"Let us now explain the apostle's contrast step by step. The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit; the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraved it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favor with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behooved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established forever...When we consider the multitude of those whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, he has regenerated by his Spirit, and gathered out of all nations into the communion of his church, we may say that those of ancient Israel who, with sincere and heartfelt affections embraced the covenant of the Lord, were few or none, though the number is great when they are considered in themselves without comparison."~II.11.VIII
Calvin having recently concluded his chapter on the similarities of the Old and New Testaments, in which he continues to lay what would later become the foundation for the WCF's "One Substance, Multiple Administrations" formula of CT, and establishes the Abrahamic as a promissorial administration of the Covenant of Grace, he goes on to write on the five "heads" of difference between the Testaments. Whereas his chapter on similarity focused on the typical/promisssorial blessings on Abraham and the Patriarchs, his differences emphasize the Covenant of Law, e.g., the Mosaic administration, and that in the blood of Christ. Specifically in section eight, Calvin outlines: 1) the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant as "literal" and the New as "spiritual". Not that this is the juxtaposition the modern dispensationalist would have: there is no tension here for Calvin. There is a spiritual reality in shadowy form in the Mosaic, and a "literal", in the sense of "real", element to the New (indeed, for Calvin, the New is more "real" than the shadowy/typological Old). Rather, Calvin's emphasis is on the "do this and live" presentation of the Law, which does not, in itself, offer either unconditional promise, or gracious aid in seeking the reward (typologically represented in the Land promise, as Calvin explained earlier in the chapter). This is contrasted with the pouring out and post-Pentecostal indwelling of the Spirit and it's writing of the moral law on the hearts of men.
2) The "deadly" element of the Mosaic administration is contrasted with the "life giving" promise of the Gospel. Here we see the smallest germ, perhaps, of a republication concept long before Owen or Kline: the curse of the Law is a representation of the curse already borne by the descendant of Adam, the breaker of the Covenant of Works.
3) The eternality of the Gospel covenant in contrast with the temporary obsolescence of the Law.
4) The extent of the Gospel promise, not to one chosen nation, but in great numerical abundance to all the nations of the earth.
Thus, Calvin sets the foundation to many of the arguments of Westminsterian CT long before the existence of the Standards, as the eternality, numerical superiority, Spiritual power, internalization, and life giving promise of the Gospel Covenant are set forward, contrary to the assertion that classical Covenant theology flattens the Covenant of Grace out into an undifferentiated admixture.
~JS
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Thursday, March 31, 2016
On Suicide, Culture, and Self
"Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others..."~Westminster Larger Catechism
I wrestled for a significant period of time with mentioning that I have contemplated (not practiced) self-harm in the past. Aside from the fact, which I should think obvious, that it is intrinsically something that is difficult to talk about for people who shun pity and embrace emotional privacy, there were a variety of reasons not to begin there. The primary reason is that I personally consider it irrelevant. Derivation of facts from personal experience is Gnostic, ergo, non-Christian. Running parallel to this, a defining feature of post-modernity has been prefacing every commentary on a given topic by stating that one is privy to just such "personal truths", gained from experience, thereby filling the well with the concentrated arsenic of "don't you dare presume to tell me about (x), I have lived it." As this is one of the many features of post-modernity I loathe with ever fiber of my being, please take my word at face value and accept that this is not a tactic I am employing.
Reservations to the contrary aside, I decided to start there, because I do believe that while one does not need to be hit by a brick to know that it hurts, knowledge of the specific sort of pain we are discussing is, in fact, gained most readily from experience. Therefore, I raise the issue to assure those who might read this who can't quite shake the impression that I am speaking to this issue from a place of pure and clinical detachment, that no, in fact, I am familiar with the experience of poor emotional health.
Having thus presented my credentials at the threshold, I stride boldly into the room to announce to those within that the primary reason that I have never deliberately harmed myself (the adverb of volition playing an important role there) is that it is sinful. There are many sinful things that I have done, including many heinous ones. However, I believe that suicide, attempts thereunto, and physical self-harm exist on a moral plain that I shrink back from in fear. This fear is nothing of me, and all of God: I would fear nothing in the realm of evil were it not for the hand of grace in my life, so do not think that I am looking to exalt myself over other people in this. I have friends that have harmed themselves. I have friends that have killed themselves. I am no better than they. I am no worse. Sinners all, we are dependent on God for deliverance from the body of death. Self-identifying as a sinner, however, even one touched by the struggles with depression, loneliness, or alienation that have affected countless others, is not going to stay my hand from speaking here as to why I believe that self-harm is wicked, to be repented of, and why it is a product of a dying culture. For any who have stuck with me thus far who are offended, I do not demand you change your mind, only that you allow me to attempt to expose a fruitless deed of darkness without feeling that I am a hypocrite.
Firstly, it must be said that self-harm is murderous, in the proper sense of the term, that is to say, a violation of the sixth commandment. The violation of the sixth commandment, when done pertinent to other people, is a derogation of God's right to be God, as all the Decalogue. Specifically, it strikes at the precious gift of life that God has given to men, and it seeks to unmake what God has made in His own image. In the case of self-harm and suicide, this impulse is wedded to a larger and more palpable expression of ingratitude, in that the gift and the image-marring are uniquely personal. To harm oneself is to tell God that He was mistaken in making you, that His gifts are worthless, that His creative act is wrongheaded. Like all violations of the law of God, it echoes the Garden impulse to believe that one knows better.
Like all sin, this means that self-harm and suicide are acts of the ego, in other words, fundamentally selfish. However, because these sins are viewed from the outside as negations or assaults on self, the selfishness is wrapped in a far greater degree of paradox than other categories of sin. In order for one to violate God's law, to attempt to sit on His throne and say that it is our will that will be done, one must believe in the moment, however wrong-headed it may be, that one stands to gain from it. How is selfishness visible in an attack on self? Simply put, the person who commits suicide has already located self somewhere other than God's decree has. The final act of rebellion may be an act of despair in that the person does not believe the act itself is gain per se, but the origin of the despair has been a transfer of one's self-worth, how what defines oneself, and what one lives for to something other than what God wants.
One can see this pattern in the increasing number of tragic deaths in the West of recipients of "gender reassignment surgery", a process which is named for an impossibility from the decretal perspective of God. Who and what God created a person to be has been exchanged, as in the first chapter of Romans, for a lie. However, such a dramatic, and perhaps therefore, more obvious, example is merely a greater trend writ large.
My generation is said to be the most anxious, most depressed, most medicated, and most suicidal generation of Americans to date. While we did not unlock some secret category of sin, or transgress in some quantitatively different degree than our parents or ancestors, the worldview in which America, and the West generally is deluged has brought us to this. Despite being more obsessed than any past people on Earth with "self-esteem" and "self-realization", objective metrics can demonstrate that Americans hate themselves more than ever. And this is because the subjectivity of moral relativism has detached the anchor of self from the sea floor of objective truth. Americans run hither and yon seeking identity in people, places and things. Social media floods with stories of teenage girls who pop pills and slash wrists over social slights, and men who risk their lives with steroids to appear attractive to people they barely know. For myself, it took a great deal of effort in high school to reconcile myself to not fitting in with peers, and another great deal of effort to transition to a single life after college. Neither period was without temptations in the arena of self-destructive behavior. Neither period was without outright sin in that regard either. As fresh millions of adults embark on what are supposed to be the most stable years of their lives, they have left educational and recreational institutions fully sold out to the idea that there is no Creator God who values them and has a plan for them individually, and increasingly, self-conception becomes attached to money, sex, or, in my opinion most insidiously, the approval of others.
It is there that I want to conclude, because the thing that grieves me most about the selfishness of self-harm, and the thing that I think needs to be impressed upon people who struggle with despair, is that it sets a terrible example. This is leaving aside the already extreme impact that suicide or self-harm will have on a person's friends, family members, and significant others (and I have never met a person who was not loved by someone, if you are reading this, that includes you). No matter what you are dealing with, to hurt yourself over it is to tell other people who may go through the same thing, including people who may be younger and weaker, that it is acceptable to give up. In a world with an increasingly demagnetized moral compass, suicide is to tell someone else that their idols of prestige, insecurity or circumstances are worth giving up God's gift of life. Other people do not define you. Your faults and unfulfilled aspirations do not define you. Your Creator defines you, and if you are a Christian, that definition cost more than you can know. Repent.
To those who read this all the way through, thank you. I appreciate if it was less than fun to do so. It was less than fun to write. The "usual schedule" of Notes will resume tomorrow, God willing, with the scheduled Institutes column that was supposed to run today. God bless.
~JS
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others..."~Westminster Larger Catechism
I wrestled for a significant period of time with mentioning that I have contemplated (not practiced) self-harm in the past. Aside from the fact, which I should think obvious, that it is intrinsically something that is difficult to talk about for people who shun pity and embrace emotional privacy, there were a variety of reasons not to begin there. The primary reason is that I personally consider it irrelevant. Derivation of facts from personal experience is Gnostic, ergo, non-Christian. Running parallel to this, a defining feature of post-modernity has been prefacing every commentary on a given topic by stating that one is privy to just such "personal truths", gained from experience, thereby filling the well with the concentrated arsenic of "don't you dare presume to tell me about (x), I have lived it." As this is one of the many features of post-modernity I loathe with ever fiber of my being, please take my word at face value and accept that this is not a tactic I am employing.
