"'That We Should Retain the Distinction between Law and Gospel': Hermeneutical Conservatism in Early Reformed Orthodoxy" from Westminster Seminary California on Vimeo.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
OPC TE Joshua Martin on The Importance of Christ's Death AND Life For Our Justification
Saved by His Life
April 19th, 2010 by Joshua Martin
Christians are accustomed to thinking of our salvation as it relates to the death of Christ. But what is the significance of his life? Did his sinless life merely qualify him to offer the perfect sacrifice for the sins of his people, or did he obey and suffer for our salvation? Reformed theology affirms the latter. We teach that the Christian is justified through a “double imputation.” Double imputation refers to the Biblical teaching that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross, while his obedience and righteousness is imputed to his people resulting in Justification (2 Cor 5:21).
Another way Reformed theologians described the teaching of double imputation is by affirming that both the active and passive aspects of Christ’s obedience were for our redemption (‘passive’ is antiquated language. Originally it meant “suffering” as in “passion”). We cannot separate these two aspects of Christ’s obedience. Throughout the entire life of Christ his suffering and obedience were intertwined – but it is particularly through his propitiation on the cross (passive obedience) that our sins were imputed to his account, and through the resurrection that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (these benefits being received in time by faith alone).
The seventeenth century Arminians attempted to separate the inseparable by denying that the active obedience of Christ had redemptive significance. They argued that Christ needed his obedience for himself as a man; it cannot therefore be imputed to us. The consequence is that Christ procures for us only the forgiveness of sins through his sacrificial death. By faith we receive nothing more than a pardon, a gracious relaxing of the perfect demands of the law.
It is correct to say that Christ’s obedience qualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Some wonder what Christ could gain by his obedience, since by virtue of his divinity he is morally impeccable. Christ, by his obedience, of course gained nothing for himself. The purpose of the incarnation was not for his sake, but for ours! By assuming a human nature he became subject to the law in its federal aspect, the law as the condition of life in the covenant of works. As the last Adam he took the place of the first. When Christ voluntarily entered the federal relationship as the last Adam, keeping of the law naturally acquired the same significance for him. If Jesus merely paid the penalty for our sin without also imputing to us his righteousness, we would be left in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life by way of obedience (with the help of forgiveness).
Can it be shown from Scripture that Christ’s entire life is redemptive? Yes. This is evident, first of all, in summary statements about the redemptive work of Christ that are general, which embrace the totality of his earthly ministry. For example, Gal 4:4-5, states that Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Thus, Christ’s entire life of obedience is brought to bear on our redemption.
Second, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the resurrection. Romans 4:25 brings both his active and passive obedience together in our redemption by declaring that Jesus our Lord “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Thus Paul connects our pardon specifically with the suffering of Christ and God’s decree of Justification with the resurrection of Christ. Why does Paul connect Jesus’ resurrection with our justification? It is because the resurrection was Jesus’ justification – it was God’s declaration that his Son was righteous and therefore death had no hold on him. As Paul says in another place “he was justified [vindicated] by the Spirit” (1 Tim 3:5: i.e. when, by the Holy Spirit, Christ was raised from the dead). Why was Jesus declared to be righteous in the resurrection? Because he was righteous! Born under the law, he perfectly obeyed the law and therefore death did not have a legitimate claim on him.
Third, and most important, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the justification of the wicked. The word “justify” means “declare righteous/just.” Justification is not the same thing as pardon. It is one thing for a judge to acquit a defendant, declaring him clear of all charges, and quite another for a judge to issue a pardon. Yet Scripture states that God declares the wicked, righteous (Rom 4:5). He does this by imputing righteousness apart from works (4:6). This righteousness comes by the obedience of Christ, as Paul says. “By the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (The significant point here is not so much that this is brought about by Christ’s obedience; rather it is the result of being declared righteous).
And what (whose) righteousness is this? It is not the righteousness of the penitent, for it is said to be “apart from works.” It is the righteousness of Christ (his entire obedience) that is imputed to the believer. This is the import of Phil 3:9, “and being found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Also relevant is 2 Cor 5:21, the classic text on “double imputation,” which states that Christ was made sin (i.e. condemned as a sinner) “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That is, God declares us to be righteous because he regards his righteous Son as our substitute. Therefore, Calvin says in his Institutes (3.11.2) that “A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and, clothed in it, appears in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous.”
Today many argue that such theories of imputation and the righteousness of Christ are not part of the Gospel message. On the contrary, this truth relates directly to our understanding of justification and is most certainly an indispensable part of our gospel proclamation. The Reformed Symbols also left no doubt as to the importance of Christ’s obedience and double imputation.
Westminster Larger Cat q. 70, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them [my emphasis], and received by faith alone” (Compare also L. Cat q. 77, S. Cat. Q. 33, WCF 11.1).
Heidelberg Catechism q. 60. Q. How are you right with God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments and of never having kept any of them, and even though I am still inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me” (Compare also Belgic Confession Articles 20, 22, 23).
