenant of works’? It is variously called the covenant of life, of nature, of creation, of law. The name is not crucial; the virtue of ‘works’ is that it does focus on that element which distinguishes it from other covenants. For the sake of convenience I shall use it here. Perhaps the ‘covenant of Adam’ would be the best alternative.
Should it be called a ‘covenant’ at all? One of the famous objectors to the terminology ‘covenant of works’ is John Murray who prefers to call it ‘the Adamic administration’ It hardly needs to be pointed out that the word ‘covenant’ (berith) does not appear in the text until Gen 6:18 in the account of Noah. Yet this is not decisive. The word covenant does not appear in the promise God makes to David in 2 Samuel 7 either, yet that is called a covenant in Psalm 89:28-39. Scholars will point out the two parties in Eden, a promise (of eternal life, implied) and a condition (perfect obedience). A penalty is stipulated and there is a ‘sign’ or ‘sacrament’ if that is how we interpret the tree of life. More recent authors following Meredith Kline point to the elements of ‘suzerain-vassal’ covenants in Genesis 1-3 and in the arrangement with Adam in particular – a preamble and prologue introducing the Sovereign in relationship to the vassal, the promises and obligations, and the blessing and curse for fidelity or infidelity . One further textual witness to the covenant is Hosea 6:7 which is not as weak as is sometimes made out: ‘But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant…’ is a translation with plenty of pedigree even if one would not rest a case for the Adamic covenant on it alone . If ‘a bond in blood sovereignly administered ’ is a fair definition of a covenant, a bond including promises and obligations, and ‘blood’ signifying life or death issues, then it is not unreasonable to call the arrangement in Eden a covenant.
Arguments against the concept (not just the title) of the covenant of works have come from a number of directions in recent years.
Two criticisms that regularly surface might be called the ‘pro-grace’ argument and the ‘anti-merit’ argument. Really they are two sides of the one coin. The ‘pro-grace’ argument argues that the idea of a covenant of works obscures the grace of God in the administration in Eden. But this is unfounded. Perhaps the words of two staunch proponents of the covenant of works will help to allay fears of obscuring God’s grace: ‘This promise was also in its essence a covenant of grace, in that it graciously promised life in the society of God as the freely granted reward of an obedience already unconditionally due. Nevertheless it was a covenant of works and of law with respect to its demands and conditions’ . Again, J.H. Thornwell insists, ‘Surely, God is love; creation shows it as well as the cross! Surely, our God is grace; the first covenant proves it as truly as the second!’ Some authors prefer to follow the reserve of the Westminster Confession is speaking of God’s ‘condescension’, or similar term, rather than ‘grace’, before the Fall, and we might truly call redemptive grace ‘grace properly so – called’; but there is no objection to seeing God dealing graciously with Adam in the garden.
The other (‘anti-merit’) criticism is the notion that any idea of man gaining salvation by obedience is inherently unworthy of God; the concept of ‘meriting life’ is almost contemptuously ruled out. Typical of this approach is John Piper who asks rather dismissively, ‘Has God ever commanded anyone to obey with a view to earning or meriting life? Would God command a person to do a thing he uniformly condemns as arrogant?’ He quotes Romans 11:35-36 ‘Who has given to [God] that it might be paid back to him?’ and argues that ‘You can’t earn from God by giving him what is already his.’ Conceding that God did command Adam to obey on pain of death for disobedience, he asks, ‘What kind of obedience is required for the inheritance of life – the obedience of earning or the obedience of trusting?’ The former way Piper says is legalism, the second is the way of faith. ‘God does not command us to pursue obedience by works. That is legalism’ . He goes on to the work of Christ: ‘Should we think of the Son of God relating to his Father as a workman earning wages? Are we to think of the role of the “second Adam” as earning what the “first Adam” failed to earn? Is his role not rather to glorify the trustworthiness of his Father, which Adam so terribly dishonoured?’
In a short article it is not possible to give a full answer on these matters, and I have great respect for John Piper, but he does seem here to be misrepresenting the covenant of works somewhat. First, why, if God enters into covenant with man for reward, is that objectionable? Even in the new covenant there are promises of rewards for obedience (Matt 6:6; 25:29; John 14:21). Adam was not ‘earning his life’ but obeying God’s gracious stipulations by which he could attain eternal life that was inalienable. Second, Adam was to exercise faith – his obedience was ‘obedience of trusting’ – no responsible proponent of the covenant of works would assert otherwise. We could add too that it was only with God’s help that he could obey, not in his own strength. Third, the antithesis between ‘earning’ and ‘glorifying the Father’s trustworthiness’ is false. Adam’s sin was disobedience, as Romans 5:18,19 makes clear. The Son obeyed. In the course of it he certainly glorified the Father, but we must not lose sight of the focus on the transgression in the one case and the obedience in the other.
