Reformed Forum

Posting Potency and Proportion: Imperative-Based Imbalance

Jared Oliphint — Wed, 22 May 2013 19:15:47 +0000

One of the benefits of using the content-collector Evernote is a Chrome extension that grabs whatever article I’m reading and puts it into Notebooks (categories) I’ve created, in about two clicks. Since I scan an ocean of reading material every day, this comes in quite handy when I see a good article that may not be relevant at the time but I still want to archive it. The extension kind of lets you be an uncluttered digital hoarder, minus the cats.

As I’ve started archiving articles and getting a sense of the conservative evangelical tone, I’ve noticed that the undeniably overwhelming majority of written pieces or links fall under the general category of Practical Theology, as opposed to categories like Biblical Studies, Systematic Theology, Church History, or Apologetics. So that we’re clear on what I’ve noticed, my observation is not the presence of posts regarding Practical Theology, but the proportion of posts under Practical Theology in comparison to other fields and topics. I should also note that there are some fantastic blogs with a great topical variety, but I’m merely pointing out a general trend that applies in varying degrees from site to site.

If you’ll excuse a prelude, I want to express how helpful I found this post by Ray Ortlund on “Accusations of Legalism,” specifically the observation that “legalism is an easy accusation to make, and a difficult one to prove.” If legalism is as much of a problem as it is frequent in my twitter and RSS feed, the church has quite a heretical mess on its hands. (N.B. Legalism is a system of thought foreign to Christianity; legalistic thinking can be a dangerous but correctable slip by a genuine believer. Knowing this difference in ministry, and precisely articulating it, is beyond crucial.)

If blogs and tweets focus mostly on practically-based matters, then most posted content is ethics-based. And if most of the content we read is ethics-based, then most of what we read involves morals, rules, and what we should and shouldn’t do. And if that’s the case, the impression that might be created is that the Christian life centers around what we do or don’t do. The indicative has become lost in a sea of imperatives.

Consider an alternative: what if there were more posts on who God is, who Christ is, on a detailed treatment of specific Scriptural passages, on interpretive principles, on a biblical theology of the soul, etc.? If the imperatives, which are necessary, flow from the indicative and are not the basis of the indicative, what difference would that make in the breadth of content we produce?

I understand the well-intentioned desire to speak almost exclusively into ethical issues. For evangelism and pastoral ministry, ethics and practical living are the issues on people’s minds: “How should we then live?” But day-to-day living in any capacity, whether it be in the workplace, within the family, at school, in your neighborhood, needs to be set into the proper context of what is; the reality of who God is, what he has done, and what he is doing. If communicating the deep realities of theology, church history, biblical studies, etc. is a rare occasion, the choices we make regarding proportionality of topics may contribute to a perception of an ethics-based version of Christianity.

Trinity and Organism

Camden Bucey — Wed, 22 May 2013 05:00:34 +0000

Rev. Carlton Wynne reviews Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif by James Eglinton and published by T&T Clark. Eglinton demonstrates how Herman Bavinck connected doctrines such as Christology, general and special revelation, ecclesiology. Carlton recently reviewed the book in The Westminster Theological Journal.

The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament

Camden Bucey — Fri, 17 May 2013 05:00:30 +0000

Scholars disagree on the relationship between portions of the Old Testament and similar ancient Near Eastern accounts. Many believe Moses simply plagiarized material from existing literature. In this episode, we welcome Dr. John Currid to speak about his book Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament. In this book, Dr. Currid questions the higher critical trend by highlighting the highly polemical nature of Moses’ writings. From the Genesis creation account to the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, Currid shows how the biblical author’s continually emphasized the futility of paganism in contrast with the unparalleled worldview of the Hebrews.

Dr. Currid is the Carl MacMurray Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte. Prior to coming to RTS, he served as Associate Professor of Religion at Grove City College, as Byington Hebrew Teaching Fellow at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and as a member of the faculty at Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies in Jerusalem, Israel. Dr. Currid serves as Project Director of Bethsaida Excavations Project in Israel (1995-present). He lectures and preaches in many countries including Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, Australia, and Brazil.

Genesis 2:4-7 — Creation Expanded

Adam York — Mon, 13 May 2013 13:41:30 +0000

In this episode of Proclaiming Christ we address the issue of whether there are two different creation accounts: one in chapter 1 and another in chapter 2. We discuss the covenant name of God which is introduced in chapter 2. We also reflect on the repeated use of the phrase “these are the generations of” which first appears in chapter 2 and provides a way of dividing the rest of the book. We also consider the description of the creation of man in chapter 2.

Jonathan Edwards on Adam Before the Fall

Camden Bucey — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:00:54 +0000

The Christ the Center panel gather for an informal discussion about Jonathan Edwards and his treatment of the question of how Adam, who was created in righteousness and holiness and knowledge could ever fall into sin. Historically this has been a problematic issue and proves to be a challenge even to Edwards. Jeff Waddington has written a dissertation on Edwards’ anthropology as it pertains to apologetics, and one of the chapters deals specifically with this matter. Listen as we discuss this difficult issue.

Book 2, Chapter 2, Sections 14-20 – Man Now Deprived of Freedom of Will

Camden Bucey — Thu, 09 May 2013 05:00:18 +0000

Sections 14-20

14. The power of the intellect, secondly, with regard to the arts. Particular gifts in this respect conferred on individuals, and attesting the grace of God.

15. The rise of this knowledge of things terrestrial, first, that we may see how human nature, notwithstanding of its fall, is still adorned by God with excellent endowments.

16. Use of this knowledge continued. Secondly, that we may see that these endowments bestowed on individuals are intended for the common benefit of mankind. They are sometimes conferred even on the wicked.

17. Some portion of human nature still left. This, whatever be the amount of it, should be ascribed entirely to the divine indulgence. Reason of this. Examples.

18. Second part of the discussion, namely, that which relates to the power of the human intellect in regard to things celestial. These reducible to three heads, namely, divine knowledge, adoption, and will. The blindness of man in regard to these proved and thus tested by a simile.

19. Proved, moreover, by passages of Scripture, showing, 1. That the sons of Adam are endued with some light, but not enough to enable them to comprehend God. Reasons.

20. Adoption not from nature, but from our heavenly Father, being sealed in the elect by the Spirit of regeneration. Obvious from many passages of Scripture, that, previous to regeneration, the human intellect is altogether unable to comprehend the things relating to regeneration. This fully proved. First argument. Second argument. Third argument.

Approaches to Christology

Camden Bucey — Fri, 03 May 2013 05:00:39 +0000

Christology is at the heart of the gospel for it is the study of the God-man, the savior of sinners. In this episode, Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey speak about several fundamental doctrines of Christology and uncover a number of different approaches to its questions. As they describe formulations of theologians such as Karl Barth and Karl Rahner, Jim and Camden expose how alterations to the basic doctrines of Christology have drastic implications for soteriology.

Book News and Notes

Camden Bucey — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:00:45 +0000

Camden Bucey and David Owen Filson speak about several new books, and journal, and one interesting out-of-print title.

