I just listened to Kevin Vanhoozer's talk from the recent Wheaton conference, a dialog with N.T. Wright, and I recommend it to you. If you have the slightest interest in N.T. Wright and the conversation/controversy surrounding his reformulation of the doctrine of justification and how that should be received and evaluated by those of us in the confessionally reformed tradition, this lecture is a great place to jump in. Vanhoozer is particularly helpful and winsome for his sense of humor, but he very succinctly summarizes Wright's concerns, the concerns of his critics, and charitably offers his own take and makes suggestions for moving the conversation forward. So go give it a listen.
I also listened to Wright's chapel message given during the conference, and it is a typically encouraging and challenging word from the book of Ephesians. Listen or watch here.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Jesus, Paul, and the People of God
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Promises and Election
Some in the recent presbyterian debates have suggested that God has given us the covenant and the sacraments, and that it is not really our responsibility to search the secret things of God. We don't have access to the list of the elect to glory. We have God's Word. We have baptism and the Eucharist, and these are God's sure promises to us. Bucer clearly taught similarly when he said regarding infant baptism, "It is the church's task to follow God's promises, not election, not attitude of the heart." Elsewhere, in a marginal notation, he says, "In conferring sacraments, regard is to be had to God's promise, not to election" (Wright, 101).
Monday, November 19, 2007
Wilson, Wilkins, and the PCA
Just to make sure we're getting this broadcast as far and wide as possible, I'd like to draw your attention, dear readers (all three of you), to the proceedings currently taking place in the PCA.
This denomination (along with a number of others) has recently studied a subject matter referred to as the 'Federal Vision', largely condemned it, and now is in the process of seeking to apply these findings to those pastors and elders in their denomination they believe to be holding these aberrant views. There is of course nothing wrong with carefully studying an issue, deciding that it is outside the pale of a particular confessional heritage, and then judiciously applying those findings to particular people, circumstances, etc. The problem comes when an issue is NOT carefully studied, the so-called proponents of said teaching are not contacted or asked for clarification, a report full of ambiguities and bizarre conclusions which does not accurately describe said teachings of said proponents is passed in the name of 'justification by faith', and then certain Mohicans in the denomination get out their war paint and tomahawks and go after these so-called proponents having already decided what they believe, how false, bad, and horrible it is, and whooping at the top of their lungs with fingers in their ears demand that they recant or leave.
In typical Presbyterian polity, the presbytery is the body that holds ministers accountable for their teachings. On this particular issue, one of the ministers under scrutiny is Pastor Steve Wilkins from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana. The Louisiana Presbytery has been asked on TWO occasions to examine Pastor Wilkins, and TWICE the presbytery has not found him guilty of any aberrant views contrary to the Confession (WCF). The first time another presbytery sent an overture requesting the examination, and the LA Presbytery voluntarily complied. When that exam yielded a not-guilty verdict, an appeal was made to the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA (their highest court of appeal), and the SJC asked the LA Presbytery to conduct another examination on the grounds that the first exam was not sufficiently documented and did not carefully follow the proper procedures. The LA Presbytery complied with this SJC directive, re-examined Pastor Wilkins, and again found that there was "no strong presumption of guilt" in the teachings of Pastor Wilkins.
Now this re-examination report, meticulously documented and complying with all the proper PCA procedures was just fine except that the LA Presbytery did not come up with the correct answer. Now, the SJC has ordered the LA Presbytery to appear in court to answer the charge that they did not do their job properly in examining Pastor Wilkins. That is, because there is a "strong presumption of guilt" with regard to the teachings of Pastor Wilkins, they have not been diligent in preserving the peace and purity of the church. In other words, while there has been no trial of Pastor Wilkins, the SJC is proceeding to take matters into their own hands. What is so unfortunate (and sub-biblical) in this situation is the fact that these proceedings are beginning with the presumption of guilt.