Reservations to the contrary aside, I decided to start there, because I do believe that while one does not need to be hit by a brick to know that it hurts, knowledge of the specific sort of pain we are discussing is, in fact, gained most readily from experience. Therefore, I raise the issue to assure those who might read this who can't quite shake the impression that I am speaking to this issue from a place of pure and clinical detachment, that no, in fact, I am familiar with the experience of poor emotional health.
Having thus presented my credentials at the threshold, I stride boldly into the room to announce to those within that the primary reason that I have never deliberately harmed myself (the adverb of volition playing an important role there) is that it is sinful. There are many sinful things that I have done, including many heinous ones. However, I believe that suicide, attempts thereunto, and physical self-harm exist on a moral plain that I shrink back from in fear. This fear is nothing of me, and all of God: I would fear nothing in the realm of evil were it not for the hand of grace in my life, so do not think that I am looking to exalt myself over other people in this. I have friends that have harmed themselves. I have friends that have killed themselves. I am no better than they. I am no worse. Sinners all, we are dependent on God for deliverance from the body of death. Self-identifying as a sinner, however, even one touched by the struggles with depression, loneliness, or alienation that have affected countless others, is not going to stay my hand from speaking here as to why I believe that self-harm is wicked, to be repented of, and why it is a product of a dying culture. For any who have stuck with me thus far who are offended, I do not demand you change your mind, only that you allow me to attempt to expose a fruitless deed of darkness without feeling that I am a hypocrite.
Firstly, it must be said that self-harm is murderous, in the proper sense of the term, that is to say, a violation of the sixth commandment. The violation of the sixth commandment, when done pertinent to other people, is a derogation of God's right to be God, as all the Decalogue. Specifically, it strikes at the precious gift of life that God has given to men, and it seeks to unmake what God has made in His own image. In the case of self-harm and suicide, this impulse is wedded to a larger and more palpable expression of ingratitude, in that the gift and the image-marring are uniquely personal. To harm oneself is to tell God that He was mistaken in making you, that His gifts are worthless, that His creative act is wrongheaded. Like all violations of the law of God, it echoes the Garden impulse to believe that one knows better.
Like all sin, this means that self-harm and suicide are acts of the ego, in other words, fundamentally selfish. However, because these sins are viewed from the outside as negations or assaults on self, the selfishness is wrapped in a far greater degree of paradox than other categories of sin. In order for one to violate God's law, to attempt to sit on His throne and say that it is our will that will be done, one must believe in the moment, however wrong-headed it may be, that one stands to gain from it. How is selfishness visible in an attack on self? Simply put, the person who commits suicide has already located self somewhere other than God's decree has. The final act of rebellion may be an act of despair in that the person does not believe the act itself is gain per se, but the origin of the despair has been a transfer of one's self-worth, how what defines oneself, and what one lives for to something other than what God wants.
One can see this pattern in the increasing number of tragic deaths in the West of recipients of "gender reassignment surgery", a process which is named for an impossibility from the decretal perspective of God. Who and what God created a person to be has been exchanged, as in the first chapter of Romans, for a lie. However, such a dramatic, and perhaps therefore, more obvious, example is merely a greater trend writ large.
My generation is said to be the most anxious, most depressed, most medicated, and most suicidal generation of Americans to date. While we did not unlock some secret category of sin, or transgress in some quantitatively different degree than our parents or ancestors, the worldview in which America, and the West generally is deluged has brought us to this. Despite being more obsessed than any past people on Earth with "self-esteem" and "self-realization", objective metrics can demonstrate that Americans hate themselves more than ever. And this is because the subjectivity of moral relativism has detached the anchor of self from the sea floor of objective truth. Americans run hither and yon seeking identity in people, places and things. Social media floods with stories of teenage girls who pop pills and slash wrists over social slights, and men who risk their lives with steroids to appear attractive to people they barely know. For myself, it took a great deal of effort in high school to reconcile myself to not fitting in with peers, and another great deal of effort to transition to a single life after college. Neither period was without temptations in the arena of self-destructive behavior. Neither period was without outright sin in that regard either. As fresh millions of adults embark on what are supposed to be the most stable years of their lives, they have left educational and recreational institutions fully sold out to the idea that there is no Creator God who values them and has a plan for them individually, and increasingly, self-conception becomes attached to money, sex, or, in my opinion most insidiously, the approval of others.
It is there that I want to conclude, because the thing that grieves me most about the selfishness of self-harm, and the thing that I think needs to be impressed upon people who struggle with despair, is that it sets a terrible example. This is leaving aside the already extreme impact that suicide or self-harm will have on a person's friends, family members, and significant others (and I have never met a person who was not loved by someone, if you are reading this, that includes you). No matter what you are dealing with, to hurt yourself over it is to tell other people who may go through the same thing, including people who may be younger and weaker, that it is acceptable to give up. In a world with an increasingly demagnetized moral compass, suicide is to tell someone else that their idols of prestige, insecurity or circumstances are worth giving up God's gift of life. Other people do not define you. Your faults and unfulfilled aspirations do not define you. Your Creator defines you, and if you are a Christian, that definition cost more than you can know. Repent.
To those who read this all the way through, thank you. I appreciate if it was less than fun to do so. It was less than fun to write. The "usual schedule" of Notes will resume tomorrow, God willing, with the scheduled Institutes column that was supposed to run today. God bless.
~JS
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Institutionalized: The Resurrection and Cross indivisible.
"Our salvation may be thus divided between the death and the resurrection of Christ: by the former sin was abolished and death annihilated; by the latter righteousness was restored and life revived, the power and efficacy of the former being still bestowed upon us by means of the latter...Let us remember therefore, that when death only is mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same time included, and that there is a like snecdoche in the term resurrection, as often as it is used apart from death, everything peculiar to death being included. But as, by rising again, he obtained the victory and became the resurrection and the life, Paul justly argues, 'If Christ be not raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins"(1 Cor 15:17)...Then, as we have already explained that the mortification of our flesh depends on communion with the cross, so we must also understand, that a corresponding benefit is derived from his resurrection."~Institutes II.16.XIII
Here, Calvin points out that it is impossible for the victory over sin and death to be accomplished without either the death of Christ, or His resurrection. To such degree does Calvin believe these to be two sides of the same coin that he states that each could be said to be fully concealed in the mention of the other in the text of Scripture. Why this is, Calvin outlines: the destruction of death and the power of sin can properly be said to belong to the domain of the Cross, as in Owen's famous "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ", while righteousness and newness of life can be said to be consequent to resurrection (Calvin goes on to note in this passage that Christ is the forerunner of resurrection on behalf of the redeemed). This is not a pure split, however, and Calvin cites Paul to the Corinthians to remind us that the final triumph is not possible without the resurrection.
The Christian faith in the work of Jesus cannot be divided piecemeal, so as to make him only the final and perfect sacrifice, or only the resurrected Lord of life. While no groups I am aware of claim to do so to an exhaustive degree, there have been times when the emphasis in Rome has been too greatly on the Cross (as witnessed by the continued and widespread use of the crucifix), whereas the various emergent groups denying penal substitution appear to want, as best as they can manage, a bloodless gospel. The irony in the former case is that the eucharistic theology of Rome empties the Cross of its power by making it a repetitious, non-perfecting work incongruent with a Savior who is ascendant and seated; the failure of the latter is an emergent unwillingness to deal with the reality of harsh realities of sin and the law brought to us by the Cross. Calvin reminds us, on this Holy Saturday, that Jesus has offered a complete Gospel and a finished work. As Paul said to the Corinthians before his proclamation of the resurrection's necessity, Christ is not divided, and neither is the atonement by His blood.
~JS
Here, Calvin points out that it is impossible for the victory over sin and death to be accomplished without either the death of Christ, or His resurrection. To such degree does Calvin believe these to be two sides of the same coin that he states that each could be said to be fully concealed in the mention of the other in the text of Scripture. Why this is, Calvin outlines: the destruction of death and the power of sin can properly be said to belong to the domain of the Cross, as in Owen's famous "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ", while righteousness and newness of life can be said to be consequent to resurrection (Calvin goes on to note in this passage that Christ is the forerunner of resurrection on behalf of the redeemed). This is not a pure split, however, and Calvin cites Paul to the Corinthians to remind us that the final triumph is not possible without the resurrection.