Finally, this doctrine is of enormous practical benefit because it teaches us that that Christ’s obedience is the grounds of our justification and we can therefore be confident of passing through God’s judgment because we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Thus, as J. Gresham Machen was dying of pneumonia he sent a final telegram to John Murray containing these words: “so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”
April 19th, 2010 by Joshua Martin
Christians are accustomed to thinking of our salvation as it relates to the death of Christ. But what is the significance of his life? Did his sinless life merely qualify him to offer the perfect sacrifice for the sins of his people, or did he obey and suffer for our salvation? Reformed theology affirms the latter. We teach that the Christian is justified through a “double imputation.” Double imputation refers to the Biblical teaching that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross, while his obedience and righteousness is imputed to his people resulting in Justification (2 Cor 5:21).
Another way Reformed theologians described the teaching of double imputation is by affirming that both the active and passive aspects of Christ’s obedience were for our redemption (‘passive’ is antiquated language. Originally it meant “suffering” as in “passion”). We cannot separate these two aspects of Christ’s obedience. Throughout the entire life of Christ his suffering and obedience were intertwined – but it is particularly through his propitiation on the cross (passive obedience) that our sins were imputed to his account, and through the resurrection that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (these benefits being received in time by faith alone).
The seventeenth century Arminians attempted to separate the inseparable by denying that the active obedience of Christ had redemptive significance. They argued that Christ needed his obedience for himself as a man; it cannot therefore be imputed to us. The consequence is that Christ procures for us only the forgiveness of sins through his sacrificial death. By faith we receive nothing more than a pardon, a gracious relaxing of the perfect demands of the law.
It is correct to say that Christ’s obedience qualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Some wonder what Christ could gain by his obedience, since by virtue of his divinity he is morally impeccable. Christ, by his obedience, of course gained nothing for himself. The purpose of the incarnation was not for his sake, but for ours! By assuming a human nature he became subject to the law in its federal aspect, the law as the condition of life in the covenant of works. As the last Adam he took the place of the first. When Christ voluntarily entered the federal relationship as the last Adam, keeping of the law naturally acquired the same significance for him. If Jesus merely paid the penalty for our sin without also imputing to us his righteousness, we would be left in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life by way of obedience (with the help of forgiveness).
Can it be shown from Scripture that Christ’s entire life is redemptive? Yes. This is evident, first of all, in summary statements about the redemptive work of Christ that are general, which embrace the totality of his earthly ministry. For example, Gal 4:4-5, states that Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Thus, Christ’s entire life of obedience is brought to bear on our redemption.
Second, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the resurrection. Romans 4:25 brings both his active and passive obedience together in our redemption by declaring that Jesus our Lord “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Thus Paul connects our pardon specifically with the suffering of Christ and God’s decree of Justification with the resurrection of Christ. Why does Paul connect Jesus’ resurrection with our justification? It is because the resurrection was Jesus’ justification – it was God’s declaration that his Son was righteous and therefore death had no hold on him. As Paul says in another place “he was justified [vindicated] by the Spirit” (1 Tim 3:5: i.e. when, by the Holy Spirit, Christ was raised from the dead). Why was Jesus declared to be righteous in the resurrection? Because he was righteous! Born under the law, he perfectly obeyed the law and therefore death did not have a legitimate claim on him.
Third, and most important, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the justification of the wicked. The word “justify” means “declare righteous/just.” Justification is not the same thing as pardon. It is one thing for a judge to acquit a defendant, declaring him clear of all charges, and quite another for a judge to issue a pardon. Yet Scripture states that God declares the wicked, righteous (Rom 4:5). He does this by imputing righteousness apart from works (4:6). This righteousness comes by the obedience of Christ, as Paul says. “By the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (The significant point here is not so much that this is brought about by Christ’s obedience; rather it is the result of being declared righteous).
And what (whose) righteousness is this? It is not the righteousness of the penitent, for it is said to be “apart from works.” It is the righteousness of Christ (his entire obedience) that is imputed to the believer. This is the import of Phil 3:9, “and being found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Also relevant is 2 Cor 5:21, the classic text on “double imputation,” which states that Christ was made sin (i.e. condemned as a sinner) “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That is, God declares us to be righteous because he regards his righteous Son as our substitute. Therefore, Calvin says in his Institutes (3.11.2) that “A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and, clothed in it, appears in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous.”
Today many argue that such theories of imputation and the righteousness of Christ are not part of the Gospel message. On the contrary, this truth relates directly to our understanding of justification and is most certainly an indispensable part of our gospel proclamation. The Reformed Symbols also left no doubt as to the importance of Christ’s obedience and double imputation.
Westminster Larger Cat q. 70, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them [my emphasis], and received by faith alone” (Compare also L. Cat q. 77, S. Cat. Q. 33, WCF 11.1).
Heidelberg Catechism q. 60. Q. How are you right with God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments and of never having kept any of them, and even though I am still inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me” (Compare also Belgic Confession Articles 20, 22, 23).