The bogeyman for many seems to be the idea of ‘merit’. Put ideas of sinners earning salvation, however, out of your mind. The ‘covenant of works’ is a formulation to describe God’s dealings with unfallen man; what is obnoxious in ‘earning’ is not the principle of covenant and reward in itself, but the idea of a sinner being able to obey perfectly and thereby ‘putting God in his debt’. Adam’s perfect obedience in the covenant of works was no more ‘putting God in his debt’ than prayer on the basis of God’s promises to answer is ‘putting God in our debt’. The fact that after the Fall ‘by works of the law no human being will be justified’ (Rom 3:20) does not mean it was impossible, much less objectionable, for Adam to be so justified by virtue of a covenant initiated by God.
Adam and Christ
Perhaps the strongest argument for a covenant of works is Romans 5:12-21. Adam and Christ are the representative men; as Thomas Goodwin said, ‘In God’s sight there are two men, Adam and Christ – and these two men have all others hanging on their girdle strings’ . If Christ is representative man, so was Adam. If Christ is covenantally bound to his people, surely Adam was so bound. If the Last Adam’s obedience was the key to his work, then so was that of the First Adam. In relation to God, Christ was in a covenant of works for us; he obeyed where Adam disobeyed. God has made a covenant of grace with us in Christ, and from his obedience we all benefit, as Romans 5 makes clear; but his own task was to stand in the shoes of the First Man and do what he failed to do.
The Law and the Gospel
The benefits of keeping the concept of the covenant of works clearly before us are several:
1. The principle of the covenant of works is theologically fruitful. For example, we can understand the other covenants of the Old Testament better in relation to it. In particular we are helped to see why the Mosaic covenant while at times sounding like a covenant of works, actually is not. The ‘works principle’ is in that covenant (i) to teach the people how to respond gratefully to their Redeemer God; (ii) to remind the people, with expansion on the nature of the law and of the consequences of obedience (blessing) and disobedience (curses), of God’s requirement for perfect obedience, and to reward (even imperfect) obedience temporally ‘in the land’; (iii) to teach them nonetheless the impossibility of perfect obedience but also of God’s grace through the provision of a sacrificial system and (iv) to lead, as a ‘pedagogue,’ the people to Christ. It is in this context that the negative approach to the Mosaic covenant in Galatians is to be understood. Thus the works principle is said to be ‘republished’ in the Mosaic covenant; the ‘teeth’ of the covenant of works however are in the Adamic covenant, not in the Mosaic; and there, not at Sinai, is where eternal life is promised to works. Genesis 2:16,17 is behind the ‘legal’ aspects of the Mosaic covenant as Genesis 3:15 is behind the promise of the Abrahamic.
2. The principle is hermeneutically useful in that we are better equipped to understand Paul’s teaching on the law. He never says anything directly negative about the law itself; it is holy and righteous and good; it even promises life (Rom 7:12,10). Within its remit it does its job perfectly. But it has negative aspects in two directions: (i) the flesh: the law is weakened by the flesh (Romans 8:3), for no sinner can keep the law; and (ii) the relation in which people stand to God. From the perspective of the covenant of grace, in Christ (for those not under law ‘as a covenant of works’ ) the law has a positive function; from that of the covenant of works, a negative. In the latter covenant, one is under the law’s curse and condemnation. The negative comments about the law should be traced back ultimately not to Sinai but to Eden. The curse of the law in Moses, as it applies universally and eternally rather than temporally and typologically, is not inherently from Sinai but from Eden. The covenant of works does not answer all the issues about the law in the New Testament, but it sheds light on much and in particular helps us to harmonise ‘Paul on Moses’ .
3. It is evangelically powerful in that we are in a better position to make and maintain a clear distinction between law and gospel. This vital distinction is under threat from the well-intentioned attempts to subsume all God’s dealing with man under one arrangement from Adam onwards – sometimes called ‘monocovenantalism’. There is, rather, one principle in God’s dealing with man – that eternal life is consequent on obedience - but there are two covenants under which that is expressed – a covenant of works, and of grace. Where Adam failed in the first, Christ succeeded. What the covenant of grace provided was not, in the first place, a new way of relating to God, but a new Man who would fulfil the basic principle. In the covenant of grace, we come to God through faith on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. This is the gospel.
4. It is Christologically rich for we understand better the work of Christ and why obedience had to be the heart of his work (John 4:34; 17:4; Phil 2:5-11; Heb 10:7). If there is no covenant obligation to be righteous, what did Christ gain for us and why? If there is no reward for obedience, then how did he gain it?
5. It is evangelistically penetrating as we see in the teaching of the Lord Jesus, in opening up the human heart, in exposing self- righteousness and in driving home the essential nature of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Law prepares for the Gospel.
6. It is pastorally beneficial as Paul’s letters confirm, in helping people to see where they stand in relation to Christ and the law, and to trust Christ and his righteousness alone. The doctrine of justification by faith stands in no small measure on the contrast between the covenants of works and of grace – that is between Law and Gospel.
Christ, therefore, is not lying or joking when he says to the lawyer ‘Do this and you will live’. He is simply prefacing the gospel with the law. The purpose is (i) to point you to yourself as weak and unable to fulfil that basic principle of relating to God; and (ii) to point out that your relationship to God (the covenant under which you are living) must be changed for you to be saved. You can only live, now, through faith in Christ and his perfect obedience. The covenant of works is truly the background to – even the anchor for - the gospel. We lose touch with it at our peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)