The Christian faith in the work of Jesus cannot be divided piecemeal, so as to make him only the final and perfect sacrifice, or only the resurrected Lord of life. While no groups I am aware of claim to do so to an exhaustive degree, there have been times when the emphasis in Rome has been too greatly on the Cross (as witnessed by the continued and widespread use of the crucifix), whereas the various emergent groups denying penal substitution appear to want, as best as they can manage, a bloodless gospel. The irony in the former case is that the eucharistic theology of Rome empties the Cross of its power by making it a repetitious, non-perfecting work incongruent with a Savior who is ascendant and seated; the failure of the latter is an emergent unwillingness to deal with the reality of harsh realities of sin and the law brought to us by the Cross. Calvin reminds us, on this Holy Saturday, that Jesus has offered a complete Gospel and a finished work. As Paul said to the Corinthians before his proclamation of the resurrection's necessity, Christ is not divided, and neither is the atonement by His blood.
~JS
Internet Roundup: Politicized Evangelicalism, Gay Christianity, and more resources
In today's Roundup, we feature two databases of "free stuff", as well as a few specific pieces on topics of interest.
1) The Heidelblog wrote an article recently on infant baptism in the Reformed tradition and the notion that all baptism of very young children is Romanist in origin and theology. I link to it less because I believe that my current readership believes this, but pretty much every American knows someone who does.
2) An old professor of mine linked to a very interesting article on the faiths of Republican presidential contestants this year, and what the demographics in American "evangelicalism" indicate about their support base. While I hardly agree with all the conclusions drawn by the article (at the end, it strays into "pro-Rubio editorial" territory), my primary concern is to highlight a conclusion I think most practicing Christians could have drawn on their own, but has poll data to support it: the overwhelming burden of "evangelicals for Trump" can't be bothered to do things like regularly attend local churches.
3) Already linked on the Facebook page of my life group, I re-post here a thirty-minute sermon by Dr. John Piper on the abiding nature of the Sabbath. Particularly relevant to the earlier post here on the Sabbath in the Reformed confessions, I was surprised, given Piper's Bapist and post-Pentecostal leanings, to have agreed with the content of Dr. Piper's message as much as I did. While he did not use the words "single in substance, multiple in administration", his conclusions largely align with application of that principle to the cross-covenantal validity of the Sabbath.
4) Covenant Theological Seminary has a bunch of free resources that they want just an email address for (and they don't send a bunch of spam). The majority of lectures for several of their courses are available on audio free of charge.
5) Monergism.com remains one of the most useful, and still updating, data-mines for Reformed reading online. If you haven't visited already, now's your prompt.
6) Finally, we have a link to the (lengthy, no visuals) audio of Dr. James White's response to a talk given by pro-"Gay Christianity" presenter Matthew Vines. As this may be the issue confronting the American church today, and Vines is representative of a wide swath of readings in the "non-traditional" camp, I highly recommend this audio response as a place to start for the bemused, confused, befuddled, or those running low on ammunition.
Hope you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday. In addition to today's post, stay tuned for a minor glut of additional content presently in the works.
~JS
1) The Heidelblog wrote an article recently on infant baptism in the Reformed tradition and the notion that all baptism of very young children is Romanist in origin and theology. I link to it less because I believe that my current readership believes this, but pretty much every American knows someone who does.
2) An old professor of mine linked to a very interesting article on the faiths of Republican presidential contestants this year, and what the demographics in American "evangelicalism" indicate about their support base. While I hardly agree with all the conclusions drawn by the article (at the end, it strays into "pro-Rubio editorial" territory), my primary concern is to highlight a conclusion I think most practicing Christians could have drawn on their own, but has poll data to support it: the overwhelming burden of "evangelicals for Trump" can't be bothered to do things like regularly attend local churches.
3) Already linked on the Facebook page of my life group, I re-post here a thirty-minute sermon by Dr. John Piper on the abiding nature of the Sabbath. Particularly relevant to the earlier post here on the Sabbath in the Reformed confessions, I was surprised, given Piper's Bapist and post-Pentecostal leanings, to have agreed with the content of Dr. Piper's message as much as I did. While he did not use the words "single in substance, multiple in administration", his conclusions largely align with application of that principle to the cross-covenantal validity of the Sabbath.
4) Covenant Theological Seminary has a bunch of free resources that they want just an email address for (and they don't send a bunch of spam). The majority of lectures for several of their courses are available on audio free of charge.
5) Monergism.com remains one of the most useful, and still updating, data-mines for Reformed reading online. If you haven't visited already, now's your prompt.
6) Finally, we have a link to the (lengthy, no visuals) audio of Dr. James White's response to a talk given by pro-"Gay Christianity" presenter Matthew Vines. As this may be the issue confronting the American church today, and Vines is representative of a wide swath of readings in the "non-traditional" camp, I highly recommend this audio response as a place to start for the bemused, confused, befuddled, or those running low on ammunition.
Hope you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday. In addition to today's post, stay tuned for a minor glut of additional content presently in the works.
~JS
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Internet round-up: Rushdoony, Racism, and Romans.
Time for another of Notes' internet round-ups, in which I share things that interest me from across the web. In no particular order, then...
1) I may have already linked to R. Scott Clark's monthly webcast, the Heidelcast, before, but it's full archive is located here. I started listening to episode 58 and following yesterday, on the topic of Nomism (legalism) and Antinomianism (the belief that the abiding validity of the moral law of God for the Christian today), and think that that series will be of great practical impact to believers (particularly as episode 58 contains a fairly comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in Romans), and also has a lot of tie-ins with material previously covered on this blog. Check it out.
2) There has been a dust-up over accusations of racism in the wake of a (now-deleted) tweet and accompanying facebook post by James White on a particular millennial of minority descent that Dr. White observed in public. Like moths to a flame, Joel McDurmon's involvement in the matter drew counter-accusations on the part of Pulpit and Pen including a firestorm of tweets and at least one blog post on racially charged statements made by the primary forefather of Reconstruction, RJ Rushdoony. I would like to relink the statements cited by P and P here so as to demonstrate the source of the controversy, but I would also like to link to at least one piece by Rushdoony from the American Vision to attempt to demonstrate that the issue is not as clear-cut as either side, perhaps, would like it to be. I'm going to stay out of the issue, at least for the time being, except to say that it is brutally damaging to the Reformed community to allow the rhetoric around race and racism typically harnessed by secular interests to divide brother against brother in the church. I would also encourage folks who haven't actually read anything by Rushdoony to do so before jumping into Reconstruction-related issues.
3) Princeton has a multi-lingual library of the writings of Abraham Kuyper available online for free. While the bulk of this material will be obscured from folks who don't speak Dutch or Latin, there is a wealth of English material available also, including several lecture series and his entire book "The Work of the Holy Spirit".
Have a restful and holy Lord's Day.
~JS
1) I may have already linked to R. Scott Clark's monthly webcast, the Heidelcast, before, but it's full archive is located here. I started listening to episode 58 and following yesterday, on the topic of Nomism (legalism) and Antinomianism (the belief that the abiding validity of the moral law of God for the Christian today), and think that that series will be of great practical impact to believers (particularly as episode 58 contains a fairly comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in Romans), and also has a lot of tie-ins with material previously covered on this blog. Check it out.
2) There has been a dust-up over accusations of racism in the wake of a (now-deleted) tweet and accompanying facebook post by James White on a particular millennial of minority descent that Dr. White observed in public. Like moths to a flame, Joel McDurmon's involvement in the matter drew counter-accusations on the part of Pulpit and Pen including a firestorm of tweets and at least one blog post on racially charged statements made by the primary forefather of Reconstruction, RJ Rushdoony. I would like to relink the statements cited by P and P here so as to demonstrate the source of the controversy, but I would also like to link to at least one piece by Rushdoony from the American Vision to attempt to demonstrate that the issue is not as clear-cut as either side, perhaps, would like it to be. I'm going to stay out of the issue, at least for the time being, except to say that it is brutally damaging to the Reformed community to allow the rhetoric around race and racism typically harnessed by secular interests to divide brother against brother in the church. I would also encourage folks who haven't actually read anything by Rushdoony to do so before jumping into Reconstruction-related issues.
3) Princeton has a multi-lingual library of the writings of Abraham Kuyper available online for free. While the bulk of this material will be obscured from folks who don't speak Dutch or Latin, there is a wealth of English material available also, including several lecture series and his entire book "The Work of the Holy Spirit".
Have a restful and holy Lord's Day.
~JS
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Wednesday feature column: "Institutionalized"
Not only has post frequency dropped off recently, but I completely missed Saturday's installment of the round-up. Which may be for the best, as I hadn't really happened upon anything fascinating that week anyway. However, making up for this somewhat, I am launching a Wednesday evening tradition here at Notes that I will be calling "Institutionalized", wherein I will go over a passage from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and talk a little bit about it. With no further introduction necessary, today's passage comes from the second book, "Of Christ the Redeemer".