Finally, this doctrine is of enormous practical benefit because it teaches us that that Christ’s obedience is the grounds of our justification and we can therefore be confident of passing through God’s judgment because we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Thus, as J. Gresham Machen was dying of pneumonia he sent a final telegram to John Murray containing these words: “so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”
Monday, April 19, 2010
Great Quote on the Christ-Event! Guess Who?
We also recall again the point that eschatology precedes soteriology: the goal of redemption is not simply restoration, “paradise restored,” but the consummation; and for this not only forgiveness but the perfect fulfillment of the law was required. Jesus recapitulated in himself the history of Adam and Israel in order to bring us not only out of ruin into a state of innocence, or guilt into forgiveness, but to bring the whole creation into the everlasting Sabbath. Thus, “the cross” can only be regarded synecdotally as standing for the whole of Christ’s life and obedience. Paradise restored is the eschatological correlate of an atonement theology that concentrates on forgiveness through Christ’s death without giving due weight to justification and glorification through Christ’s life, before and after his death. What God is after in redemptive history is not merely the forgiveness of humanity and restoration to an original state but the fulfillment of the original commission for humanity and, through a successful outcome to its trial, entrance into God’s own glory.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Calvin's Doctrine of Faith in Dialogue with Catholics and "Schoolmen": Its Object, Content, and Implications
I wrote this a few months ago when I was in seminary. I thought it was important to go ad--secondary--fontes in order to further understand the instrument of justification.
Sometime in March I will do some spade work with the primary source (Holy Scripture). We will look at the respective roles of and the relationship between the threefold law we find in the NT, i.e., "the law of works" & "the law of faith" (Rom. 3:27), and "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).
Faith and its Many Facets
The following essay will survey John Calvin’s doctrines of faith and assurance in chapter two of book three in the 1559 edition of his Institutes. In order to flesh out the character of Calvin’s doctrine of faith we will first look at the object of faith both for Calvin and his opponents. Then we will turn our attention to the content of faith as taught from their respective positions. In order to appreciate Calvin’s break with the medieval and Catholic tradition we will focus rather narrowly on Calvin’s polemics against the “formed” and “unformed” faith of his Scholastic forebears and Roman Catholic contemporaries. From this vantage point, we will then note the different role of the human will in apprehending faith’s object between Calvin and his opponents. Finally, we will look at the implications of faith as they relate to the doctrine of assurance in the theology of Calvin and his opponents.
The Object of Faith
For Calvin, Christ is both the object and goal of the Christian’s faith (3.2.6; cf. 3.3.19). He says, “For just as [Christ] has been appointed as the goal of our faith, so we cannot take the right road to him unless the gospel goes before us” (3.2.6). Calvin contends sharply against the medieval and Roman doctrine of “implicit faith” in which believers were instructed to embrace as true whatever the church taught concerning God or Christ. Calvin calls the doctrine of implicit faith “fiction” and claims that such teaching not only buries but utterly destroys true faith (3.2.2). In contrast to the Medievals and Rome, Calvin insists that Christ as he is given in the gospel, rather than the church, its teaching, or even a vague depiction of God, is the proper object of a Christian’s faith. He says, “Faith embraces Christ, as offered to us by the Father” (3.2.8).
The Content of Faith
Both Calvin and his opponents believed the intellect played a key role in the apprehension of faith’s object for the Christian. However, Calvin accuses “the Schoolmen” of going completely astray by identifying faith “with a bare and simple assent arising out of knowledge” (3.2.33, emphasis added). By focusing solely on one faculty of the human soul (the intellect) at the expense of the will Calvin believes that Christians are left without any ground for confidence or assurance of heart as it relates to their salvation. He says, “Whatever sort of assent that is, it does not penetrate to the heart itself, there to remain fixed” (3.2.10). Even knowledge, for Calvin, must not be simply understood as bare intellectual assent to faith’s object since “faith is much higher than human understanding” and “ [the mind] is persuaded of what it does not grasp, by the very certainty of its persuasion it understands more than if it perceived anything human by its own capacity” (3.2.14). However, Calvin’s strength over against his opponents is found in the way he incorporates the role of the human will in apprehending faith’s object.
For Calvin both faculties of the human soul must be engaged for faith to properly apprehend its object. The importance of the role of the human will in this process cannot be underestimated for Calvin. He says, “Now the knowledge of God’s goodness will not be held very important unless it makes us rely on that goodness” (3.2.7, emphasis added). Elsewhere he says, “A firm and steadfast constancy of heart is the chief part of faith” (3.2.33). Clearly, for Calvin, true faith does not rest in the intellect alone but includes the role of the human will. Faith is not merely knowledge or intellectual assent through it certainly is not less than that. For Calvin, saving faith consists not only in the intellectually faculty of soul apprehending faith’s object, i.e., Christ, but consists also in an act of the will which trusts and relies on faith’s object.