Genesis 1:28-2:3 — The Creation Mandate and Sabbath Rest

Adam York — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:40:38 +0000

In this episode of Proclaiming Christ we discuss the creation mandate given to Adam and the promise of Sabbath rest. We invite your comments and questions.

Aspects of Presbyterian Government

Camden Bucey — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 05:00:22 +0000

For this in-house episode, we speak about different aspects of presbyterian government. While church polity may seem like a tedious and perhaps arbitrary task, Scripture lays out a structure for how Christ chooses to rule his church in the present age. Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy, and Jeff Waddington speak about offices in the church and key features of presbyterianism such as plurality, parity, and connectedness in light of several key biblical texts.

Using Bavinck to Read Shakespeare: What’s in a Name?

Pierce Taylor Hibbs — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:00:43 +0000

In the second act of scene two in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, we encounter a punchy line that’s held readers’ attention for centuries. Frustrated because her lover carries the name of her family’s rival, Juliet voices her complaint,

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

So, what’s in a name, anyway? Why doesn’t Romeo just drop his last name and make this love affair a whole lot simpler? There are reasons he doesn’t, which extend perhaps beyond even Shakespeare’s imagination.

People have sometimes misinterpreted Juliet’s words to mean that names aren’t important. A rose would still retain its scent and color if called by a different name, wouldn’t it? Of course it would; but then it wouldn’t be a rose. It would be something different—a pansy, a peony, or a daffodil—but not a “rose.”

Names are important, and we can’t drop or change them without repercussions. Herman Bavinck sheds light on just how important names are, and perhaps this will help us refute the popular view that names are only superficial.[1]

A Name and Its Bearer

In discussing the biblical names for God, Herman Bavinck writes,

A name is a sign of the person bearing it, a designation referring to some characteristic in which a person reveals himself or herself and becomes knowable. There is a connection between a name and its bearer, and that connection, so far from being arbitrary, is rooted in that bearer. Even among us [moderns], now that names have for the most part become mere sounds without meaning, that connection is still felt. A name is something personal . . . . it stands for our honor, our worth, our person and individuality.[2]

A name is more than just a string of phonemes—even if that’s how we treat names today. Names are tied in a special way to those who hold them. They play a part in identifying the being to which they are attached, and in doing so they alert us as to how we should interact with that being.

Names for God

Bavinck continues with his argument by examining the names of God we find in Scripture—names which are more transparent than those we find in our culture. In the Bible, God’s names point to His being. In Gen 17:1 God identifies Himself as אֵל שַׁדַּי, “God Almighty.” The letters signify who God is: He is incomparably mighty, stronger than any other being. Similarly, יְהֹוָה צְבָאוֹת points us to God’s power as the “Lord of Hosts.” He has every army at His beck and call. When we pronounce that name, we draw attention to God’s commanding presence. God’s names themselves carry meaning that is bound up with God, the bearer.

This is the same for Christ. As the מָשִׁיחַ “Messiah,” Christ is the anointed one. He is the one who will fulfill God’s promise in Gen 3:15, the one who will carry out the climactic event of redemptive history. He has been “anointed” in a way unlike any other person, so it is fitting to call him the anointed one. All others who have been anointed in history pale in comparison.

The Holy Spirit is not left out of this naming convention either. He is called ὁ παράκλητος, “the Helper” or “Comforter.” The letters bring to mind the very nature of what the Spirit does for believers in Christ.

The names of God, then, are tied not just to who He is but how He acts, and thus they reveal how we relate to Him as creatures. When God tells Moses that He is “I AM,” He is referencing His a se nature—His utter independence and self-existence. As a creature hearing that name, Moses learns that he is derivative, dependent on God for his every breath. This revelation—as it should—brings Moses to fear and worship. The name reveals how Moses is to respond to the one who bears it.

Names of Creatures

What Bavinck has stated about the names of God can be applied analogously to God’s creatures. Names identify beings and make them knowable, and they reveal how we are to relate to them.

Throughout Scripture, names tell us something very important about who a person is or will be. This is evident in God’s renaming of certain people in the Bible, such as Abram and Jacob. God says to Abram, “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5). Abraham’s new name points to who he will become. In Gen 32, Jacob is renamed “Israel,” meaning “he who strives with God,” because he strove with God and with men and prevailed (Gen 32:28). Jacob’s new name, like Abraham’s, reflects who he now is.

All this is not to say that our names today are as transparent as those we find in Scripture. In fact, we would be hard-pressed to find a name today that is etymologically tied to the person bearing it. Rather, it is to say that names cannot be separated from their bearers as if names themselves have no meaning. They certainly are not treated this way in Scripture. Even if names do not reveal the actual nature or character of the thing they are attached to, they still allow us to identify a person or thing and interact appropriately.

What Juliet Meant

So, what did Juliet mean by her words about the name of a rose? She didn’t mean that names are arbitrary and that Romeo can simply cast his aside without consequence. Here’s what I think she meant: Juliet, like Shakespeare, would have known, at least intuitively, that names are important and that they are bound up with their bearers. They identify people and things, making them knowable and revealing how we are to interact with them. Because of this, Juliet would be frustrated by pure, detached nominalization. She is a Capulet, and Romeo is a Montague. These titles alone—considered in isolation from their particular bearers—are keeping them from being together. A name in isolation from its bearer is restricting her actions. This, to her, is madness—as it should be. It is not that names themselves are of little value, but that names are vapid when viewed in isolation from the unique creatures who bear them. Names are connected to their bearers and have meaning and status derived from those whom they identify. That is why Jesus’ name is above all other names (Phil 2:9). All that Jesus has done, is doing, and will do, all that He is, places His title above any other name. He reveals Himself in His name, making Himself knowable, and thus showing us how we are to respond to Him. There is a clear connection between Christ and His name—“a connection . . . rooted in that bearer.”

Conclusion

We can’t say that names are irrelevant; we don’t even act as if they are. We know that a name identifies a unique creature, distinguishing it from others, and that it tells us how we are to interact with the creature who bears it. I will not turn around if someone runs down the street, calling, “Jim! Jim!” That’s not my name. Someone wishing to interact with me must use my name, the name that is bound to me as a particular creature made in God’s image.

So, let us return to Juliet. What’s in a name? A bearer. That’s what’s in a name. A rose called by another name would still smell as sweet, but we would have altered our reference to the bearer, and thus affected how we identify it and how we interact with it. Names are not superficial strings of phonemes. They stamp their bearers with particular identities—identities that cannot be torn from their names without confusion or misguided engagement resulting. As it turns out, it’s better that Romeo didn’t “doff” his name. Had he done so, Juliet would have, quite literally, fallen for someone else.

[1] Note that this essay deals not with what Juliet actually meant in the context of the play, nor does it attempt to explore Shakespeare’s use of nomenclature. Rather, it deals with the faulty interpretation of Juliet’s words by those who would divorce them from their context and give them a “reader-based” meaning, a meaning which I consider to be insubstantial and unstable.

[2] Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 97.