"The saying of John was always true, 'whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father' (1 John 2:23). For though in old time, there were many who boasted that they worshiped the Supreme Deity, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet as they had no mediator, it was impossible for them to truly enjoy the mercy of God, so as to feel persuaded that He was their Father. Not holding the Head, that is, Christ, their knowledge of God was evanescent; and hence they at length fell away to gross and foul superstitions, betraying their ignorance, just as the Turks in the present day who, though proclaiming, with full throat, that the Creator of heaven and earth is their God, yet by their rejection of Christ, substitute an idol in his place." II.6.IV
It has often been said that the Institutes are a book in which the ink appears not yet dry, and the number of times one can find things relevant to our day and time continually astonishes. In chapter Six of the second book, Calvin has just given a brief overview of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, including Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic, and illustrated the need for the people of God for a Mediator, whether in the types and shadows of the sacrificial system, or the prophesied reign of the future seed of David. Calvin states that this need of a Mediator was so central to the understanding of Israel, that although it was obscured by the machinations of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus assumed its importance.
Calvin concludes that this centrality of the Mediator, and Christ's exclusive claim to that office of Mediation, is the background to 1 John 2:23. He ends chapter Six with the Biblical death blow to two common intellectual ailments of postmodernity: firstly, the idea that Christ is one acceptable path to God among many, and secondly, the idea that Rabbinical Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, worship the same God. Wheaton faculty protestation and Vatican II posturing to the contrary notwithstanding, to seek the Father without the Son is, for Calvin, the substitution of an idol in the Father's place.
~JS
"The saying of John was always true, 'whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father' (1 John 2:23). For though in old time, there were many who boasted that they worshiped the Supreme Deity, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet as they had no mediator, it was impossible for them to truly enjoy the mercy of God, so as to feel persuaded that He was their Father. Not holding the Head, that is, Christ, their knowledge of God was evanescent; and hence they at length fell away to gross and foul superstitions, betraying their ignorance, just as the Turks in the present day who, though proclaiming, with full throat, that the Creator of heaven and earth is their God, yet by their rejection of Christ, substitute an idol in his place." II.6.IV
It has often been said that the Institutes are a book in which the ink appears not yet dry, and the number of times one can find things relevant to our day and time continually astonishes. In chapter Six of the second book, Calvin has just given a brief overview of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace, including Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic, and illustrated the need for the people of God for a Mediator, whether in the types and shadows of the sacrificial system, or the prophesied reign of the future seed of David. Calvin states that this need of a Mediator was so central to the understanding of Israel, that although it was obscured by the machinations of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus assumed its importance.
Calvin concludes that this centrality of the Mediator, and Christ's exclusive claim to that office of Mediation, is the background to 1 John 2:23. He ends chapter Six with the Biblical death blow to two common intellectual ailments of postmodernity: firstly, the idea that Christ is one acceptable path to God among many, and secondly, the idea that Rabbinical Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, worship the same God. Wheaton faculty protestation and Vatican II posturing to the contrary notwithstanding, to seek the Father without the Son is, for Calvin, the substitution of an idol in the Father's place.
~JS
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Internet Round-Up: Of Presidents and Popes
A few items from the web for your weekend perusal. A few were already on my Facebook, so apologies for any redundancies.
1) James KA Smith, philosophy professor at Calvin College, wrote a solid piece on the potential Democratic nominees and student debt, which can be found here. I would suggest that you pair it with some American Vision pieces on the costs (financial/material and otherwise) of higher education today.
2) This piece on the idea of "shadowbanning" should demonstrate why I believe there is reason to fear the end of the era of free speech in the West. It would behoove all of us to keep an eye on who is being appointed to regulate what in the arena of social media.
3) CNN ran a story on the Pope and his waffling on the "lesser evil" of contraceptives in the face of (yet another) thing that makes it uncomfortable to be both a humanist (and a humanist Bergoglio certainly is) and an opponent of contraceptives, namely the Zika virus. Irrespective of my views either of artificial contraception or the Pope, this is both fresh evidence of his worldview inconsistency, and the fact that said inconsistency is not entirely self-generated. The post Vatican II milieu, and the oddly discordant hardline stance on artificial contraception occurring at the same time have increased the number of objects kept in the air by the papal jugglers more than once.
4) For those interested in the history and background of traditional dispensationalism, or for John MacArthur fans interested to find evidence that his views are not generated by a life of isolation in the theological woods, Louis Sperry Chafer's tract on dispensationalism is available at Amazon for 99 cents. It is not a pretty edition, in fact it defines the expression "no frills", but at that price, who can complain?
I conclude with two pieces from "The American Conservative" relevant to the (increasingly disastrous-looking) Presidential election cycle, one of which reflects statements I made a number of weeks ago in regards to the "Rise of Trump".
5) The first describes the element of American politics behind the Donald (and other aspects and personalities of this election) that can be described, in some sense, as "fascistic". One of the things appreciable about this piece is that it is at least partially clinical/analytical. Winners, writing the history as they do, "fascism" has been relegated to the domain of ad hominem, such that a logical fallacy has been created to designate "an appeal to Hitler", whereas "socialism" is not only a term with a meaningful dictionary definition in the American political consciousness, but a badge certain holders of public office wear with pride. Ironically, the American unwillingness to analyze the fascist boogeyman (which stems allegedly from abhorring it), has made some Americans unable to identify it. (This may be a theme deserving of stand-alone posts).
6) The second is a political tactics post about the Rubio campaign. I'm mostly linking to it because it combines two of my favorite things: in-depth discussion of Presidential campaign strategy, and Napoleonic metaphor.
Until next time, may we all continue to grow up in the Head, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
~JS
1) James KA Smith, philosophy professor at Calvin College, wrote a solid piece on the potential Democratic nominees and student debt, which can be found here. I would suggest that you pair it with some American Vision pieces on the costs (financial/material and otherwise) of higher education today.
2) This piece on the idea of "shadowbanning" should demonstrate why I believe there is reason to fear the end of the era of free speech in the West. It would behoove all of us to keep an eye on who is being appointed to regulate what in the arena of social media.
3) CNN ran a story on the Pope and his waffling on the "lesser evil" of contraceptives in the face of (yet another) thing that makes it uncomfortable to be both a humanist (and a humanist Bergoglio certainly is) and an opponent of contraceptives, namely the Zika virus. Irrespective of my views either of artificial contraception or the Pope, this is both fresh evidence of his worldview inconsistency, and the fact that said inconsistency is not entirely self-generated. The post Vatican II milieu, and the oddly discordant hardline stance on artificial contraception occurring at the same time have increased the number of objects kept in the air by the papal jugglers more than once.
4) For those interested in the history and background of traditional dispensationalism, or for John MacArthur fans interested to find evidence that his views are not generated by a life of isolation in the theological woods, Louis Sperry Chafer's tract on dispensationalism is available at Amazon for 99 cents. It is not a pretty edition, in fact it defines the expression "no frills", but at that price, who can complain?
I conclude with two pieces from "The American Conservative" relevant to the (increasingly disastrous-looking) Presidential election cycle, one of which reflects statements I made a number of weeks ago in regards to the "Rise of Trump".
5) The first describes the element of American politics behind the Donald (and other aspects and personalities of this election) that can be described, in some sense, as "fascistic". One of the things appreciable about this piece is that it is at least partially clinical/analytical. Winners, writing the history as they do, "fascism" has been relegated to the domain of ad hominem, such that a logical fallacy has been created to designate "an appeal to Hitler", whereas "socialism" is not only a term with a meaningful dictionary definition in the American political consciousness, but a badge certain holders of public office wear with pride. Ironically, the American unwillingness to analyze the fascist boogeyman (which stems allegedly from abhorring it), has made some Americans unable to identify it. (This may be a theme deserving of stand-alone posts).
6) The second is a political tactics post about the Rubio campaign. I'm mostly linking to it because it combines two of my favorite things: in-depth discussion of Presidential campaign strategy, and Napoleonic metaphor.
Until next time, may we all continue to grow up in the Head, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
~JS
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Visions, Federal and Otherwise, or "dry Baptists, secret Lutherans and other oddities" (1)
As addressed in other entries here, the modern Reformed and Paedobaptist (I dislike the habit of leaving the second term off and simply letting Baptists figure out what you mean) community has been riven by a specific set of issues for quite a while, and as the advocates of what is typically viewed as the novel position refuse to go away, that rift has widened. I refer of course to what has been known, depending on who you are asking, as the Federal Vision (or federal vision "movement", hereafter FV), Auburn Avenue theology, "monocovenantalism", or Shepherdism. Apart from hopefully shining greater light on the origin of that array of nicknames for the perspective, I am embarking on a mission with several diverse goals regarding it. Firstly, I hope to give a broad outline of what unifies the perspective (and what diversifies it), and how it is delineated from what I will at this point call the "traditional/confessional" perspective (hereafter TC). Secondly, I want to get into the meat and potatoes by reviewing and examining some key portions (or at least portions I found particularly interesting) of the book of essays published by some of the key figures of the movement itself, aptly entitled "The Federal Vision". Third, or rather intermingled with these, I want to provide commentary and concerns on the movement as a whole as the work progresses. I don't know how long this project will take, how many pages it will cover, or how many posts it will occupy. With that utter lack of confidence instilled in my beleaguered readership, I begin with some basics and background.