It should be noted that Calvin’s opponents also place an emphasis on the role of the human will in the Christian’s faith. The Catholic doctrine of fides formata caritate, faith informed by love, taught that faith perfected the will which made Christians capable of producing good works. The performance of these good works, therefore, allowed one to earn merit before God which contributed to their justification. According to the Council of Trent: “For faith, unless hope and charity are added to it, neither unites perfectly with Christ, nor forms a living member of his body” (session 6, chapter 8). Calvin, on the other hand, claimed that the essence of faith consisted in the Christian trusting that God, in Christ, is faithful to save and redeem them as he has promised in the gospel.
Conclusion: Faith’s Implications
One of the chief implications of Calvin’s understanding of faith’s object and its content is found in his doctrine of assurance. Calvin summarizes the Roman and medieval understanding of assurance which based salvation in a subjective assessment of one’s merits and works as “a conditional promise that sends us back to our own works and does not promise life unless we discern its presence in ourselves” (3.2.29). Calvin believes when confidence of salvation is left to the Christian it becomes impossible to know what tomorrow will hold for one’s soul (3.2.40). Therefore he goes to great pains in emphasizing the objective work of Christ and the promises of God’s Fatherly mercy annexed to the gospel as the object of the Christian’s faith. For Calvin these objective promises are not contingent upon one doing anything except trusting, relying on, and resting in these very promises and what they signify. He says, “We make the freely given promise of God the foundation of faith because upon it faith properly rests…faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it” (3.2.29).
For Calvin, contra his medieval and sixteenth century opponents, assurance of salvation is not primarily grounded in the Christian’s objective working, but rather in their subjective trusting in the objective work of Jesus Christ on their behalf for their redemption. In other words, for Calvin, the objective and subjective grounds of the doctrine of assurance find their respective basis in Christ’s work of salvation for sinners and the human will’s trusting in that work on their behalf.
Sometime in March I will do some spade work with the primary source (Holy Scripture). We will look at the respective roles of and the relationship between the threefold law we find in the NT, i.e., "the law of works" & "the law of faith" (Rom. 3:27), and "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).
Faith and its Many Facets
The following essay will survey John Calvin’s doctrines of faith and assurance in chapter two of book three in the 1559 edition of his Institutes. In order to flesh out the character of Calvin’s doctrine of faith we will first look at the object of faith both for Calvin and his opponents. Then we will turn our attention to the content of faith as taught from their respective positions. In order to appreciate Calvin’s break with the medieval and Catholic tradition we will focus rather narrowly on Calvin’s polemics against the “formed” and “unformed” faith of his Scholastic forebears and Roman Catholic contemporaries. From this vantage point, we will then note the different role of the human will in apprehending faith’s object between Calvin and his opponents. Finally, we will look at the implications of faith as they relate to the doctrine of assurance in the theology of Calvin and his opponents.
The Object of Faith
For Calvin, Christ is both the object and goal of the Christian’s faith (3.2.6; cf. 3.3.19). He says, “For just as [Christ] has been appointed as the goal of our faith, so we cannot take the right road to him unless the gospel goes before us” (3.2.6). Calvin contends sharply against the medieval and Roman doctrine of “implicit faith” in which believers were instructed to embrace as true whatever the church taught concerning God or Christ. Calvin calls the doctrine of implicit faith “fiction” and claims that such teaching not only buries but utterly destroys true faith (3.2.2). In contrast to the Medievals and Rome, Calvin insists that Christ as he is given in the gospel, rather than the church, its teaching, or even a vague depiction of God, is the proper object of a Christian’s faith. He says, “Faith embraces Christ, as offered to us by the Father” (3.2.8).
The Content of Faith
Both Calvin and his opponents believed the intellect played a key role in the apprehension of faith’s object for the Christian. However, Calvin accuses “the Schoolmen” of going completely astray by identifying faith “with a bare and simple assent arising out of knowledge” (3.2.33, emphasis added). By focusing solely on one faculty of the human soul (the intellect) at the expense of the will Calvin believes that Christians are left without any ground for confidence or assurance of heart as it relates to their salvation. He says, “Whatever sort of assent that is, it does not penetrate to the heart itself, there to remain fixed” (3.2.10). Even knowledge, for Calvin, must not be simply understood as bare intellectual assent to faith’s object since “faith is much higher than human understanding” and “ [the mind] is persuaded of what it does not grasp, by the very certainty of its persuasion it understands more than if it perceived anything human by its own capacity” (3.2.14). However, Calvin’s strength over against his opponents is found in the way he incorporates the role of the human will in apprehending faith’s object.
For Calvin both faculties of the human soul must be engaged for faith to properly apprehend its object. The importance of the role of the human will in this process cannot be underestimated for Calvin. He says, “Now the knowledge of God’s goodness will not be held very important unless it makes us rely on that goodness” (3.2.7, emphasis added). Elsewhere he says, “A firm and steadfast constancy of heart is the chief part of faith” (3.2.33). Clearly, for Calvin, true faith does not rest in the intellect alone but includes the role of the human will. Faith is not merely knowledge or intellectual assent through it certainly is not less than that. For Calvin, saving faith consists not only in the intellectually faculty of soul apprehending faith’s object, i.e., Christ, but consists also in an act of the will which trusts and relies on faith’s object.