If you have not already seen the recent volley of posts by Douglas Wilson, they are well worth checking out. Beginning here, just start working your way through the posts that follow.
One final comment with regard to why I/you should even care about all this. I have never been a member of a PCA church, but my wife grew up in the PCA, we both attended and graduated from a PCA sponsored Christian School, and I have many good friends in that denomination. In general, all Christians should be concerned about the 'goings-ons' of our brothers and sisters, we ought to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. In this case, we have brothers and sisters who are near-kinsmen in Christendom, Reformed Presbyterians who claim a similar heritage, similar confessional standards, and a like-mindedness on many significant issues facing the Christian Church today. If the PCA goes through with this trial, and in whatever clinically sterilized, moved, seconded and passed sort of way they come up with, they actually force Pastor Wilkins and/or his presbytery out of the PCA without an actual hearing and fair trail (which is virtually impossible now), a great travesty will have passed for justice. All Christians should be concerned about this sort of miscarriage of justice, but all Presbyterians should be particularly concerned about this sort of fiasco. Secondly, as Wilson suggests, it is important to point out the injustice as it is happening for the benefit of not only those involved but also everyone else watching this happen and/or letting this happen. Finally, Pastor Wilkins and many of the saints at AAPC are my friends, and it is apparent that there are far too few people out there, especially in the PCA who are willing to actually associate with these brothers, even when it is a matter of requiring simple justice.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Faith and Union with the Trinity
One of the complaints of FV critics is that 'Union with Christ' puts the cart before the horse. If we posit Union with Christ as the center and justification, sanctification, etc. flow from that central covenantal/mystical union then, they say, God is having fellowship with sinners. How can a just God join himself to sin? How can a righteous and holy God have a relationship with the unclean, the unrighteous? These critics march their Ordo Salutis out and point triumphantly to the doctrine of justification and say looky here, mister FV Guy, quit messing with the truth. You've gotta be justified first then you can be joined to Christ. This is where sanctification comes. And of course, this "then" is only logically speaking and not (I hope)an actual stopwatch sort of formulation. This sounds all high and pious and holy: who could deny that?
Yet there is a problem. How is one justified? By faith alone, of course. And where did that faith come from. It's a gift of God, so that no one can boast. Right. So God, in his infinite kindness effectually calls sinners, enlivens them, regenerates them, and gives them this brand new present called faith which enables them to call on the Lord Jesus for mercy, salvation, and grace. In other words, in order for anyone to be saved they must be drawn to the Father, by the Spirit, through the Son. Whenever anyone is justified they have always already been brought into the fellowship of the Trinity. Otherwise, we end up with something other than the historic, Reformed doctrine of justification. Where did that faith come from? The fact that joe-filthy-sinner suddenly looks down and sees his filthy rags exchanged for the righteousness of Christ is always due to having been brought into the family of God, the fellowship of the Trinity, through being united to Christ.
Does this mean that the good, holy, and righteousous God has fellowship with sinners? Absolutely. Does this mean that sinners are united to Christ by grace? Absolutely. Does this mean that there is a moment when God has fellowship with sinners apart from Christ? Absolutely not. This is not a description of a temporal chemical reaction. This is the description of how God does what he does. It's all of grace, it's all of kindness, and undeserved mercy. This means that union with Christ is the center of that kindness, and justification, sanctification, and all the benefits of Christ flow from that central act of grace and only because of the righteous life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Righteous One.
One last illustration of this is found in the historic symbols of the Church. We do not say "I believe that there is one God..." We always confess the faith saying, "I believe in one God...," "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ," "I believe in the Holy Spirit..." And this linguistic point is more clear in the original language and somewhat obscured by the ubiquity of the use of the word "in" in modern parlance. But the point is that with the historic church, we perform the action of believing and utilize the instrument of faith from within God, from within the One Creator God, the One Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Faith is the result of being raised from the death of sin, and there is only one life outside of that death. There is only one way to be alive in this universe. There is only one Life to be joined to. To be made alive means to be joined to the life breath of the Trinity.