A Review of The Theology of Augustine by Matthew Levering

Camden Bucey — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:00:31 +0000

David Filson reviews Matthew Levering’s recent book, The Theology of Augustine: An Introductory Guide to His Most Important Works. For thoughtful students of Church History and Historical Theology, who may find the sheer bulk of Augustine’s corpus daunting, and don’t know quite where to begin, this accessible, substantive, and crisply written volume offers a historically contextual and theologically analytical guided tour of seven of St. Augustine’s key treatises (On Christian Doctrine, Answer to Faustus, a Manichean, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, On the Predestination of the Saints, Confessions, City of God, and On the Trinity). Throughout, Levering reveals things, such as the nature of Augustine’s Trinitarian theology, hermeneutic of continuity between the OT and NT, and a properly ordered and graciously expressed Christian love.

Genesis 1:14-28 – The Next Three Creation Days

Adam York — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:41:31 +0000

In this episode of Proclaiming Christ we discuss days 4-6 of the creation account in Genesis 1. We continue the discussion of light and darkness in creation as it pertains to the fourth day, the kingdom of God in creation, and the creation of humanity in the image of God.

What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an

Camden Bucey — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:00:36 +0000

Today we welcome Dr. James R. White to the program to speak about his book What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an. In the book, Dr. White presents Islamic beliefs about Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the afterlife, and other important topics. White shows how the sacred text of Islam differs from the teachings of the Bible in order to help Christians engage in open, honest discussions with Muslims.

Dr. White is the Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries and is an active apologist and debater. He is the author of several books, including The Forgotten Trinity and The Potter’s Freedom.

The Envy of Eve: Finding Contentment in a Covetous World

Camden Bucey — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:00:48 +0000

Today we welcome Melissa Kruger to the program to speak about her book The Envy of Eve: Finding Contentment in a Covetous World published by Christian Focus. Melissa is on staff in women’s ministry at Uptown Church (PCA) in Charlotte, NC, a mom to three kids and the wife of Dr. Michael Kruger, President and Professor of NT at Reformed Theological Seminary Charlotte.

A Review of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault

Camden Bucey — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:00:08 +0000

Jonathan Brack reviews The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault and published by Solid Ground Christian Books. This is a helpful treatment of historic Reformed credo-baptist arguments.

Genesis 1:1-13 – The First Three Creation Days

Adam York — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:25:14 +0000

In this episode we discuss verses 3-13 of Genesis 1: the first three creation days. We discuss the covenantal character of creation, the theological dimensions of these days, God’s dominion and interpretive prerogative in naming and ordering the days. We also look at the significance of those things which are the focus of each day: light, the separation of the waters above and below, the separation of the seas and try land, the creation of vegetation, and many other things. We welcome your questions and feedback in the comments.

Bavinck on Marriage and the Family

Camden Bucey — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:00:28 +0000

Nelson Kloosterman speaks about Herman Bavinck’s theology of marriage and the family. Kloosterman recently translated Bavinck’s book The Christian Family. Though he wrote in early 20th century Netherlands, Bavinck’s book is relevant for the present day. In distinction from so many contemporary works, Bavinck establishes a theology of marriage and the family that can be applied to the manifold challenges facing families in the present day.

Dr. Kloosterman is Executive Director of Worldview Resources, International and works as a translator of important theological works. Listen as he unfolds Bavinck’s doctrine of sin and redemptive-historical focus as they pertain to God’s design for the family and society as a whole.

The Persecution of the Early Church

Charles Williams — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:00:42 +0000

In the fourth episode of Faith of our Fathers, Jonathan Brack and Charles Williams provide an overview of the shape, extent, and intensity of the Roman Empire's persecution of the … Read more→

A Review of Popologetics by Ted Turnau

Camden Bucey — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 05:00:20 +0000

Jonathan Brack reviews Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective by Ted Turnau, a book on apologetics in the midst of pop culture.

Has American Culture Triumphed over American Faith?

Robert Tarullo — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:00:32 +0000

Prominent sociologist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center at Boston University, recently wrote in “The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith”: “In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture – and American culture has triumphed.”

As a pastor, I wonder how true Wolfe’s statement might be. Has American culture triumphed over the religious life of American Christians? Has the American church given up her distinctive features and replaced them with American culture? Wolfe’s observations of the American religious life are striking. He writes, “Whether or not the faithful ever were a people apart, they are so no longer… Talk of hell, damnation and even sin has been replaced by a nonjudgmental language of understanding and empathy … Far from living in a world elsewhere, the faithful in the United States are remarkably like everyone else.” Criticism is hard to take sometimes. However, often it proves to be helpful for self-reflection, even when it comes from those outside of the Christian community. Fresh criticism is something the church needs to hear. To paraphrase Wolfe’s analysis in the language of the Bible: Has the church become more a friend of the world than a friend of God? (James 4:4). Is the American church characterized more by this present evil age or the age to come? (Galatians 1:4). To put it another way, has the American church forgotten what it means to be, first and foremost, citizens of heaven? (Philippians 3:20). In the American penchant for pragmatism, have we forgotten the responsibility of the church in—and to—our age?

Indeed, with these observations before us, what is the responsibility of the church? The early 20th century theologian J. Gresham Machen asked a similar question: “What is the responsibility of the church in our new age?” In his answer he describes the church as “citizens of a heavenly kingdom.” In this view, the church is a heavenly outpost on earth, a colony of heaven, so to speak. As such, the church is counter-cultural; the church is the community of God’s people set apart from the world to worship God and to live according to God’s holy word. God calls the church to teach that there is truth. Into the midst of a culture of ever-changing fads and opinions, into the despair of the post-modern rejection of meaning, the church will come with a clear message.

The message will be from the Bible, in which the living God has been revealed. The message of the church presents a gospel as the way of salvation. This message maintains that all are lost in sin, but may be saved through the Savior offered in the gospel. The church also will be transformed in its life. By this I mean that the church will “cherish the hope of the goodness in the other world, and that even here and now it will exhibit of a new life which is the gift of God,” to use a line from Machen. Much of the present transformation of the American religious life, observed by Wolfe, seems to be a result of a desire for relevance in an ever-transforming culture.

For the church to be truly relevant in the world today, I believe the church should maintain its doctrine, its message and its treasured hope in the world to come. Only as the colony of heaven on earth, as those living lives that express to the whole world the goodness of God exemplified in the love of Jesus Christ, only then, I believe, will the American church prove itself a friend of God and not a friend of the world. Wolfe’s observations are well taken. Of course, he did not visit every church in America. Nevertheless, his observations serve as an opportunity for self-reflection, to reflect on the church’s responsibility in this age. As far as I understand the Scriptures, the church’s responsibility in this age is the same as its responsibility in every age. “It is to testify that this world is lost in sin,” Machen writes, “that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all … that he has revealed himself to us in his word and offered us communion with himself through Jesus Christ the Lord … [a]n unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church.”

Worship and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Camden Bucey — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:10:26 +0000

William H. Smith shares several thoughts on the conservative movements currently forming within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). As a member of (and now pastor-elect in) a sister denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), I found his comments on worship to be most interesting.

I have said before, and will venture to say again that one of the most consequential decisions made by the PCA early on was its decision not to have a real Directory for Worship. Though this avoided a fight, and though the consequences were not foreseen by those who voted in favor, the effect of this decision has turned out to be to allow virtually anything in worship so long as one can convince himself it is allowed by Scripture and could somehow be subsumed under some understanding of the regulative principle.