It should be noted that Calvin’s opponents also place an emphasis on the role of the human will in the Christian’s faith. The Catholic doctrine of fides formata caritate, faith informed by love, taught that faith perfected the will which made Christians capable of producing good works. The performance of these good works, therefore, allowed one to earn merit before God which contributed to their justification. According to the Council of Trent: “For faith, unless hope and charity are added to it, neither unites perfectly with Christ, nor forms a living member of his body” (session 6, chapter 8). Calvin, on the other hand, claimed that the essence of faith consisted in the Christian trusting that God, in Christ, is faithful to save and redeem them as he has promised in the gospel.
Conclusion: Faith’s Implications
One of the chief implications of Calvin’s understanding of faith’s object and its content is found in his doctrine of assurance. Calvin summarizes the Roman and medieval understanding of assurance which based salvation in a subjective assessment of one’s merits and works as “a conditional promise that sends us back to our own works and does not promise life unless we discern its presence in ourselves” (3.2.29). Calvin believes when confidence of salvation is left to the Christian it becomes impossible to know what tomorrow will hold for one’s soul (3.2.40). Therefore he goes to great pains in emphasizing the objective work of Christ and the promises of God’s Fatherly mercy annexed to the gospel as the object of the Christian’s faith. For Calvin these objective promises are not contingent upon one doing anything except trusting, relying on, and resting in these very promises and what they signify. He says, “We make the freely given promise of God the foundation of faith because upon it faith properly rests…faith properly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it” (3.2.29).
For Calvin, contra his medieval and sixteenth century opponents, assurance of salvation is not primarily grounded in the Christian’s objective working, but rather in their subjective trusting in the objective work of Jesus Christ on their behalf for their redemption. In other words, for Calvin, the objective and subjective grounds of the doctrine of assurance find their respective basis in Christ’s work of salvation for sinners and the human will’s trusting in that work on their behalf.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Serpent's subtle subversion of sacramental significance
E. Rice here weighing-in after 2 days of eating dried 'cots, reading Vos, and fellowshiping with the Wassells, Shane, and Alex, and looking forward to seeing JP next weekend! You guys are such an encouragement to me for many, many reasons but right now especially because your lives show a response to the gospel that is worthy of the gospel. An unending source of discouragement for me is the unbelief and pathetic responses of so many family, friends, acquaintences in and out of the church who have heard the gospel so clearly yet remain uncommitted to Christ, while at the same being sold-out for worldly pursuits.
Today's post brings up some ideas that Vos presents in the ch. 3 of Biblical Theology covering Pre-redemptive Special Revelation. The first two of four principles that Vos discusses in the chapter are in regards to the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Vos puts forth the idea that the trees have sacramental significance; they are "prefigurations coveying assurance concerning the future realization of the things symbolized." The tree of life symbolizes the principle of life, with the lesson being that "life comes from God, that for man it consists in nearness to God, that it is the central concern of God's fellowship with man to impart this." The tree of knowledge of good and evil was established by God to eventually communicate knowledge of good and evil to man.
Prior to reading this book it has been becoming increasingly clear to me that the Garden and Heaven are not the same thing. I am well aware that in heaven swords will be bent to plowshares and pruning hooks, but to say heaven is a return to the Garden is just plain wrong (and Jehovah's Witness-like)! The most basic differences between heaven and the garden is that the garden is not a permanent dwelling place of God, and the garden is a place of testing. It will be impossible to sin again upon entering heaven; the garden was not heaven, but more like an entrance place into heaven.
Adam was created into an earthly existance with an earthly task which he was to complete prior to entering into a spiritual exsistence in the higher sphere of heaven. We are correct and helpful in reminding one another that God has planned redemption since eternity past, but a more basic truth we often miss is that God has always planned to bring man into a state of everlasting blessedness. Without sin there would be no redemption, but sin is but one of two paths Adam could have taken to gain eternal, personal attachment to God. God is not dependent on man to sin in order to accomplish that plan. The wonder of the Gospel is that following the failure of Adam to keep the covenant of works, God re-extends the reward of life to Adam on the basis of grace!!! God's plan to impart life is not thwarted by sin.
This is what covenant theologians are getting at when they speak of Adam's "probation." The garden was a place of testing. God gave Adam a task: to not eat of the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is not a picture of heaven. Were Adam to stand through this time of testing, the reward would have been eternal life. The tree of life would have been the sacramental means of communicating that life. In his failure to meet God's demands, Adam's eating of the fruit from the tree of good and evil indicates he would also eat of the tree of life, and reveals that he would rather have life without God. That is so wicked, and completely rediculous, because life consists of nearness to God.
The title of this post is owing to the serpent's actions in deceiving Eve, and Adam, into eating from the tree of knowledge of good-and-evil. The serpent's agenda was to convince them that God was bad, and that the serpent has their best interests in mind. Obviously, the opposite is true: God was testing them prior to confirming them in glory, while the serpent was tempting them in order to ensure their ruin.