It would not have done for Adam to have claimed that he was righteous before the Spirit of God was breathed into his nostrils. Neither of course would it makes sense to say that he became righteous at some point after he was alive either. The point is that when people are made alive, they live. When Adam became a living being, he was a righteous living being. Likewise, when we are re-created, reborn, re-generated to new life in Christ, we live through the power of the Spirit, we believe with the strength of the Spirit, we have faith and are justified through the life-giving power the Spirit, through the work of Christ, all to the praise and glory of God the Father.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Athanasius: Incarnation as Death
While it is clear that the cross is the telos of the life of Christ, Athanasius' understanding of the Fall, the "death" that now permeates human life and society, seems to suggest that the incarnation itself is the beginning of the death of Christ.
He says: "Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, he surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father... This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection... For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power. (2.8-9)"
To be sure, all through this section Athanasius is also talking about Christ's actual death on the cross, but I've just highlighted several of the places where he seems to almost conflate the incarnation and the cross. This would seem to have some implications for some of the current discussions regarding the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience. Here we have at least one formulation which seems content to see no dichotomy between the two.
Athanasius on Prelapsarian Humanity
"Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked -- namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as he does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things -- namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise would be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. (1.3)... God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word...the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law [i.e. death] provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. (1.5)"
Just briefly, notice how clearly Athanasius affirms that God bestowed all kinds of grace on Adam in the garden prior to the Fall. The image of God is called "mercy" in another place and here he continues to emphasize this gracious relationship. Secondly, I find it interesting that Athanasius refers to humanity as being in "union with the Word." Of course the Pauline literature is full of union with Christ motifs, and here Athanasius clearly understands our first parents' state as being essentially the same. It appears that this union is primarily the means by which mortality/impermanence is held at bay in humanity but the transgression of God's law breaks this union (covenant?) and thereby leaves death to work havoc in the sons and daughters of Adam.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
A Response to the PCA Report on the Federal Vision
Pastor Jeff Meyers has responded to the recently released PCA study report on the Federal Vision.
Meyers' response, entitled "30 Reasons," can be found here.
Also, it appears that Reformed News will be covering things over the next few weeks and months.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Friday, March 09, 2007
McGrath on Covenant, Calvin, and Cucumbers
From Alister McGrath's The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation:
“In the twelfth century, however, the origins of one of the most significant theologoumena of High Scholasticism may be detected: the idea that, as justification involves an ontological change in man, an ontological intermediate is required in the process of justification – and this intermediate was to be identified with the created habit of grace or charity.” (p. 79)
“For Ockham, the implication of created habits in justification is not a consequence of the nature of the process of justification, but results form a divine decision that they shall be thus implicated. To suggest that habits are involved in justification as a matter of necessity (ex natura rei) is to imply that God was subjected to external constraints in establishing the created order, which is unthinkable… Ockham exploits the tension between the absolute and ordained powers [of God] to demonstrate the contingency of the role assigned to created habits in justification… In effect, Ockham works with a concept of covenantal, rather than ontological causality: created habits are involved in the causal sequence of justification, not because of the nature of the entities involved (ex natura rei), but on account of the divine will (ex pacto divino).” (p. 80)
Speaking of the theologians of the via moderna, McGrath explains, “It is this pactum [‘covenant’ or ‘contract’ between God and man] established unilaterally by God, which constitutes the turning point of the doctrines of justification… God is understood to have imposed upon himself a definite obligation, embodied in the pactum, to regard the man who does quod in se est with the gift of justifying grace. If man meets the minimal precondition for justification…God is under a self-imposed obligation to justify him… It is considerations such as these which suggest that the later medieval period witnessed a general transition from a concept of ontological to covenantal causality… Thus, for example, the concept of ‘grace’ was no longer considered primarily as a created intermediate species interposed between man and God, but rather as an aspect of God’s disposition towards man.” (p. 81-82)
“… the later medieval tradition as a whole… adopted a strongly voluntarist approach to the basis of merit. This observation applied equally to the merits of Christ as to human merit… In the Institutio, Calvin adopts an identical position in relation to the merit of Christ… Calvin makes the clear that the basis of Christ’s merit is not located in Christ’s offering of himself (which would correspond to an intellectualist approach to the ratio meriti Christi), but in the divine decision to accept such an offering as of sufficient merit for the redemption of mankind (which corresponds to the voluntarist approach). For Calvin, ‘apart from God’s good pleasure, Christ could not merit anything…” (p.104-105)