Now you can go from PCA church to PCA church and not have a clue you are visiting churches of the same denomination. Despite the near universal willingness to have to diversity in “worship styles” I am unconvinced that the diversity is not diversity of substance or the triumph of style over substance. I just don’t see how you can have real unity of doctrine and spirit without unity in the way of worship.

The diversity of worship is often identified as a key differentiating factor between the OPC and PCA. There is certainly a large amount of overlap, but generally speaking, I believe it’s safe to say there is a broader range of diversity in the PCA. And given the recently adopted revisions to the OPC’s Directory of Public Worship, it appears this will certainly be the case for some time.

But worship isn’t the only difference; there are several issues in my opinion. It’s important to note that the OPC voted itself out of existence twice in order to join its close brethren. For various reasons it didn’t work out, and there are even more obstacles to union now than there were 30 years ago.

Rev. Hill identifies a significant tension and suggests that each of the distinctive groups in the PCA could find happy homes in other NAPARC churches or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). It will be up to the people of the “movements” within the PCA to substantiate his thesis or prove him incorrect.

If One Believes in the Legitimacy of Same-Sex Marriage

Jared Oliphint — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:00:34 +0000

In the discussions surrounding same-sex marriage, it has struck me how difficult it is to get a handle on what secular culture “believes.” Like any large group, beliefs within a group are anything but monolithic. There are inconsistencies in beliefs among members of the same set. Below are a few of the beliefs one cannot consistently hold in addition to believing in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

If one believes in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage:

One cannot consistently believe in the illegitimacy of heterosexual marriage.
One cannot consistently believe that marriage is simply “a legal piece of paper” with no further significance.
One cannot consistently believe that someone’s sexual orientation does not matter. In this debate, it undeniably matters.
One cannot consistently believe that someone’s sexual orientation is only a private matter. Part of what is being advocated by same-sex marriage supporters involves a public display of one’s orientation.
One cannot consistently be against “tradition” in every case. There is no empirical, perceivable difference between a same-sex couple living together and a same-sex couple who are married and living together. There must be some acknowledged meaning behind the traditional ceremony, vows, etc.
One cannot consistently deny legitimacy, on the same grounds, to multiple-partner marriage. If loving feelings toward someone is both the necessary and sufficient condition for marriage, nothing inherent in the definition prohibits the possibility that loving feelings can be directed toward more than one person.
One cannot consistently deny that divorce is more significant than a non-marital breakup. If the institution of marriage is more meaningful than mere dating or co-habitation, the severing of that institution must have significance beyond mere legal implications.

Though the current debate keeps getting framed in terms of “rights,” the underlying beliefs regarding the integrity of marriage as an institution (on both sides) reveal some tangled assumptions.

The Plan of Salvation

Camden Bucey — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:00:59 +0000

Rev. Dr. Lane Tipton walks us through the soteriological taxonomy offered by B.B. Warfield in his book The Plan of Salvation. In the book, Warfield asks a series of questions designed to distinguish biblically-consistent Christianity from other accounts of salvation. Who saves? How? And on what basis? As Dr. Tipton rehearses and adds to Warfield’s argument, we come to see how Calvinism is distinguished from paganism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, and all forms of Arminianism.

Dr. Tipton is Associate Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.

Affirmations and Denials for a Christian Response to Gay Marriage

James J. Cassidy — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:08:53 +0000

The following was sent in to my local newspaper for consideration in the editorial page (it was, however, rejected by the editor):

In no way do I pretend to represent the entirety of the Christian community. Some will be happy with what I say here, others not. But I do want to put these affirmations and denials into the public square with the hopes to further the discussion with my neighbors. So, with that said, I present the following 5 affirmations and denials concerning gay marriage from a Christian perspective.

First, we affirm that marriage is designed by God to be between one man and one woman, until death do they part.

We deny the legitimacy of divorce for any other reason than desertion or adultery. Therefore, no-fault divorce has only served to cheapen the institution of marriage.

Second, we affirm that heterosexuals (Christian ones in particular!) have a shameful record of honoring the institution of marriage, and are primarily responsible for the decay of the institution today.

We deny that the homosexual agenda to advance the cause of gay “marriage” is the only, or even primary, threat to the institution. Hetereosexuals were doing a pretty good job of bringing marriage into ruins long before the rise of the modern gay agenda.

Third, we affirm the legitimacy of gay couples wanting access to basic social “rights.” To that end, we affirm visitation rights for same-sex co-habitants, equal pay for equal work, and social acceptance of the person without prejudice.

We deny that anyone has a right to treat another human being with violence or a lack of dignity.

Fourth, we affirm the right of homosexuals to live safely and peaceable in society.

We therefore deny tolerance for violence or bullying in the public schools.

Fifth, we affirm the true and historical meaning of the word “marriage.” We affirm that God is the maker of things, including the institution of marriage, and is the sovereign Lord who rules over all things, including the public square. Therefore, God is the giver of meaning to all of life. He has given in his Word, the Bible, the final revelation of the meaning of all things. And he has defined marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.

We therefore deny that anyone as the right to come along and re-define the institution according to their preferences. We deny that changing the meaning the word will improve the acceptance of gays in society. They should be afforded the basic “rights” of everyone else, including physical protection under the law, without altering the meaning of words.

So much more can be said, but that should get us started. I believe that there are other ways of gaining rights, protection, and acceptance in society than through redefining terms. Furthermore, while I am not willing to accept homosexual behavior as normative or morally acceptable, I am very concerned that homosexual persons receive the same respect and protection as everyone else. I passionately reject bullying in schools. But not just the bullying of homosexuals, but also bullying of skinny kids with glasses and pimples too! This is a human question, not a question of sexual orientation. All people are created in the image of God, and though fallen should be afforded the respect due to an image-bearer of God. But Christians cannot back away from the truth of God’s Word, even and especially in the public square, to hold up heterosexual marriage (with all its failings!) as God’s will and to call all deviations from that sin while warmly offering to all the hope of the Gospel.

The Early Church and Judaism

Jonathan Brack — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 05:00:29 +0000

In the third episode of Faith of our Fathers, Jonathan Brack and Charles Williams explore the growing tensions and eventual separation between Judaism and Christianity in the first century—explaining how Christianity came to be seen no longer as simply another sect of Judaism, and how this separation led Christians to fall into the crosshairs of the Roman Empire.

A Review of Bound Together by Chris Brauns

Camden Bucey — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:00:27 +0000

Camden Bucey and Jim Cassidy review Chris Brauns’ book Bound Together: How We Are Tied to Others in Good and Bad Choices published by Zondervan. This book is a welcome and accessible introduction to the biblical conception of corporate solidarity. Brauns introduces the “principle of the rope” to explain how humans are connected with one another, a fundamental concept at the heart of both the doctrine of sin and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Machen Affirmed a Strong Antithesis When Writing on Education

Camden Bucey — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:00:03 +0000

In an essay on the importance of Christian scholarship, Machen demonstrated a strong view of the antithesis between believers and unbelievers (so much so that one might be tempted to think he was Dutch).