One name given to FV, which typically has been assigned by it's foes rather than it's friends is "Shepherdism", and this is due to the fact that in order to give background to the FV controversy, and why people outside the perspective criticize it, I have to begin with earlier controversy which resulted in the expulsion of Norman Shepherd from Westminster Seminary Philadelphia (WSP). Shepherd was the heir of John Murray's post at WSP, and after almost a decade of controversy over various issues, was dismissed in 1981, left his presbytery (where he was facing disciplinary review as well) and joined the Christian Reformed Church in North America for the remainder of his pastoral career. While issues surrounding his dismissal were varied, the two that stood out most in the Westminster community and the OPC as a whole were: 1) Shepherds insistence on rejection of the Standards formulation of the CoW, replacing it with a system wherein Adam and the rest of man were all in the CoG, 2) a formulation of justification by faith which taught that "only obedient faith" perseveres or justifies. This second view may seem in the brief space I have allotted to it to be mere biblical truism to the Reformed reader abreast of the distinction between sanctification and justification, but as I hope to show in controversy surrounding modern FV proponents, similar views present greater difficulty than can be resolved by harmonizing Romans 5 and James 2. Additionally, point one above, the denial of the Covenant of Works as understood by the WCF, will be a feature common to, (but not universally accepted by all promoters of) FV, which explains the accusation noted at the outset of "monocovenantalism". Several FV men participated in the publication and authorship of a Festschrift for Norman Shepherd provocatively titled Obedient Faith, so while I cannot spend further time (and have no expert opinions to offer) on the influence of Shepherd on FV generally, his career and ideas will be relevant to consider in this post and those that follow. On a related note before moving on, overreaction to Shepherd's (and Murray's) positions on the Covenants resulted in much of the dustup at Westminster West over "Klinean Republication"...but that's a story for another time.
Moving from there, the key element to what is now known as FV began with the presentations and papers resulting from the pastors conference at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe Louisiana, 2002. The four conference speakers at this, the first "Federal Vision conference" were Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and Douglas Wilson, and the topics addressed were primarily those of covenant theology. The controversy that brewed over the papers presented at the conference was partially summarized in the positions affirmed and denied in a joint statement on the "Federal Vision" signed in 2007 by eleven minsters of the PCA and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). At the end of this statement, under "Some Points of Intramual Disagreement", was a paragraph stating:
"Some of these areas [of disagreement, JS] would include, but not be limited to, whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated."
While this phrasing highlights that there are differences on key doctrines within the FV "stream", there were also many key affirmations, including shared postmillennialism, denial of Christian neutrality in "secular" politics, and a denial that
"...Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." 1
The significance of this to disagreement between some confessional Presbyterian thinkers and the FV men will become more clear, but should already have more light placed on it by the above mention of Shepherd's elimination of the WCF's formulation of the CoW. The linked FV joint statement should be read by anyone looking to grasp the related issue.
I'd like to wrap up this post with a list some basic elements of agreement and disagreement within FV, and also a few key disagreements between FV and more "traditional/confessional" or "TR" perspectives. However, it should be remembered that the existence of the first list precludes the universality of the second, in other words, not all attacks launched from the TR camp can be said to be equally directed against all FV men, even within the eleven signatories of the joint statement.
To begin, a few areas of mutual agreement among all FV men, briefly summarized.
1) Baptism, including of infants, truly makes all those to whom it is applied, truly united to Christ (in some sense, although which sense varies depending on which FV man you ask), truly part of his Church and truly a participant in the New Covenant. To the extent that the New Covenant is the covenant of Regeneration, all persons partaking of Triune Baptism can be said to participate in "regeneration" in some sense, although not necessarily unto eternal life.
2) Justification and Regeneration, while bearing the traditional/confessional reformed definitions, are multi-faceted, and can occur in different senses for different persons.
3) God's decree comes unequivocally to pass, and includes all things in time, including justification unto eternal life, individually declared in eternity past. However, this justification is not the only human experience of justification in the sight of God.
4) It is impossible to please God through covenant membership alone, and the faith men are called to in Word and Sacrament must be the living and active faith of James 2.
5) Denial that "law" and "gospel" are, or should be used as, hermeneutics, accompanied by affirmation that saved persons can hear all parts of Scripture as good news, while unregenerate persons hear all parts of the Scripture as "the savor of death".
6) A real, but spiritual and non-local, presence of Christ in the Supper, and participation therein in confirmation of New Covenant membership.
7) It is possible to apostatize from the New Covenant, and breakers of the NC receive greater condemnation than pagans. However, it is not possible for the decretally elect to fall away from Christ.
However, there are likely as many differences as there are unifying elements, including in no particular order:
1) Paedocommunion. While the "joint statement" affirms the administration of the supper to "children", adherence to paedocommunion as practice (or definition of the term) varies among FV theologians.
2) The exact emphasis of the biblical term "justification". Some within in the movement see the predominant biblical use as eschatological (vis a vis the "final declaration" of N.T. Wright), others as partially synonymous with sanctification-in-process (which would be their typical reading of dikaioo in James 2), yet others emphasize very strongly the element of justification which is in the union of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ (another theme shared with N.T. Wright and "New Perspectivism"). On top of all of these, there remains individual salvific justification by faith, and the emphases and terminology used will differ widely among which FV writer you are reading on the subject.
3) The degree to which FV men can be said to affirm "baptismal regeneration", and in which sense.
4) Some FV men will say they adhere to the entirety of the Westminster Standards, but read them differently in places than the TR community. Others will openly deny portions of the confession and suggest alternate doctrinal language at these places.
5) Some FV men have a strong monocovenantal bent (particularly those who deny the traditional formulation of the CoW) while others affirm a two-covenant scheme but deny that Adam could have earned anything, or was expected to. Still others affirm most of the confessional position on the CoW, but don't focus on it as their main emphasis.
6) The imputation of the active obedience of Christ is, as will be seen, affirmed by Douglas Wilson (known by many to be "FV light"), while it is mitigated or outright denied by others. The "joint statement" repudiates the necessity of use of the language formula "imputation of active obedience", but not precisely belief in it.
In highlighting the above lists, fault lines between traditional/confessional Reformed thinkers and the FV movement become more clear, and to complete this post, I will list what I believe to be the four most important. In the weeks and months to come, an ongoing project will be to expand this post as a series, with reviews of at least two books. In doing so, I will leave the descriptive/expositional material here to enter the fray myself, and in doing so, I trust will expose myself as in neither TR nor FV camp, agreeing and disagreeing at times with both. The four items below, which I encourage the reader to mull over, should demonstrate, at least partially, why I believe these are important issues.
1) Is the language of the WCF on the Covenants deficient? Why and how? How should it be "fixed"?
2) Can the sacraments be said to regenerate us, and in what sense? Does Baptism make someone a member of the New Covenant by itself? Are all Baptized persons, in some sense, "Christians" and what does that mean?
3) Does Justification accomplish active obedience and sanctification for the believer, or merely encourage it? Is there overlap between justification and sanctification, and if so, how much? What, if anything, did Christ merit for the believer by law-keeping?
4) Justification by faith: is Justification by Faith unto eternal life the Gospel? Is it the primary emphasis of the New Testament? Is it the primary biblical definition of "justification"?
~JS
1. All quotes and material from the "joint statement" were taken from this copy of the original located here.
One name given to FV, which typically has been assigned by it's foes rather than it's friends is "Shepherdism", and this is due to the fact that in order to give background to the FV controversy, and why people outside the perspective criticize it, I have to begin with earlier controversy which resulted in the expulsion of Norman Shepherd from Westminster Seminary Philadelphia (WSP). Shepherd was the heir of John Murray's post at WSP, and after almost a decade of controversy over various issues, was dismissed in 1981, left his presbytery (where he was facing disciplinary review as well) and joined the Christian Reformed Church in North America for the remainder of his pastoral career. While issues surrounding his dismissal were varied, the two that stood out most in the Westminster community and the OPC as a whole were: 1) Shepherds insistence on rejection of the Standards formulation of the CoW, replacing it with a system wherein Adam and the rest of man were all in the CoG, 2) a formulation of justification by faith which taught that "only obedient faith" perseveres or justifies. This second view may seem in the brief space I have allotted to it to be mere biblical truism to the Reformed reader abreast of the distinction between sanctification and justification, but as I hope to show in controversy surrounding modern FV proponents, similar views present greater difficulty than can be resolved by harmonizing Romans 5 and James 2. Additionally, point one above, the denial of the Covenant of Works as understood by the WCF, will be a feature common to, (but not universally accepted by all promoters of) FV, which explains the accusation noted at the outset of "monocovenantalism". Several FV men participated in the publication and authorship of a Festschrift for Norman Shepherd provocatively titled Obedient Faith, so while I cannot spend further time (and have no expert opinions to offer) on the influence of Shepherd on FV generally, his career and ideas will be relevant to consider in this post and those that follow. On a related note before moving on, overreaction to Shepherd's (and Murray's) positions on the Covenants resulted in much of the dustup at Westminster West over "Klinean Republication"...but that's a story for another time.