And then there's this, just for fun:
“Erasmus complied a list of theological concerns at Paris which demonstrates precisely the issues that were debated with the via moderna. Two such questions may be noted. First, can God undo the past, such as making a prostitute into a virgin? ... Second, could God have become a beetle or a cucumber instead of a man? In its more usual form, this question was stated thus: could God have assumed the nature of an ass, or a stone, instead of a man?” (p. 98-99)
By the way, the answer of the via moderna theologians was "yes."
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Drinking Christ
I'm sure that many other folks have pointed this out before, but Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, says that Israel drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased and their bodies became fertilizer for the desert. And Paul says that these things were recorded as examples for us.
First, it's clear that Israel drank a spritual drink and that spritual drink was Christ. Israel partook of Christ. And it is also true that having partaken of Christ, God was not well pleased with most of them and sprinkled their bodies over the wilderness. And this is an example for us says Paul.
Now, I don't mean to read anything into the text or sound unconfessional or anything, but it sure sounds like Paul is saying that people can partake of Christ, even drink him spiritually, and then be judged for sin and taken out by God.
Of course it's a very sobering point the apostle is making, but his warning is mixed with a promise: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it."
So what is the answer to the reality of apostacy? What should Christians do when they wonder if they are destined to be left in the wilderness? Paul says that we have to trust God who is the faithful one. Our faith may falter; we may face various temptations. But God is the faithful one, constantly at work, constantly making ways of escape, constantly supporting us that we may be able to bear up under it.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Woodruff Road Federal Vision Conference
Xon has been busily putting some replies/responses to the recent conference on the Federal Vision at Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church. The mp3s of the conference are available on the side bar under "Podcast: Misc Sermons."
Those on either side of the debate might be interested to see a sane, level-headed, and cordial analysis from the "Pro" side of the fence. Check out Xon's "Guide for the Perplexed"; there are two parts up so far.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The Difference is Faith
We live in times where there is a great amount of confusion and discussion regarding baptism. What does baptism do, if anything? What does baptism mean? Our Confession of Faith teaches that baptism is “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of [the person’s] giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” The fact of the matter is that believing these things are being signed and sealed to these boys this evening is either the height of arrogance and presumption or it is simple, humble faith. But how can we tell the difference? The different is faith. Faith is resting in and receiving the promises of God in Scripture. This means that it is not faith to believe that God will give you wings if you jump from the top of the Sears tower. It is actually great arrogance and pride because God has promised you no such thing. What has God promised us regarding our children? We have already seen in Mark’s gospel that Jesus rebukes the disciples and exhorts the children to be brought to him. Not only must they be brought, but all who wish to enter the kingdom, must come as little children. In Acts 2:38-39 Peter exhorts the crowd, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” The promise is to you and to your children. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that the child of at least one believing parent is not unclean but rather holy, set apart to God. But this is the same God who revealed himself to Abraham saying, “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” (Gen. 17:7-8) God is a covenantal God who has promised to be our God and the God of our children. This is why David may say with confidence that Yahweh was his God from his mother’s womb, and that he trusted the Lord from his mother’s breasts (Ps. 22:9-10). There is nothing magical in this sacrament; there is nothing magical in this water. If that were the case, evangelism would be best done with a fire hose and a megaphone. What is powerful is the mighty Word of God. God promises that the children of believers are his. He promises to be our God and to be the God of our children. Either we believe this whole-heartily and rejoice in it or we doubt it and set up various safeguards like down playing what baptism means or delaying baptism until we think we can peer into the heart of our child. But that is not faith; it is unbelief. The promises of God are to us and to our children. God is a God to us and for us and for our children. We believe this and therefore we come now to publicly proclaim this fact. Our children are not our own, but they have been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ. There is nothing automatic about this; there is nothing magical about this. It is all by faith in the powerful promises of God and the working of his Spirit. And because we believe that God’s word is true, we believe that God has already claimed these children as his own. These children must grow up in this faith and learn to cling to Jesus every day of their lives. But we begin with grace. We love him because he first loved us; and you must teach your sons the same. They must love the Lord Jesus because he has first loved them. Therefore believe your God and his Word and rejoice.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Baptismal Regeneration
A friend wrote and asked me today, "Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?" I figure this is as good a time as any to answer the same question here. Below is largely what I wrote to him.