One thing needs always to be remembered in the Christian Church—true Christianity, now as always, is radically contrary to the natural man, and it cannot possibly be maintained without a constant struggle. A chip that floats downwards with the current is always at peace; but around every rock the waters foam and rage. Show me a professing Christian of whom all men speak well, and I will show you a man who is probably unfaithful to His Lord. (J. Gresham Machen, “The Importance of Christian Scholarship” in Education, Christianity, and the State: Essays by J. Gresham Machen, p. 23.)

Such a view should have significant implications regarding how Christians should live in this world, education being just one prime example.

Genesis 1:1-2 – The Doctrine of God in Creation

Adam York — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 05:00:52 +0000

In this episode we discuss the first two verses of Genesis 1. The episode focuses on the centrality of God in creation. We begin by discussing some interpretive assumptions involved in reading this passage. We also consider: the distinctiveness of the God of the Bible over against the pagan myths, God’s sovereignty and freedom in creation, creation ex nihilo, the creation of the invisible heavens and the visible earth, the initial formlessness of creation, and the work of God’s Spirit, and many other things.

Francis Schaeffer’s Christian Spirituality

Reformed Forum — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 05:00:37 +0000

We welcome William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, to the program to reflect upon Francis Schaeffer’s life and thought. Dr. Edgar focuses on Schaeffer’s Christian spirituality in Schaeffer on the Christian Life: Countercultural Spirituality, a unique and welcome addition to the literature on Schaeffer. Having spent time with Schaeffer at L’Abri in Switzerland and having been deeply influenced by Schaeffer’s ministry, Dr. Edgar’s book brings a warm tone to a rich and insightful treatment of the Christian life.

It Is There and It Should Not Be Silent: Van Til’s Critique of Schaeffer

Daniel Schrock — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:00:45 +0000

Many Christians are disconcerted when they see Christian apologists polemicize against each other. Is it not the job of the Christian apologist to defend Christianity to the unbeliever? Why waste time and energy and even create division among Christians by going after fellow Christian apologists who differ from you in method? Are we not doing the cause of Christian apologetics harm when we fight among each other?

There is some validity amidst such concerns. As one who has more than a few polemical bones in his body, I confess that I have often struggled with how I perceive and subsequently how I engage other Christians I disagree with, not just on apologetics but on all manner of theological topics. It is all too easy to begin to see those you disagree with as enemies in need of vanquishing rather than as brothers or sisters in Christ in need of loving correction.

But as hard as it may be to carry out polemics in a spirit of Christian love, we cannot assume that a spirit of Christian love prohibits polemics. The characteristic wisdom of Proverbs ought to shape our thinking here: “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid” (Prov. 12:1 ESV). Love and reproof are of a piece in Scripture. Granted, reproof can easily be doled out without love. But, if we are tempered by a spirit of Christ-like love, then we ought not be overly reluctant in opening our mouths to issue words of correction when we are convicted that our brothers or sisters need them.

This does not make us the cold-hearted orthodoxy police, but the body of Christ committed to guarding one another from harmful error in a demeanor of love and the Spirit of love. We easily recognize this in the general fabric of the Christian life. It is no less true in the common task of Christian apologetics. If done in love, it will only sharpen the cause of the defense of the faith.

With this in mind it is worth revisiting the criticisms that Cornelius Van Til made of another titan of Reformed apologetics, Francis Schaeffer. First, I want to revisit some of those criticisms since they are a helpful guard against a perennial temptation that is all too easy to fall into when engaging in apologetic discussions. Second, I want to end this discussion with a reminder of the spirit of loving correction with which Van Til himself understood his criticisms to be made.

The Critique

Van Til’s criticism of Schaeffer is much the same as Van Til’s criticisms of most every Christian apologist he critiques. It is that Schaeffer refuses to be immediately Christian in his discussion of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical first principles. Schaeffer instead speaks of the necessity of “pre-Evangelism.”^[1] What Schaeffer means by this is getting the non-believer to reckon first with the truth of the external world before confronting him with the truth claims of Scripture. Schaeffer uses the metaphor of a roof to get at how each person has constructed protective barriers of denial in order to allow him to be shielded from the tension of the logical conclusion of their presuppositions and the real world that confronts him. The task of “pre-evangelism” for the apologist is removing that roof. “The Christian, lovingly, must remove the shelter and allow the truth of the external world and of what man is, to beat upon him. When the roof is off, each man must stand naked and wounded before the truth of what is.”^[2]

This seems well and good so far to the apologist who has been shaped by Van Til’s insights. It may seem like Schaeffer is saying that what we need to do is engage in the internal critique of unbelief and deconstruct the façade of the autonomous worldview with the claims of a Biblically consistent Christianity. But that is not quite what Schaeffer is saying. He continues:

The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures, but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the real nature of his lostness and the answer to it. This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the twentieth century for people ling under the line of despair.^[3]

Schaeffer’s method is a two-step approach to apologetics. The first step is, I believe, what Schaeffer would call “pre-evangelism.” We need to be careful here. For Schaeffer, it is not a classical natural theology in which the apologist argues for the existence of some generic god by use of some form of the traditional theistic proofs. Rather, for Schaeffer, pre-evangelism is much more existential in nature. It is getting man to feel the full weight of his despair before the “external world.”

Hence we begin to deal with “modern man” by preaching at the place where he can understand. Often he understands the horrible point of meaninglessness. Often he recognizes the tension between the real world and the logic of his presuppositions. Often he appreciates the horror of being dead and yet still alive.^[4]

Schaeffer himself describes this method as similar to a Lutheran law/gospel paradigm.^[5] Man is shown his deadness and hopelessness first, and then and only then is the solution from Scripture presented to him. But, the big difference even between the Lutheran law/gospel method and Schaeffer’s two-step approach is that the “law” which Schaeffer presents is not straight away informed by Scripture. It is an existentialized “law,” not a law which drives one to despair because of God’s holiness but a law that drives one to despair because of one’s existential misery. One does not need Moses for this; one only needs Sartre. What makes it pre-evangelism is that the evangel is not allowed to speak immediately. It must stand in line behind the exposure to Schaeffer’s existentialized law.

Another line of pre-evangelism in Schaeffer comes in Schaeffer’s attempts to take the modern relativist and first turn him into a modern objectivist, before turning him into a Christian. “The invitation to act comes only after an adequate basis of knowledge has been given.”^[6] “We are concerned, at this point, not with the content of truth so much as with the concept of what truth is.”^[7]

Granted, Schaeffer does frame his concept of truth ultimately by “the God who is there.” “The Bible, the historic Creeds, and orthodoxy are important because God is there, and, finally, that is the only reason they have their importance.”^[8] This last statement is entirely in line with the convictions of Reformed orthodoxy. The basis for Scripture functioning as our principium cognoscendi for our knowledge of God and His world is God’s own being and knowledge of himself as the principium essendi.^[9] But, Schaeffer’s problem is that Scripture as our principium cognoscendi is only secondarily related to man in the apologetic discussion.