What is important to see, is that God's prohibition from eating of the tree does not mean that He was also prohibiting the knowledge of good-and-evil. It is not necessary to commit evil in order to be enlightened! Vos writes,
"Man was to attain something he had not attained before. He as to learn the good in its clear oppostion to the evil, and the evil in its clear opposition to the good. Thus it will become plain how he could attain this by taking either fork in the probation-choice. Had he stood, then the contrast between good and evil would have been vividly present in his mind: the good and evil he would have known from the new illumination his mind would have received through the crisis of temptation in which the two collided. "
The serpent told them that they had to eat from the tree to receive knowledge. He placed envy in their hearts for what God had and was holding from them. Vos writes, "(the serpent said) the tree has in itself, magically, the power of conferring knowledge of good an evil. This lowers the plane of the whole transaction religious and moral to the pagan-magical sphere."
The trees, set up by God, were intended to point to the fact that He alone is the source of life and knowledge. The serpent convinced man that they could be like God through receiving from the fruit of the tree. The serpent distorted the sacramental significance of the trees and ascribed to them power that belongs to God alone.
The parallels are just jumping out at me with the continued distortion of the OT and NT sacraments all down through history. I will save this for another time, and invite you all to weigh in as well.
Today's post brings up some ideas that Vos presents in the ch. 3 of Biblical Theology covering Pre-redemptive Special Revelation. The first two of four principles that Vos discusses in the chapter are in regards to the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Vos puts forth the idea that the trees have sacramental significance; they are "prefigurations coveying assurance concerning the future realization of the things symbolized." The tree of life symbolizes the principle of life, with the lesson being that "life comes from God, that for man it consists in nearness to God, that it is the central concern of God's fellowship with man to impart this." The tree of knowledge of good and evil was established by God to eventually communicate knowledge of good and evil to man.
Prior to reading this book it has been becoming increasingly clear to me that the Garden and Heaven are not the same thing. I am well aware that in heaven swords will be bent to plowshares and pruning hooks, but to say heaven is a return to the Garden is just plain wrong (and Jehovah's Witness-like)! The most basic differences between heaven and the garden is that the garden is not a permanent dwelling place of God, and the garden is a place of testing. It will be impossible to sin again upon entering heaven; the garden was not heaven, but more like an entrance place into heaven.
Adam was created into an earthly existance with an earthly task which he was to complete prior to entering into a spiritual exsistence in the higher sphere of heaven. We are correct and helpful in reminding one another that God has planned redemption since eternity past, but a more basic truth we often miss is that God has always planned to bring man into a state of everlasting blessedness. Without sin there would be no redemption, but sin is but one of two paths Adam could have taken to gain eternal, personal attachment to God. God is not dependent on man to sin in order to accomplish that plan. The wonder of the Gospel is that following the failure of Adam to keep the covenant of works, God re-extends the reward of life to Adam on the basis of grace!!! God's plan to impart life is not thwarted by sin.
This is what covenant theologians are getting at when they speak of Adam's "probation." The garden was a place of testing. God gave Adam a task: to not eat of the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is not a picture of heaven. Were Adam to stand through this time of testing, the reward would have been eternal life. The tree of life would have been the sacramental means of communicating that life. In his failure to meet God's demands, Adam's eating of the fruit from the tree of good and evil indicates he would also eat of the tree of life, and reveals that he would rather have life without God. That is so wicked, and completely rediculous, because life consists of nearness to God.
The title of this post is owing to the serpent's actions in deceiving Eve, and Adam, into eating from the tree of knowledge of good-and-evil. The serpent's agenda was to convince them that God was bad, and that the serpent has their best interests in mind. Obviously, the opposite is true: God was testing them prior to confirming them in glory, while the serpent was tempting them in order to ensure their ruin.
What is important to see, is that God's prohibition from eating of the tree does not mean that He was also prohibiting the knowledge of good-and-evil. It is not necessary to commit evil in order to be enlightened! Vos writes,
"Man was to attain something he had not attained before. He as to learn the good in its clear oppostion to the evil, and the evil in its clear opposition to the good. Thus it will become plain how he could attain this by taking either fork in the probation-choice. Had he stood, then the contrast between good and evil would have been vividly present in his mind: the good and evil he would have known from the new illumination his mind would have received through the crisis of temptation in which the two collided. "
The serpent told them that they had to eat from the tree to receive knowledge. He placed envy in their hearts for what God had and was holding from them. Vos writes, "(the serpent said) the tree has in itself, magically, the power of conferring knowledge of good an evil. This lowers the plane of the whole transaction religious and moral to the pagan-magical sphere."
The trees, set up by God, were intended to point to the fact that He alone is the source of life and knowledge. The serpent convinced man that they could be like God through receiving from the fruit of the tree. The serpent distorted the sacramental significance of the trees and ascribed to them power that belongs to God alone.