Moving from there, the key element to what is now known as FV began with the presentations and papers resulting from the pastors conference at Auburn Avenue PCA in Monroe Louisiana, 2002. The four conference speakers at this, the first "Federal Vision conference" were Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, John Barach and Douglas Wilson, and the topics addressed were primarily those of covenant theology. The controversy that brewed over the papers presented at the conference was partially summarized in the positions affirmed and denied in a joint statement on the "Federal Vision" signed in 2007 by eleven minsters of the PCA and the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). At the end of this statement, under "Some Points of Intramual Disagreement", was a paragraph stating:
"Some of these areas [of disagreement, JS] would include, but not be limited to, whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated."
While this phrasing highlights that there are differences on key doctrines within the FV "stream", there were also many key affirmations, including shared postmillennialism, denial of Christian neutrality in "secular" politics, and a denial that
"...Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." 1
The significance of this to disagreement between some confessional Presbyterian thinkers and the FV men will become more clear, but should already have more light placed on it by the above mention of Shepherd's elimination of the WCF's formulation of the CoW. The linked FV joint statement should be read by anyone looking to grasp the related issue.
I'd like to wrap up this post with a list some basic elements of agreement and disagreement within FV, and also a few key disagreements between FV and more "traditional/confessional" or "TR" perspectives. However, it should be remembered that the existence of the first list precludes the universality of the second, in other words, not all attacks launched from the TR camp can be said to be equally directed against all FV men, even within the eleven signatories of the joint statement.
To begin, a few areas of mutual agreement among all FV men, briefly summarized.
1) Baptism, including of infants, truly makes all those to whom it is applied, truly united to Christ (in some sense, although which sense varies depending on which FV man you ask), truly part of his Church and truly a participant in the New Covenant. To the extent that the New Covenant is the covenant of Regeneration, all persons partaking of Triune Baptism can be said to participate in "regeneration" in some sense, although not necessarily unto eternal life.
2) Justification and Regeneration, while bearing the traditional/confessional reformed definitions, are multi-faceted, and can occur in different senses for different persons.
3) God's decree comes unequivocally to pass, and includes all things in time, including justification unto eternal life, individually declared in eternity past. However, this justification is not the only human experience of justification in the sight of God.
4) It is impossible to please God through covenant membership alone, and the faith men are called to in Word and Sacrament must be the living and active faith of James 2.
5) Denial that "law" and "gospel" are, or should be used as, hermeneutics, accompanied by affirmation that saved persons can hear all parts of Scripture as good news, while unregenerate persons hear all parts of the Scripture as "the savor of death".
6) A real, but spiritual and non-local, presence of Christ in the Supper, and participation therein in confirmation of New Covenant membership.
7) It is possible to apostatize from the New Covenant, and breakers of the NC receive greater condemnation than pagans. However, it is not possible for the decretally elect to fall away from Christ.
However, there are likely as many differences as there are unifying elements, including in no particular order:
1) Paedocommunion. While the "joint statement" affirms the administration of the supper to "children", adherence to paedocommunion as practice (or definition of the term) varies among FV theologians.
2) The exact emphasis of the biblical term "justification". Some within in the movement see the predominant biblical use as eschatological (vis a vis the "final declaration" of N.T. Wright), others as partially synonymous with sanctification-in-process (which would be their typical reading of dikaioo in James 2), yet others emphasize very strongly the element of justification which is in the union of both Jews and Gentiles in Christ (another theme shared with N.T. Wright and "New Perspectivism"). On top of all of these, there remains individual salvific justification by faith, and the emphases and terminology used will differ widely among which FV writer you are reading on the subject.
3) The degree to which FV men can be said to affirm "baptismal regeneration", and in which sense.
4) Some FV men will say they adhere to the entirety of the Westminster Standards, but read them differently in places than the TR community. Others will openly deny portions of the confession and suggest alternate doctrinal language at these places.
5) Some FV men have a strong monocovenantal bent (particularly those who deny the traditional formulation of the CoW) while others affirm a two-covenant scheme but deny that Adam could have earned anything, or was expected to. Still others affirm most of the confessional position on the CoW, but don't focus on it as their main emphasis.
6) The imputation of the active obedience of Christ is, as will be seen, affirmed by Douglas Wilson (known by many to be "FV light"), while it is mitigated or outright denied by others. The "joint statement" repudiates the necessity of use of the language formula "imputation of active obedience", but not precisely belief in it.
In highlighting the above lists, fault lines between traditional/confessional Reformed thinkers and the FV movement become more clear, and to complete this post, I will list what I believe to be the four most important. In the weeks and months to come, an ongoing project will be to expand this post as a series, with reviews of at least two books. In doing so, I will leave the descriptive/expositional material here to enter the fray myself, and in doing so, I trust will expose myself as in neither TR nor FV camp, agreeing and disagreeing at times with both. The four items below, which I encourage the reader to mull over, should demonstrate, at least partially, why I believe these are important issues.
1) Is the language of the WCF on the Covenants deficient? Why and how? How should it be "fixed"?
2) Can the sacraments be said to regenerate us, and in what sense? Does Baptism make someone a member of the New Covenant by itself? Are all Baptized persons, in some sense, "Christians" and what does that mean?
3) Does Justification accomplish active obedience and sanctification for the believer, or merely encourage it? Is there overlap between justification and sanctification, and if so, how much? What, if anything, did Christ merit for the believer by law-keeping?
4) Justification by faith: is Justification by Faith unto eternal life the Gospel? Is it the primary emphasis of the New Testament? Is it the primary biblical definition of "justification"?
~JS
1. All quotes and material from the "joint statement" were taken from this copy of the original located here.
Internet round-up: Napoleon and nukes.
A brief edition today, as work has interfered with a lot of time to dig up interesting links. Some things to look into from this week, though.
1) A debate on the greatness (or not) of Napoleon I (a historical pet issue of mine) is here.
2) The Gospel Coalition published a piece on fear of dirty bombs in the age of ISIS here. Gives some science on nuclear weapons that is historically interesting, and also shows the hysteria in some circles over nuclear power to be somewhat overblown.
3) The Heidelblog has embarked on a series of posts about Dispensationalism (after wrapping up a series of citations on the Covenant of Works). The first is here, and begins three short pieces on dispensational fallacies, punctuated with other posts on the same topic. The series has been notable for bringing in sources on both sides of the debate for easy reference.
4) American Vision did some pieces recently on the history of "Christian Socialism". This one is particularly notable for it's discussion of the theological and ideological backgrounds of the men involved in the John Brown incident.
That's all for the this week, will hopefully have a richer trove next Saturday. Working on several longer pieces here as well.
~JS
1) A debate on the greatness (or not) of Napoleon I (a historical pet issue of mine) is here.
2) The Gospel Coalition published a piece on fear of dirty bombs in the age of ISIS here. Gives some science on nuclear weapons that is historically interesting, and also shows the hysteria in some circles over nuclear power to be somewhat overblown.
3) The Heidelblog has embarked on a series of posts about Dispensationalism (after wrapping up a series of citations on the Covenant of Works). The first is here, and begins three short pieces on dispensational fallacies, punctuated with other posts on the same topic. The series has been notable for bringing in sources on both sides of the debate for easy reference.
4) American Vision did some pieces recently on the history of "Christian Socialism". This one is particularly notable for it's discussion of the theological and ideological backgrounds of the men involved in the John Brown incident.
That's all for the this week, will hopefully have a richer trove next Saturday. Working on several longer pieces here as well.
~JS
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Internet round-up: Psalmody, the Qur'an and more!
It's time for another edition of Internet Round-up, the column with fun stuff on the internet in the realm of theology! Without further fuss:
1) A blogger posted a brief interview/Q and A with Doug Wilson recently, which I think gives some insight into where his head and heart are at, ministry-wise.
2) Daily Dose of Greek is a good place to start if you are looking to get into the biblical source languages but aren't officially enrolled anywhere. Hopefully posting this link here will motivate me to actually sit down and invest time in this arena.
3) Calvin's complete commentaries are available in English online. If you want to get deeply into Calvin's thoughts on just about any passage of Scripture, (no Revelation, sorry) look no further.
4) Phil Johnson has a series of articles (they've been standing for some time) on the potential sinfulness of gambling. Good stuff to bear in mind with the popularity of going to casino as a birthday celebration etc.
5) Peter Leithart caused quite a stir lately with articles on "why Protestants can't write". The rejoinder by TCI, with links to the originals, can be found here.
6) If you can surmount the thick Scottish accent, a presentation on the importance of Klinean Republication relevant to the historical theology of the Westminster Standards is available here.
7) For those who missed the recent Facebook link, the Arabic corpus of the Qur'an, with grammar and morphology, is free online here.
8) In a landmark moment of the Obama presidency (more's the pity) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away today. The Gospel Coalition has published an article with nine basics about the late justice.
9) Adam 4d is a web comic about the travails and experiences of Christians in the world. It demonstrates an element of "kidding on the square" that we can all appreciate.