In his defense of rationality one often gets the impression that he is arguing for an objectivism that stands on its own first irrespective of any relation to the Triune God and the Gospel.^[10] It is an attempt to lay first the foundation of philosophical objectivism and then only afterwards to construct the edifice of Christianity upon it. Hence he grants,

But the Jewish and biblical concept of truth is much closer to the Greek than to the modern, in the sense that it does not deny that which is a part of the ‘manishness’ of man—the longing for rationality, that which can be reasonably thought about and discussed in terms of antithesis.^[11]

Schaeffer makes the mistake that so many Christian thinkers are tempted to drift towards in our post-modern climate: to think that somehow the philosophical world before Kant was a safer haven for Biblical Christianity. Against this tendency Van Til levies a cutting criticism against Schaeffer which is worth quoting at length.

It is, to be sure, only in modern times, particularly since Immanuel Kant, that the purely dialectical nature of apostate thinking has revealed itself clearly. But Greek philosophy was based upon the same assumptions as is modern philosophy. There is no “classical view of truth” that is basically any better or any worse than the philosophy of 20^th century man. There is and can be no descent into idolatry that is or can be any deeper than the descent of worshiping the creature more than the Creator. There are no “degrees of apostasy and error” here. Classical non-Christian thinking was as truly relativist as is that of the pragmatism, existentialism, empiricism, or analyticism of our day. There are, no doubt degrees of violence as well as variations in form in which the basic principle of apostasy expresses itself. But the best-dressed and best-mannered suburbanite of whatever time is no more ready, of himself, to surrender his thought and life captive to the obedience of Christ speaking directly to man in the words of Scripture than is the most blatant blasphemer and sensualist.^[12]

Van Til’s critique of Schaeffer at this point, as was said earlier, is much the same as his critique of most other apologists. It will not do to have a theory of truth that separates concept and content as Schaeffer offers. As Van Til is fond of reminding us, the what and the that go together. Denotation and connotation cannot be separated for the Christian. We cannot really point man to the true nature of his misery unless he sees that misery qualified in relation to God.

Existential angst that is a product of man’s navel gazing is not enough. It is not enough for man to feel uncomfortable because he faces physical death and the nausea of being. He must see that his misery is misery precisely because he stands as an autonomous rebel in relation to the holy Triune God who created him. And to do this he must reckon not with a general sense of reality, but he must be confronted by the Christian apologist at once with God’s own speech defining the nature of that misery.

It is also not enough for the Christian apologist to get the non-Christian to accept a correspondence theory of truth. “Modern subjectivism cannot be challenged in terms of any view of objectivity that has not been accepted on the authority of Christ.”^[13] If we really believe with Paul that God has created all things by Christ, that in Christ all things hold together, and that God is also reconciling all things to himself in Christ (Col. 1:15-20), then there is no thing we can know that is not immediately related to Christ.

To turn a non-Christian subjectivist into a non-Christian objectivist is not really a movement at all. He still regards his own mind as the ultimate arbiter of rationality, since whatever counts as a proposition corresponding to the truth of the external world is still left to his autonomous rational judgment. We are still asking him to interpret his world first without reference to Christ.

Thus to engage in pre-evangelism of any sort is to automatically grant that “the external world and the truth of what man is” has meaning and significance apart from Christ presented in the evangel. The Gospel still stands in line behind man’s independent and autonomous assessment of himself and his world. In line with this William Edgar has put his finger on the issue consistent Van Tilians have with Schaeffer,

At bottom, then, Schaeffer’s view of presuppositions does not allow him truly to be transcendental. Rather, he uses presuppositions as a kind of adjunct to various traditional methods in apologetical argument.^[14]

Schaeffer does not immediately confront the non-Christian with the necessary pre-conditions of human knowledge in light of the Trinity and the gospel. Instead, he confronts him with what is supposed to be the truth of the external world as though that world could be interpreted intelligently without immediate reference to the Word of the God who created, defines, upholds, and is redeeming that world.

Van Til’s charge to Schaeffer and those who would take their cue from him is instead to be fearlessly direct with the non-Christian as an apologist. Own your Christian epistemology. Own your Christian metaphysic. Own your Christian ethics. Let your method be immediately shaped by them. If we confess that they are principial in theology, then they cannot be anything less in our defense of that theology.

The Qualification of Love

An unfortunate misunderstanding exists both in the disposition of some committed to Van Til’s apologetic methodology and in some of its critics. Because of Van Til’s penchant for totalizing polemics it is often assumed that he and his followers comb through the historic volumes of Christian theology and apologetics on a mission such as David Hume’s. “Does it contain a consistent outworking of Biblical, Trinitarian, and Reformed truth?” “No.” “Consign it to the flames!”

One can get the impression from Van Tilians (and sometimes from Van Til himself) that any Christian theology or apologetic which is compromised by some taint of autonomous thinking deserves a summary dismissal. Perhaps it is because Van Til frequently seized upon such inconsistencies and then drew them out to what he saw as their logical end. But, even though Van Til pushes us to be tirelessly consistent in our theological and apologetic method, it does not mean that he did not recognize the helpful contributions of those who sometimes found themselves on the sharp end of his polemical scalpel. Such is the case with Schaeffer.

The letter which comprises the first part of his syllabus in which he collected his criticisms of Schaeffer begins and ends with an important qualification. At the opening, Van Til confesses his personal affection for Schaeffer but qualifies that this ought not deter him from speaking openly and frankly to what he sees amiss in his apologetic method.

I now turn to a consideration of Schaeffer’s writings. I ask myself whether they support your contention that they depart from what you call a Reformed method of apologetics. You should remember that I have known Schaeffer for a long time. It will be with reluctance if I grant you your point. On the other hand, I do not want to be carried away by my love for him personally or by the reports of the “good work” that he has done in connection with L’Abri Fellowship. “Good work” is done in God’s kingdom all the time by those who hold to unbiblical views on apologetics and theology.^[15]

Okay. We can sense Van Til’s tongue in cheek dig at the unqualified assessment of Schaeffer’s work as “good” by his use of quotation marks. This could be read as Van Til being uncharitable. On the other hand, it simply could be read as realistic exasperation at a certain tendency that often surfaces in the Church. The good work (yes, good work without quotation marks) that is done in the kingdom is often used as a means to wave away any criticism of that work. If you don’t think this is true, try criticizing Billy Graham in any way whatsoever in front of Evangelicals. You will meet a wall of righteous indignation that surpasses even how Catholics respond to criticism of the Pope.

Just because someone is being used in positive ways to advance the mission of the Church does not mean that they have a sacrosanct status elevated above all critique. Conversely, just because one critiques (or even scathingly critiques) a “good work” does not mean that they do not genuinely believe that there is good being done for the kingdom by that work. I think such is the case with Van Til in his critique of Schaeffer. The rigorous criticism of what he pens in the body of his letter is no reason to doubt the sincerity of that with which he ends his letter:

In conclusion let me reiterate what I said to you at the beginning. I am convinced that Schaeffer is, at heart, committed to a more biblical form of apologetics, than the one he actually presents in his writings so far discussed. I have written as I have written in the hope that he, as my brother in Christ, will stir me up to faithfulness in Christ as I, as his brother in Christ, am stirring him up now. May our common Savior make us ever increasingly useful in his service.^[16]

As we wrestle over the differences between these two men, may Christ do the same for us.