The parallels are just jumping out at me with the continued distortion of the OT and NT sacraments all down through history. I will save this for another time, and invite you all to weigh in as well.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Covenant initiation, maintenance, realization
This post may in fact belong as a comment under the Aug. 5 post. Without completely reopening the can of worms, the focus of that session was on covenant keeping. The charges against Future Grace by the video were, in my opinion, really distracting and sensational. However, I did benefit significantly from that post from what JP said, the comments, and in realizing how inadequate my understanding of the covenant really is.
RC Sproul says that to accuse Rome of teaching salvation by works is slander, and I agree with him. Based a recent waste of a lunch hour spent skimming the new catholic catechism (1994), I believe it would be fair to say that the papacy teaches salvation is by God's grace, received at and through the event/act of baptism, and kept through a faithful life in which the supposed believer lives in such a way to continue receiving fresh infusions of grace. How Rome would fit the covenant in there I really don't have the patience to find out.
My interpretation of what Dr. Piper teaches in FG is that salvation is by grace: it is by God's grace that we enter into the covenant, then God gives us the grace to keep the covenant, and finally receive the promise of salvation.
During my considerations of covenant keeping after that post, I became sincerely troubled by what I was hearing. The reason is that although I may be maturing in the faith, I know that I am not a covenant keeper, in fact I am certain that I'm a covenant breaker. My conscience is at rest when I hear Luther's teaching of "simulateously just/sinner". But I cannot make any sense out of simultaneously covenant keeper/breaker.
The writing of Cornelius Venema (Mid-America Reformed Seminary) has really addressed my confusion head-on. First some general statements on the importance of the covenant:
Covenant expresses the manner in which the Triune God enters into and maintains fellowship with His people. (Venema)
The content of God's self-revelation in expressed as a covenant. (Vos)
Due to the recent discussion on covenant keeping, these statements really got my attention:
God alone effectively and graciously brings the covenant relationship to bear fruit through the mediation of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit. The covenant relationship is, in its origin and administration, an initiative and work of God's undeserved grace and mercy.
The covenant relationship is marked by communion and friendship between God and His people. This relationship involves mutual promises and obligations. God makes promises and stipulates obligations, and so binds Himself to His people as a husband to his wife, as a bridegroom to his bride, or a father to his children. For their part, the covenant people of God are invited to embrace the covenant promises by faith and to acknowledge their corresponding obligations. This mutuality and fellowship, which mark the union and communion of the covenant relationship, however, do not reflect a parity between God and His people in the covenant. God takes the initiative in establishing the covenant. He graciously administers and sustains the covenant. And He ensures the fruitfulness of the covenant. The Triune God begins, maintains, and finally realizes His covenant purpose of saving communion with His people.
Venema also discusses the conditional-ness of the covenant:
One of the more difficult questions...in the formulation of covenant theology is whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional...One one hand, it would seem unconditional: God sovereignly and unilaterally establishes the covenant...However, when the covenant is viewed from the point of view of the work of Christ and the manner of its administration, it is conditional. The blessings of the covenant are contingent, for example, upon the work of Christ in fulfilling the conditions of obedience first set in the pre-fall covenant of works (Rom. 5:12-21).
God the Father secures the covenant's blessings for His people by sending his Son, Christ the Mediator of the covenant of grace, to accomplish their redemption by His atoning sacrifice and the outpouring of His Spirit. Everything that God demands of His people in the covenant of grace, He graciously grants them in Christ.
The obligations of faith and obedience, though not meritorious conditions, are necessary responses to the covenant's promises and are, as such, instrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant's blessings.
With all the talk of a personal-relationship-with-God, it is just wonderful to hear that the relationship is covenental, and have what that means actually explained to me. What's really ironic, is that Venema's statement about God demanding from us what he grants in Christ sounds very much like something Dr. Piper would say. Nevertheless, while our interpretation and understanding of the significance of his statements may be uncertain, I am certain that what he wrote blurred the meritorious/necessary distinction and was not even close to the Reformed doctrine of the covenant. But I really do not wish to end the post on that note. I have no delight in analyzing where someone's writing is lacking; this is not for sport. I just feel justified in my confusion and overjoyed in the correction.
P.S.
To bring up Kyles question on the covenant renewal ceremony, I am not at all concerned of basking in false humility when I say that I am such an infant in my understanding of the renewal ceremony. What I can say is that we attend church to relate to God uniquely compared to the rest of the week (right?!) and our relationship with him is covenental- so the significance of the covenant must be great in relation to worship. The beautiful thing about the covenant is that it is initiated by God, not God & man, so God is addressing His people. He is addressing his people in the Invitation to Worship, the Assurance of Pardon, the minister's sermon (Spirit ministers internally through your external announcement of the Gospel), the sacraments (as visible signs of invisible grace, as "tokens" (not badges) of God's grace towards His people), benediction, etc. The worship service also contains opportunity for the people to respond to God in singing, prayer, etc; this is the basis for the Reformed Dialogical principle of worship. The idea is that NC worship should be a ceremony of covenant renewal just as the OC worship service clearly was. In any case, the accusations against orthodox Reformed theologians for using Old Covenant precendent and a sledgehammer to define New Covenant practice are unfounded and just wrong- I say orthodox because the non-orthodox proponents of Federal Vision are coming up with crazy stuff because they are doing just that.