10) A group known as "My Soul Among Lions" has released a Kickstarter-funded album of "contemporary psalmody". While this album encompasses Psalms 1-10, they are hoping to eventually get to the entire Psalter.
Hope everyone is having a good weekend and there's at least one thing of interest here for everybody. Have a restful and Christ-centered Sabbath.
~JS
1) A blogger posted a brief interview/Q and A with Doug Wilson recently, which I think gives some insight into where his head and heart are at, ministry-wise.
2) Daily Dose of Greek is a good place to start if you are looking to get into the biblical source languages but aren't officially enrolled anywhere. Hopefully posting this link here will motivate me to actually sit down and invest time in this arena.
3) Calvin's complete commentaries are available in English online. If you want to get deeply into Calvin's thoughts on just about any passage of Scripture, (no Revelation, sorry) look no further.
4) Phil Johnson has a series of articles (they've been standing for some time) on the potential sinfulness of gambling. Good stuff to bear in mind with the popularity of going to casino as a birthday celebration etc.
5) Peter Leithart caused quite a stir lately with articles on "why Protestants can't write". The rejoinder by TCI, with links to the originals, can be found here.
6) If you can surmount the thick Scottish accent, a presentation on the importance of Klinean Republication relevant to the historical theology of the Westminster Standards is available here.
7) For those who missed the recent Facebook link, the Arabic corpus of the Qur'an, with grammar and morphology, is free online here.
8) In a landmark moment of the Obama presidency (more's the pity) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away today. The Gospel Coalition has published an article with nine basics about the late justice.
9) Adam 4d is a web comic about the travails and experiences of Christians in the world. It demonstrates an element of "kidding on the square" that we can all appreciate.
10) A group known as "My Soul Among Lions" has released a Kickstarter-funded album of "contemporary psalmody". While this album encompasses Psalms 1-10, they are hoping to eventually get to the entire Psalter.
Hope everyone is having a good weekend and there's at least one thing of interest here for everybody. Have a restful and Christ-centered Sabbath.
~JS
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Feature columns, and the first weekly "Internet roundup"
In an effort to spur greater volume here, I will be attempting to generate larger amounts of shorter pieces (as spellbound as I'm sure you all are by multi-page book reviews and feature-length analysis of debates on the Mosaic law). To that end, I introduce Saturday's installment, "internet roundup", which will be a brief breakdown of amusing, alarming, awesome (and alliterative) miscellany I found interesting on the 'web. Not all of this (or even most of it, depending) is guaranteed to be relevant to theology. Some of it may just be nonsense. Amount of stuff will vary based on how boring (or busy) the week goes. Without further ado, Notes from the Shore brings you it's first ever "Internet Roundup", which will focus on sites (many of which I have already linked to here) from which I draw material and read every day.
1) Sermon audio is a vast database of sermon material from just about every English-speaking location and theological perspective under the sun. It has the added benefit of hosting many of the world's best theology podcasts. The website is no frills, and the content is free. Lets you never go a day without hearing the word of God preached, should you so choose.
2) Amazon has blessed the world with the free Kindle app, which turns any laptop or smartphone into a Kindle for reading e-books for free (although on phones, the multi-MB book files will eat up a lot of storage). With one-click purchasing at shipping-free, vastly reduced prices, anyone looking for a specific title, or general category of reading material should look at Amazon before trying to order a paper copy (with all apologies to "traditional readers".)
3) Doug Wilson's blog, aka Blog and Mablog, features not only great puns like the one it's title, but due to the controversy associated with the author (if you google his name, you will get bonus hate blogs galore), will fulfill your duty to annoy a liberal every day you read it. He is, as they say, my spirit animal.
4) The Heidelblog, by R. Scott Clark, and it's accompanying podcast, will give you the daily dose of historical theology from the "TR" perspective. Despite my disagreements with Dr. Clark, don't neglect this blog, especially if you're a postie, as it will give a fair and balanced Amil slant on the Reformed universe.
5) Pulpit and Pen, a ministry of Montana pastor JD Hall and his friends, is a "watchblog" predominantly concerned with issues relevant to the SBC. That being said, my grave concerns about the upstream waters feeding the 'casts eschatological pool (to say nothing of my...lack of affinity for the Baptist tradition) have cut me out of the loop of the Pulpit and Pen Program for a while now. Still relevant for those who have an ear to the ground on the goings on in American Baptist life. Also a great source of JD Hall audio sermons, which are typically stellar, and often more balanced than his podcast material. Trigger warning attached for continuationists.
6) Christ the Center is a podcast (one among several) of Reformed Forum, and my pick for general Reformed podcast to listen to on a weekly basis. It covers a wide variety of topics, and doesn't come from an apologetic bent (for that, see item 7), but rather deals with theology generally. For personal edification in the way of Reformed theological education across a broad spectrum, this can't be beat.
7) Alpha and Omega Ministries, aka Dr. James White and his friend Rich Pierce, were instrumental to my journey back over the Tiber. This is to my mind, the number one Reformed apologetics ministry and podcast on the web. If you are in the trenches defending the faith in your home and work life, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
8) Bible Gateway is my go-to for online Bibles. It has almost every relevant English Translation, and foreign language translations, and lets you view them in parallel commentary.
9) The American Vision is the blog of Joel McDurmon and company, and therefore the heir in the blogosphere to the work of Rushdoony and North, with occasional contributions from Gary DeMar. Essential to an understanding of the goings-on in contemporary Theonomic/Dominionist thought.
10) White Horse Inn is the podcast of Michael Horton, and I would describe as the "Westminster West" podcast. Makes a good companion to the Heidelblog, particularly regarding theology of the two Kingdoms, and eschatology.
11) Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is a webcomic I often link to on Facebook. Depending on your workplace, it may not be professionally appropriate. On top of tickling my funny bone, I link it here because it occasionally stumbles onto deep insight (from the Theistic perspective) into the mind of the anti-theist Westerner.
12) The Calvinist International is a website purporting to promote "Reformed catholicity", and is from a far more philosophical bent than some of the other links in this list. Also worthy of checking out is Wedgewords, by a contributor to this site, has some secular history articles and updates infrequently, but is worth a look through.
That's all for now, check in next Saturday for more good stuff from the 'net.
In Christ,
~JS
1) Sermon audio is a vast database of sermon material from just about every English-speaking location and theological perspective under the sun. It has the added benefit of hosting many of the world's best theology podcasts. The website is no frills, and the content is free. Lets you never go a day without hearing the word of God preached, should you so choose.
2) Amazon has blessed the world with the free Kindle app, which turns any laptop or smartphone into a Kindle for reading e-books for free (although on phones, the multi-MB book files will eat up a lot of storage). With one-click purchasing at shipping-free, vastly reduced prices, anyone looking for a specific title, or general category of reading material should look at Amazon before trying to order a paper copy (with all apologies to "traditional readers".)
3) Doug Wilson's blog, aka Blog and Mablog, features not only great puns like the one it's title, but due to the controversy associated with the author (if you google his name, you will get bonus hate blogs galore), will fulfill your duty to annoy a liberal every day you read it. He is, as they say, my spirit animal.
4) The Heidelblog, by R. Scott Clark, and it's accompanying podcast, will give you the daily dose of historical theology from the "TR" perspective. Despite my disagreements with Dr. Clark, don't neglect this blog, especially if you're a postie, as it will give a fair and balanced Amil slant on the Reformed universe.
5) Pulpit and Pen, a ministry of Montana pastor JD Hall and his friends, is a "watchblog" predominantly concerned with issues relevant to the SBC. That being said, my grave concerns about the upstream waters feeding the 'casts eschatological pool (to say nothing of my...lack of affinity for the Baptist tradition) have cut me out of the loop of the Pulpit and Pen Program for a while now. Still relevant for those who have an ear to the ground on the goings on in American Baptist life. Also a great source of JD Hall audio sermons, which are typically stellar, and often more balanced than his podcast material. Trigger warning attached for continuationists.
6) Christ the Center is a podcast (one among several) of Reformed Forum, and my pick for general Reformed podcast to listen to on a weekly basis. It covers a wide variety of topics, and doesn't come from an apologetic bent (for that, see item 7), but rather deals with theology generally. For personal edification in the way of Reformed theological education across a broad spectrum, this can't be beat.
7) Alpha and Omega Ministries, aka Dr. James White and his friend Rich Pierce, were instrumental to my journey back over the Tiber. This is to my mind, the number one Reformed apologetics ministry and podcast on the web. If you are in the trenches defending the faith in your home and work life, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
8) Bible Gateway is my go-to for online Bibles. It has almost every relevant English Translation, and foreign language translations, and lets you view them in parallel commentary.
9) The American Vision is the blog of Joel McDurmon and company, and therefore the heir in the blogosphere to the work of Rushdoony and North, with occasional contributions from Gary DeMar. Essential to an understanding of the goings-on in contemporary Theonomic/Dominionist thought.