Notes

[1] Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. 1 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books), 155.

[2] Ibid, 140.

[3] Ibid, 140-141

[4] Ibid, 141-142.

[5] Ibid, 144.

[6] Ibid, 153.

[7] Ibid, 155.

[8] Ibid, 157.

[9] For more on this see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-08.), 1:210-214.

[10] This is one of Van Til’s explicit criticisms. The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, iv.

[11] Schaeffer, Escape from Reason, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, Vol. 1 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books), 269.

[12] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 6.

[13] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 5.

[14] William Edgar, “Two Christian Warriors,” WTJ 57 (1995), 75.

[15] Van Til, The Apologetic Method of Schaeffer, 3.

[16] Ibid, 14.

Bringing Schaeffer and Van Til Together

Camden Bucey — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:00:15 +0000

In an essay celebrating the 100th anniversary of Cornelius Van Til’s birth, William Edgar compared Francis Schaeffer to Cornelius Van Til. Much has been made about their different approaches to apologetics, but Dr. Edgar records an interesting encounter between the two that may nuance the divide:

A fascinating anecdote brings out the way that at least on one level Schaeffer actually felt very close to Van Til. He visited Westminster Seminary a number of times, and President Edmund Clowney would try to sit them down together to hash out their differences. On one of these occasions, Clowney recalls, they were in his office, and Van Til tried various ways to start a debate. Whenever he affirmed a particular point, however, Schaeffer replied, “I agree with that.” Finally, perhaps a bit frustrated, Van Til launched into a fifteen-minute summary of his whole apologetic, beginning, as he was fond of doing, with Adam and Eve and going through all of his basic credo, using the many illustrations his students are familiar with. At the end of his speech, Schaeffer, obviously moved, declared: “That is the most beautiful statement on apologetics I’ve ever heard. I wish there had been a tape recorder here. I would make it required listening for all L’Abri workers.” This from a man who did not compliment other theologians easily.

You can read more about Van Til and Schaeffer in the essay, “Two Christian Warriors: Cornelius Van Til and Francis A. Schaeffer Compared” in Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 57-80. You can also pick up a copy of Dr. Edgar’s new book, Schaeffer on the Christian Life: Countercultural Spirituality.

Union with Christ: Historically Most Basic (Part 3)

Jared Oliphint — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:00:57 +0000

In this third post on union with Christ (first post here, second post here), I want to highlight some of the realities that spill out from a full understanding of this crucial doctrine.

In my experience of discussions related to the different facets of salvation, the conversation can quickly or immediately turn to which salvific facet is the greatest motivator for the Christian life. For example, when facing temptation does my adoption take the lead as an organizing reality that drives me to fight against sin as an adopted child of God? Does my justification and the reality that I am no longer shackled with condemning guilt spur me to conquer sin and to face a fallen world today?

While those kinds of questions are vitally important for pastoral counsel and the Christian walk, they are not addressing the same topic that was mentioned in the previous two posts. There is a difference between a believer’s salvific reality in the transition from wrath to grace and the motivation of individuals in their Christian walk. So we can ask the question this way: Based on 1) the salvific reality of union with Christ as most foundational and 2) the benefits of salvation that flow from that union, how does that salvific structure permeate my life? I’ll briefly highlight just a few implications.

1) A person-centered understanding of salvation rather than a benefit-centered understanding puts proper focus on the ongoing relationship with Christ as our covenant Mediator, both at the time of transition from wrath to grace and no less powerfully at every subsequent point in our lives.

2) Grounding our salvific benefits in union with Christ helps us work out our salvation (Phil 2:12) in a way that focuses properly on the Benefactor, not our benefits in themselves. Our justification, sanctification, and adoption are only as sweet as the Person who earned them for us.

3) Union with Christ should naturally point us both to redemption applied to us and, more basically, to the redemption that Christ accomplished for us. That redemption was accomplished not only on the cross but through Christ’s life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. This helps us broaden our understanding of redemption and points us back to the Person who accomplished all aspects of redemption.

4) Being “in Christ” is necessarily linked to the covenantal aspect of salvation. Union with Christ is the most fundamental reality of being in God’s covenant, while being “in Adam” is the most fundamental reality of being outside God’s covenant (Rom 5:17). Adam’s sin was a covenantal breech that simultaneously caused 1) guilt, 2) corruption, and 3) alienation for everyone under the curse. Christ’s redemptive accomplishment was a covenantal fulfillment that simultaneously applies 1) justification, 2) sanctification (definitive and progressive), and 3) adoption for everyone under God’s grace.

5) Our union with Christ is a communal, churchly union. The church is not primarily a set of individuals who have been saved. The church is that, but is more primarily a people God is gathering together in his Son to the end of the age and beyond.

6) Christ’s pattern – suffering unto glory (Heb 2:9-10), death to life – is likewise our pattern as members of his body (1 Cor. 12:12f). In union with Christ be both died with him and resurrected in him (Rom 6:5f). We are, for example, justified by his blood (Rom 5:9) and his resurrection (Rom 4:25).

7) Finally, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). Union with Christ is an eschatological reality for the believer. As Christ has conquered death and ushered in the age to come (in the midst of the not yet), in Christ as the firstfruits we are the harvest he is gathering.

While these descriptions do not even scratch the surface of our salvific reality, can you see why this picture can be more helpful than, for example, simply “remembering” an aspect of our conversion? When we wake in the morning to face the day – the hardships, the blessings, the mundane, etc. of being in this world – a robust understanding of our salvation should be in the mind of God’s people, equipping them to work out all aspects of their salvation. While discussions surrounding union with Christ can sometimes get technical and abstract, it is my hope that church leaders far more capable than myself will continue to work on both the theological details and how those details shape our daily Christian lives before God.

A Review of Schaeffer on the Christian Life by William Edgar

Camden Bucey — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 05:00:30 +0000

Camden Bucey and Jim Cassidy speak about William Edgar’s book Schaeffer on the Christian Life: Countercultural Spirituality published by Crossway. William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, draws from his extensive personal experience with Francis Schaeffer to offer a portrait of the theoretical and practical sides of Schaeffer’s approach to the Christian life.

Union with Christ: Historically Most Basic (Part 2)

Jared Oliphint — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:00:04 +0000

In my previous post I cited two recent works that include a substantial amount of Reformed thinkers during the 16^th and 17^th centuries who understood union with Christ as the most basic category for individual salvation. These Reformed figures believed that union with Christ is foundational and that the benefits of justification, sanctification, and adoption flow from that union.

What was the point of the post? Two points: first, understanding union with Christ as the most basic category for salvation has just about as much precedent during the 16^th and 17^th century as one could hope for. This was not an understanding of salvation by a few fringe theologians, but the mainstream understanding at the time of Calvin and his contemporaries through the era of the English Puritans and the Westminster Confession. When Reformed trajectories were being established, the bulk of Reformed thinkers understood Scripture to teach that our union with Christ grounded the benefits of salvation.