RC Sproul says that to accuse Rome of teaching salvation by works is slander, and I agree with him. Based a recent waste of a lunch hour spent skimming the new catholic catechism (1994), I believe it would be fair to say that the papacy teaches salvation is by God's grace, received at and through the event/act of baptism, and kept through a faithful life in which the supposed believer lives in such a way to continue receiving fresh infusions of grace. How Rome would fit the covenant in there I really don't have the patience to find out.
My interpretation of what Dr. Piper teaches in FG is that salvation is by grace: it is by God's grace that we enter into the covenant, then God gives us the grace to keep the covenant, and finally receive the promise of salvation.
During my considerations of covenant keeping after that post, I became sincerely troubled by what I was hearing. The reason is that although I may be maturing in the faith, I know that I am not a covenant keeper, in fact I am certain that I'm a covenant breaker. My conscience is at rest when I hear Luther's teaching of "simulateously just/sinner". But I cannot make any sense out of simultaneously covenant keeper/breaker.
The writing of Cornelius Venema (Mid-America Reformed Seminary) has really addressed my confusion head-on. First some general statements on the importance of the covenant:
Covenant expresses the manner in which the Triune God enters into and maintains fellowship with His people. (Venema)
The content of God's self-revelation in expressed as a covenant. (Vos)
Due to the recent discussion on covenant keeping, these statements really got my attention:
God alone effectively and graciously brings the covenant relationship to bear fruit through the mediation of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit. The covenant relationship is, in its origin and administration, an initiative and work of God's undeserved grace and mercy.
The covenant relationship is marked by communion and friendship between God and His people. This relationship involves mutual promises and obligations. God makes promises and stipulates obligations, and so binds Himself to His people as a husband to his wife, as a bridegroom to his bride, or a father to his children. For their part, the covenant people of God are invited to embrace the covenant promises by faith and to acknowledge their corresponding obligations. This mutuality and fellowship, which mark the union and communion of the covenant relationship, however, do not reflect a parity between God and His people in the covenant. God takes the initiative in establishing the covenant. He graciously administers and sustains the covenant. And He ensures the fruitfulness of the covenant. The Triune God begins, maintains, and finally realizes His covenant purpose of saving communion with His people.
Venema also discusses the conditional-ness of the covenant:
One of the more difficult questions...in the formulation of covenant theology is whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional...One one hand, it would seem unconditional: God sovereignly and unilaterally establishes the covenant...However, when the covenant is viewed from the point of view of the work of Christ and the manner of its administration, it is conditional. The blessings of the covenant are contingent, for example, upon the work of Christ in fulfilling the conditions of obedience first set in the pre-fall covenant of works (Rom. 5:12-21).
God the Father secures the covenant's blessings for His people by sending his Son, Christ the Mediator of the covenant of grace, to accomplish their redemption by His atoning sacrifice and the outpouring of His Spirit. Everything that God demands of His people in the covenant of grace, He graciously grants them in Christ.
The obligations of faith and obedience, though not meritorious conditions, are necessary responses to the covenant's promises and are, as such, instrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant's blessings.
With all the talk of a personal-relationship-with-God, it is just wonderful to hear that the relationship is covenental, and have what that means actually explained to me. What's really ironic, is that Venema's statement about God demanding from us what he grants in Christ sounds very much like something Dr. Piper would say. Nevertheless, while our interpretation and understanding of the significance of his statements may be uncertain, I am certain that what he wrote blurred the meritorious/necessary distinction and was not even close to the Reformed doctrine of the covenant. But I really do not wish to end the post on that note. I have no delight in analyzing where someone's writing is lacking; this is not for sport. I just feel justified in my confusion and overjoyed in the correction.
P.S.
To bring up Kyles question on the covenant renewal ceremony, I am not at all concerned of basking in false humility when I say that I am such an infant in my understanding of the renewal ceremony. What I can say is that we attend church to relate to God uniquely compared to the rest of the week (right?!) and our relationship with him is covenental- so the significance of the covenant must be great in relation to worship. The beautiful thing about the covenant is that it is initiated by God, not God & man, so God is addressing His people. He is addressing his people in the Invitation to Worship, the Assurance of Pardon, the minister's sermon (Spirit ministers internally through your external announcement of the Gospel), the sacraments (as visible signs of invisible grace, as "tokens" (not badges) of God's grace towards His people), benediction, etc. The worship service also contains opportunity for the people to respond to God in singing, prayer, etc; this is the basis for the Reformed Dialogical principle of worship. The idea is that NC worship should be a ceremony of covenant renewal just as the OC worship service clearly was. In any case, the accusations against orthodox Reformed theologians for using Old Covenant precendent and a sledgehammer to define New Covenant practice are unfounded and just wrong- I say orthodox because the non-orthodox proponents of Federal Vision are coming up with crazy stuff because they are doing just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)