As regards your question about "baptismal regeneration": It depends on what you mean by the phrase. If you mean the Roman Catholic doctrine which holds that an infant is automatically regenerated in baptism, then no, we don't believe in baptismal regeneration. However, we do believe that Trinitarian baptism does bring people into covenant with Christ. Baptism is spoken of in Scripture as uniting people to the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-4, Col. 2:11-12), and this union is regeneration IF it is received by faith (note Col. 2:12) but it is not automatic. As we understand it then, baptism does truly bring about a covenant relationship between the person baptized and the Lord Jesus. But we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). All that to say, we would describe baptism as something like a wedding. There is a real covenantal union that takes place, but covenants are kept by faith or broken by unfaithfulness. Faithfulness/unfaithfulness will fulfill that covenantal union (salvation) or destroy it (apostasy/damnation). And of course as Calvinists, we believe that all of this is ultimately in the hands of our heavenly Father, but this does not negate our own human responsibility to perservere in faith, clinging to Jesus Christ. We should also note that "faith" is something that is often attributed to little children and infants; Jesus even makes their faith a model for us. So while we still do not want to insist on any sort of automatic baptismal regeration, a more full-orbed biblical approach would nevertheless see baptismal regeneration as far from impossible and perhaps more frequent than we commonly think, not because of some kind of magic in the water, but given what Scripture says about infants and little children and their faith (e.g. Ps. 22:9-10, Mt. 18:3, Mk. 9:42, 10:15).
Of course Scripture is our ultimate authority, but the Westminister Confession of Faith is our church's secondary confessional statement. As you're probably aware, this statement is one of the most widely accepted confessions of faith for historic Presbyterians.
Below is the WCF statement on baptism. Notice the first paragraph that describes "regeneration" as one of the things that baptism is a "sign and seal" of, but also notice the fifth and sixth paragraphs which make it clear that salvation is not inextricably tied to baptism and that the grace of baptism may be applied by the Holy Spirit in varying ways and at various times.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus
Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.
Friday, December 29, 2006
A New Neo-Orthodoxy?