10) White Horse Inn is the podcast of Michael Horton, and I would describe as the "Westminster West" podcast. Makes a good companion to the Heidelblog, particularly regarding theology of the two Kingdoms, and eschatology.
11) Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is a webcomic I often link to on Facebook. Depending on your workplace, it may not be professionally appropriate. On top of tickling my funny bone, I link it here because it occasionally stumbles onto deep insight (from the Theistic perspective) into the mind of the anti-theist Westerner.
12) The Calvinist International is a website purporting to promote "Reformed catholicity", and is from a far more philosophical bent than some of the other links in this list. Also worthy of checking out is Wedgewords, by a contributor to this site, has some secular history articles and updates infrequently, but is worth a look through.
That's all for now, check in next Saturday for more good stuff from the 'net.
In Christ,
~JS
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Brief thoughts and bold predictions on Iowa.
1) Nothing is over regarding the top five across both parties, and really I didn't expect anything to be. Proportional representation in Iowa means that in real delegate numbers, no one really got out to a meaningful "lead". In terms of "momentum", that may have more to do with self-fulfilling media prophecy than something intrinsic to the raw numbers.
2) Steven Wedgeworth from Wedgewords issued the bold prediction yesterday that these results make Marco Rubio "the next President". I hardly think things are as clear-cut as all that, but given a top-three showing in New Hampshire, Rubio, barring any gaffes in the short-term, has positioned himself for a deep run, especially when primaries and caucuses shift to the South.
3) My personal bold prediction: Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee. His numbers among young people mean more than the media is letting on, and in addition to possible...legal obstructions to the Hillary campaign, the CNN theory concretizing today that Sanders is only leading in New Hampshire because of it's proximity to Vermont ignore Bernie's appeal to a real and ideologically committed faction of the American left in blue states.
4) Trump is far from finished, but not coming in first in Iowa is a big deal. The particular importance for me is that the poll numbers before real voting have been demonstrated to be "not real", which I predicted, which makes the 19 point leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina that Trump is showing far more superfluous than the networks would presently like.
5) Iowa is not racially or ideologically diverse enough to give us the surprises I think are yet to come. And this is also bad for Trump. While there will be adequate numbers of what Wilson winningly called "the Trumpenproletariat" for Trump to put in showings for the forseeable future, states with larger numbers of Black, Hispanic and upper-class GOP voters will be telling.
~JS
Notes from the Shore's ten books of 2015.
Ten of the literary treasures from the world of theology (and one not) I consumed in 2015 and recommend to you.
1) The Theology of the Westminster Standards, JV Fesko.
While not one hundred percent comprehensive, gives great background to contemporary issues in American Presbyterian and Reformed theology, and will be an approachable primer to the historical and political world of the Standards. My book of the year.
2) The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, Ed. Gregg Strawbridge.
Reviewed here earlier in the year. If you read one paedobaptism polemics book in your life (hah), read this one.
3) The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Prentiss Waters.
I wouldn't read this by itself if you're doing in-depth study on FV, as it is unabashedly proposing that FV "as a movement" is un-confessional, and it would behoove those interested to read the men in question in a full, contextual way. To that end...
4) The Federal Vision, Ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner.
As was mentioned to me recently, there is no "FV handbook", but this is as close as we're going to get right now. If you want to understand where the "movement", if movement it can be called (more on that later) is coming from, you should read this. Stands out for having one of the more...interesting articles on the theology of Genesis I've ever read.
5) The Lord's Service, Jeffery J. Meyers.
Otherwise known as "that Federal Vision Worship Book." Puts forward the thesis that the structure of Protestant/Reformed liturgy can be governed by a "New Covenant rendition" of the tripartite sacrificial structure of Leviticus, with the Supper constituting the thanks offering. While not converted in totality to it's claims, anyone who is interested in "how should we then worship" should read this book, particularly if you don't share the TR camps fixation of exclusive Psalmody, non-instrumental worship, low-church decor, and other aspects of that particular conservative interpretation of the RPW. Particularly valuable for an essay on that principle, arguing that it should be understood more like the Normative Principle typically has been, and for a lengthy exegetical piece in favor of paedocommunion.
6) NCT: time for a more accurate way, Gary D. Long.
Also reviewed here. Similar to the FV book (although not a collection of essays), important for understanding contemporary issues in American Covenant theology. This may be of greater interest to Reformed Baptists than all the FV stuff on this list, because closer to home. As mentioned in my review, has the benefit of being willing to consider a pre-fall covenant with Adam, in some sense.
7) The Great Boer War, Byron Falwell
A conflict that most Americans don't know and don't care about, but largely responsible for the modern and postmodern history of South Africa, and formative to the nature and allegiances of World War I and the unfolding of British Imperialism during and after Victoria. Aptly walks the line between engaging and scholarly. Perhaps a little overeager to exonerate British miscues and ethical lapses.
8) Five views on Law and Gospel, Ed. Stanley N. Gundry.
Out of several books in this series that I read this year, this one was the most valuable for it's interplay between Douglas Moo, William VanGemeren and Dr. Bahnsen on the three most common "Reformed" views of the law. Succint, approachable, and actually lets you look at the nuts and bolts of the views "cross-examining" each other.
9) Covenant Theology, Michael Horton.
Not making the list because I think it's the best short-book length introduction to Covenant Theology I've read. In fact, in that regard I found it disappointing. Rather, important for understanding the distinctives of the position most common at WTS West, namely form-critical analysis of Covenant history of the OT, and a form of Klinean Republication. And on that note...
10) Merit and Moses, Elam, Van Kooten and Bergquist.
Demonstrates concerns about the doctrinal ramifications, and confessional relevance of the Klinean Republication view. Brief, but covers all (or most) of the bases. Hopefully "The Law is Not of Faith" will make the list next year.
~JS
1) The Theology of the Westminster Standards, JV Fesko.
While not one hundred percent comprehensive, gives great background to contemporary issues in American Presbyterian and Reformed theology, and will be an approachable primer to the historical and political world of the Standards. My book of the year.
2) The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, Ed. Gregg Strawbridge.
Reviewed here earlier in the year. If you read one paedobaptism polemics book in your life (hah), read this one.
3) The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Guy Prentiss Waters.
I wouldn't read this by itself if you're doing in-depth study on FV, as it is unabashedly proposing that FV "as a movement" is un-confessional, and it would behoove those interested to read the men in question in a full, contextual way. To that end...
4) The Federal Vision, Ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner.
As was mentioned to me recently, there is no "FV handbook", but this is as close as we're going to get right now. If you want to understand where the "movement", if movement it can be called (more on that later) is coming from, you should read this. Stands out for having one of the more...interesting articles on the theology of Genesis I've ever read.
5) The Lord's Service, Jeffery J. Meyers.
Otherwise known as "that Federal Vision Worship Book." Puts forward the thesis that the structure of Protestant/Reformed liturgy can be governed by a "New Covenant rendition" of the tripartite sacrificial structure of Leviticus, with the Supper constituting the thanks offering. While not converted in totality to it's claims, anyone who is interested in "how should we then worship" should read this book, particularly if you don't share the TR camps fixation of exclusive Psalmody, non-instrumental worship, low-church decor, and other aspects of that particular conservative interpretation of the RPW. Particularly valuable for an essay on that principle, arguing that it should be understood more like the Normative Principle typically has been, and for a lengthy exegetical piece in favor of paedocommunion.
6) NCT: time for a more accurate way, Gary D. Long.
Also reviewed here. Similar to the FV book (although not a collection of essays), important for understanding contemporary issues in American Covenant theology. This may be of greater interest to Reformed Baptists than all the FV stuff on this list, because closer to home. As mentioned in my review, has the benefit of being willing to consider a pre-fall covenant with Adam, in some sense.
7) The Great Boer War, Byron Falwell
A conflict that most Americans don't know and don't care about, but largely responsible for the modern and postmodern history of South Africa, and formative to the nature and allegiances of World War I and the unfolding of British Imperialism during and after Victoria. Aptly walks the line between engaging and scholarly. Perhaps a little overeager to exonerate British miscues and ethical lapses.
8) Five views on Law and Gospel, Ed. Stanley N. Gundry.
Out of several books in this series that I read this year, this one was the most valuable for it's interplay between Douglas Moo, William VanGemeren and Dr. Bahnsen on the three most common "Reformed" views of the law. Succint, approachable, and actually lets you look at the nuts and bolts of the views "cross-examining" each other.
9) Covenant Theology, Michael Horton.
Not making the list because I think it's the best short-book length introduction to Covenant Theology I've read. In fact, in that regard I found it disappointing. Rather, important for understanding the distinctives of the position most common at WTS West, namely form-critical analysis of Covenant history of the OT, and a form of Klinean Republication. And on that note...
10) Merit and Moses, Elam, Van Kooten and Bergquist.
Demonstrates concerns about the doctrinal ramifications, and confessional relevance of the Klinean Republication view. Brief, but covers all (or most) of the bases. Hopefully "The Law is Not of Faith" will make the list next year.
~JS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)