Second, it’s important to know what a list of quotations does accomplish and does not accomplish. Though historical quote piles can sometimes seem intimidating and/or appear to settle a theological discussion, the most a quote list can do is establish weighty precedent for a position. That precedent can often be extremely important in a discussion, but it is not the same thing as establishing whether a theological belief is, in fact, true. Historical precedent from Reformed thinkers is often related to whether a theological belief is true, but it is not identical to a theological truth claim.

Demonstrating the truth of a theological belief involves exegetical support, biblical-theological work, and systematic-theological integration, in addition to historical precedent for the position. Any of these methods used in isolation from the others will leave gaps in the integrity of the theological truth for which one argues. Exegesis in total isolation from systematic, biblical-theological, and historical concerns leaves an interpreter vulnerable to repeating the mistakes of those who have dealt with the same material in the past (historical theology), and it unnaturally divorces a text from where it stands within the history of special revelation (biblical theology) and the whole of biblical teaching on the topic (systematic theology). To argue a theological point accurately and effectively, all these elements should organically be involved.

Though I am personally thrilled to see recent publications fill a gap and address the Reformed historical precedent for understanding union with Christ as most basic to our salvation, these crucial historical works must be understood within the broader thrust of works that argue for the same position exegetically, biblical-theologically, and systematically. Much work has been done on these topics (here, here, and here [with a republication from P&R coming soon]), but more work remains.

What does all this talk of “union” matter for our daily walk? We’ll look at that question in the next post.

Union with Christ: Historically Most Basic (Part 1)

Jared Oliphint — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:00:55 +0000

Two notable works have come out fairly recently: A Puritan Theology edited by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones (see sample chapter on union with Christ, justification, and regeneration here), and Calvin and the Reformed Tradition by Richard Muller. Part of what makes these works notable are the conclusions found in both works regarding union with Christ for salvation. In this first post, I’ll simply offer the spadework of quotations from each of these books. (The italics within each quote is my emphasis.) In a second post, I hope to answer how these historical examples, summaries, and conclusions function. In a third and final post, I comment on why this topic matters for your Christian walk.

A Puritan Theology:

“In the judgment of several significant Puritan theologians, union with Christ, not justification by faith, is the chief blessing a Christian receives from God. The believer’s union with Christ enables him to receive all the benefits of Christ’s work, including justification, adoption, and sanctification.” (487)
“Owen claims that union with Christ is the cause of all other graces a believer receives: ‘Hence is our adoption, our justification, our sanctification…our perseverance, our resurrection, our glory.’ Therefore, union with Christ is the ground of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Owen’s lengthy work on justification (volume 5) confirms the logical priority of union with Christ before other graces such as justification.” (489)
“Ball affirms that faith is the ‘band whereby we are united unto Christ; after Union followeth Communion with him; Justification, Adoption, Sanctification be the benefits and fruits of Communion.’” (490)
“John Preston (1587–1628) likewise affirms that ‘to be in Christ is the ground of all salvation.’” (490)
Thomas Cole (1627–1697) “has carefully noted how all these benefits come from Christ, and therefore regeneration must be seen in the light of our union with Christ.” (491)
“William Bridge (1600–1671) said that ‘union is the root of communion’ and ‘union is the ground of communion.’ In context, Bridge is explaining the benefits of our union with Christ.” (491)
“Obadiah Grew (1607–1689) said, ‘Union is the ground of all our comfort, and privilege we have by the Lord Jesus Christ: Our communion springs from our Union with him.’” (491)

Calvin and the Reformed Tradition

“Calvin was hardly an isolated figure in the early development of Reformed thought on union with Christ and that the Reformation-era connection of the doctrine of union with Christ with the earliest forms of what has come to be called the ordo salutis was an exegetical conclusion that did not disappear from Reformed approaches to the application of salvation in the era of orthodoxy, only to be replaced by a rigid chronological ordering of the stages of redemption, but was in fact incorporated carefully into Reformed orthodox language of the application of salvation.” (204)
For Beza, “both justification and sanctification follow on union with Christ” and “both justification and sanctification arise from union with Christ” (224)
For David Pareus, “Union with Christ and ultimate conformity with Christ, therefore, are the theme of the chapter and the sequence of the application of salvation rests on it” (227)
For Daniel Featley, “Ingrafting into Christ, then, sums up the entire initial argument of the epistle [of Romans] and appears as the foundation of the order or application of salvation.” (228)
“The works of theologians like William Perkins, Amandus Polanus, and William Ames in the era of early orthodoxy evidence a continuing emphasis on the doctrine of union with Christ and on an understanding of the union as foundational to the work of salvation in believers.” (229)
“Ames understands union with Christ as the proximate ground or cause of the work of salvation.” (234)
“The union, however, precedes and stands as the foundation of the other aspects or parts of the of the application of Christ. Indeed, all that follows—in Ames’ series, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification—are understood as ‘blessings flowing from union with Christ.’” (235)
“Of the full series of theological loci written in the seventeenth century, several follow out the argument found in Ames’ Medulla in grounding the entire sequence of salvation in union with Christ.” Downame, Ainsworth, Edward Leigh, Edward Polhill. (236-37)
“Thomas Goodwin firmly grounded his understanding of the application of salvation in union with Christ.” (238)
“All acts of God’s justifying us depend upon union with Christ.” (238)
“All of the formulations that we have examined identify union with Christ as the basis of the work of salvation.” (239)
“Union with Christ was not understood as a final product of the ordo salutis dependent on completion of all steps in the series—rather it was understood and typically explicitly identified as the very basis of the sequence of the application of salvation.” (240)
“In a large number of the later writers, union with Christ remained foundational to the entire sequence of the application of Christ’s work.” (243)

Introducing Genesis

Adam York — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:00:11 +0000

In today’s episode, the Proclaiming Christ panel considers an introduction to the book of Genesis. Among the topics discussed are: the absolute, supernatural work of God in Creation, the way in which creation looks forward toward ultimate, eschatological glory of God, and the way in which the Genesis account challenges various forms of unbelief. We also consider resources for the study of Genesis. We welcome you to listen along as we discuss matters foundational to the study and preaching of this wonderful book.

Regeneration in John 3

Camden Bucey — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:16:09 +0000

On the heels of our previous discussion with Rev. Dr. Scott Wright, the panel discusses the doctrine of regeneration by looking to Jesus’ teaching in John 3. Adam York, Deryck Barson, and Camden Bucey look at features of regeneration pertaining to both the accomplishment and the application of redemption. Through the lenses of God’s typological son, the nation of Israel, and the eschatological son, Jesus Christ, the panel situates God’s regenerating work within his overall plan of salvation.

An Approach to Church History

Jonathan Brack — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:00:34 +0000

In the second episode, Jonathan Brack and Charles Williams discuss how to begin studying church history, and provide a bird’s-eye view of the first six centuries of Christianity.

Logic: A God-Centered Approach

Jared Oliphint — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:00:52 +0000

Dr. Vern Poythress speaks about his new book, Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought. Discussion centers around the relationship between God and logic, the relationship between logical form and its content, and a Christian approach to modal concepts like possibility and necessity. Dr. Poythress is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.

You can find a free sample from his book, Logic, here. Other eBooks by Dr. Poythress are available at frame-poythress.org.