Karl Barth sits on the top shelf with C.S. Lewis and Charles Hodge and a compendium of poetry. I smile at him, and he (even though he lost his dust cover many years ago now) smiles back at me. All that to say, I've read and benefited from some of the writings of Barth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I have had some very inspiring, even devotional-like moments in the presence of the German theologian. As many have pointed out, his greatest weakness is that for all of the insight and blessing he offers the church with one hand, he (perhaps unwittingly) attempts to take it away with the other. As I understand it, Barth's doctrine of revelation, in the attempt to protect the sovereignty of God, insists that true revelation cannot be tamed. And therefore Scripture, a witness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the Word of God, cannot be said to be itself revelation. Revelation occurs when, where, and how the sovereign God deigns. Encounters with God are like lightening strikes, and one can only do so much (doing the spiritual equivalents of the lightening rod) and live by faith that these moments of crisis will occur. Thus all that Barth offers in the course of his Dogmatics he only offers tentatively it seems. One is left wondering whether what Barth insists upon can rightly be spoken of as true given his premises concerning revelation. And even if revelation has been redefined to mean something far more specialized, e.g. a more direct experience/event with the Triune God, we are still left with a less than certain knowledge of truth and reality. As Van Til suggests, this aspect of Barthianism is based upon a skeptical view of knowledge which is ultimately related to an incipient monism. But for those of us who do not share Barth's assumptions regarding the nature of revelation as well as deeper philosophical presuppositions concerning the nature of being, there are many gems to mine from the caverns of Karl Barth. So I continue to smile up at Dr. Barth on the top shelf.
But my point is actually on a little different subject. In the current Federal Vision discussion; part of the freak out of certain quarters of reformed Presbyterianism has been a result of the insistence that God's Word and Ordinances can be trusted. Now most of these brothers would be repulsed by any hint of some sort of neo-orthodoxy (Barthianism) in the ranks of reformed Presbyterians. But I would suggest that this is actually occurring. There are some (let's call them Vantilians) who insist that God is both completely transcendent and other and at the same time immanent and near to the created order. This insistence on these two extremes protects the ultimate autonomy and freedom of God, and simultaneously protects his freedom to speak and act in whatever way he pleases. These Vantilians are currently stressing the fact that God has established his covenant in history, and that this covenant is entered through the covenant sign of baptism and that all the benefits of Christ are truly offered in this covenant seal and re-offered and re-affirmed in the covenant meal of the Eucharist. However, there are others (let's call them neo-Barthians) who are insisting that this infringes upon God's sovereignty and does not take into account the great chasm between creator and creation, between the infinite and the finite, along with vague yet frequent claims of sacerdotalism and quasi-arminianism. These neo-Barthians insist that while the sacraments and covenant are historical, the *real* recipients of grace in the sacraments and the *real* covenant members are so only through the mysterious, random, lightening strikes of the Holy Spirit. While this discussion is centered on the covenant and sacraments, it's really the same conversation all over again. Can the Triune God be trusted here and now? Must we only hope vaguely that our covenant Lord has spoken and acted through the means he has ordained, or may we speak with confidence in faith knowing that our God has indeed come near to us? I would suggest that the radical heresy hunters out for the blood of these various FVers are going down the path of Barthianism preferring a Theology of Crisis (as Van Til termed it) with its inherent skepticism of knowledge rather than the certainty of faith, which clings to the gifts of our sovereign God.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
I recognize full well that the reformed world, particularly that portion of its unmentionables protruding out into cyberspace, is running all amok with the Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue mêlée. Did to’s and did not’s and nuh-uh’s and uh-huh’s are multiplying at a rate to make the bunnies a little jealous. What's another blog post? A few paragraphs here is about as helpful as a water pistol in a monsoon. But all the same, here I am at the fountain of “reformedom” and I don’t mind heaving my two pennies into the aquatic piggy bank.
The Federal Vision is a conversation. The word “federal” simply means covenantal, a representative form of government, a part for whole understanding of both blessings and benefits, as well as responsibility. The conversation is a spider web of tangents and meandering side conversations that center on how the covenant is tied to salvation and the sovereignty of God.
But what I’d like to point out is that we’re all Calvinists here. We love the five points; we get giddy with excitement at the mention of the Institutes. The Synod of Dordt is, like, my favorite. We believe that God knows the end from the beginning and that in his inexhaustible goodness foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. God is not caught off guard; he is not surprised. He does everything that happens in the world; and nothing happens that is not the result of his immutable decrees. AND we believe that God uses means. God is not just a big one of us. We are not puddles while he is the ocean. We are not pebbles while he is Mt. Everest. He is the creator and we are the created. God’s decrees unfolding in the world are not like the work of a puppeteer, pulling so many strings and moving our mouths up and down. His will inhabits the order and story of the world in a mysterious, glorious way that far from restricting creation, actually enables and empowers creation to be creation. It is the love and joy and goodness of God that providentially sings the story of history filling stars and rivers and people with life and love and hunger. This means that we believe that while God is exhaustively sovereign, ruling the wild, spinning dance of every last atom from the beginning of the world to the very last second of time, at the very same time, God interacts with this creation, judging and saving, revealing and loving, hating and redeeming the world to himself. And because he is God, he is not merely playing with puppets. He is not arguing or fighting with himself. He has spun the worlds according to his glory AND that world fell into sin and misery, and he has been pleased to redeem and woo that world back to himself.
Why do I feel the necessity to defend and explain Calvinism to Reformed Presbyterians? Because I’m convinced that at least some of the extreme critics of this conversation have abandoned this central mystery and doctrine. Salvation is worked out in history. But we believe that God knows the names, birth weights, and last shoe size of every single person down from the beginning of the world to the end who trusts in Jesus for forgiveness and salvation. That number will not go up or down. It will not fluctuate with time or weather or politics. AND at the same time, it has pleased God to work in history through means. God uses people and books and circumstances and car accidents and conversations and sermons and sacraments and parents and diseases and children and employers and family pets and a million other things to tell the story of redemption in the world and draw individuals to himself. In other words, no one denies that we are saved through the completely unmerited grace of God, through faith which was not of ourselves but yet another completely gratuitous gift of God so that no one has a single syllable to boast about. This is because we are totally, completely, unassailably God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works which we did not dream up with our own brilliant minds, but which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
The point of all this simply to suggest that this whole fracas is just about these very basic things. How is salvation accomplished? Well in one sense salvation is accomplished by the immutable plan of God; the name of Carl Robbins was written in the book of life before the foundations of the world and nothing can change that. His sins were atoned for by the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and he was raised to new life and righteousness in the resurrection. But God has deemed his salvation to be worked out in history through a gazillion diverse and interrelated means, and it unfolds in God’s good timing. But God has told us some of the basic means that he uses. The central one is faith. God gives us the gift of faith, and this faith clings to Jesus Christ. And this faith so clings to him that it follows in his steps. This faith is like one of those sea monkeys in a bathtub which expands and grows. This faith sees the world as the playhouse of God, the nursery of the Almighty. And it believes the Word of God without doubting. Thus, when the word of God says that spanking is a means a grace, teaching a child wisdom and driving foolishness from his heart, we believe, rejoice, and obey. When the Word of God says that God made the world in 144 hours we believe, rejoice, and get to work on the ramifications of that. And when God’s Word says that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are important aspects of our salvation we believe it and rejoice and obey.
Now none of this endangers any historic Christian doctrine. It’s all of grace because we already said that it’s all God’s doing, ultimately. Does God use means? Yes. This whole conversation, in my opinion, is just reaffirming this basic Calvinism. It’s all fine and good to assert that God uses means, but as soon as someone starts to name one of the means, the place comes apart. This is like a basketball coach giving some instructions on a whiteboard in the locker room and half the team freaking out when he gets out on to the court and expects them to play. Come on people, this is the game we’ve been talking about for the last 500 years. God is sovereign and rules over all. Man is responsible and free according to his nature and held liable for his actions. Trust and obey for there's no other way, and yes that too is the gift of God. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus christus, soli deo gloria. This is the gospel, friends. The gospel is not being compromised here; only the locker room ease and comfort of some people is at stake. The Word did not enter history as a confessional statement; the Word entered history as a person, a baby with ten fingers and ten toes. As Pearl Jam once put it, "It's Calvinism, Baby!"
Posts
