This week on Theology Simply Profound, Rob and Bob discuss Louis Berkhof’s little book, Summary of Christian Doctrine. On today’s episode, we come to the last section of the Summary, “The Doctrine of the Last Things.” Rob and Bob begin to a discuss chapter XXVIII, “Physical Death and the Intermediate State.” What is physical death? Why is there death? What is death for believers?

Participants: Rob McKenzie

We welcome Mark Sanders, President of Harvest USA, for an enriching dialogue on confronting and healing from sexual brokenness within the church. As our society grapples with rapidly evolving norms around gender and sexuality, the church is called to respond with both theological depth and compassionate outreach. Harvest USA stands at the forefront of this mission, offering resources, discipleship, and education to equip believers to address these challenges through the lens of Reformed theology.

Throughout this conversation, Camden Bucey and Mark Sanders discuss the significance of understanding our identity in Christ and how it shapes our approach to sexual ethics. They discuss the “Harvest Tree” model—a comprehensive biblical framework employed by Harvest USA to aid individuals and families in navigating sexual brokenness with biblical fidelity. The episode also spotlights new initiatives from Harvest USA, including free courses designed to assist parents in raising sexually faithful children and addressing gender confusion with grace and truth.

Listeners will gain insights into the theological underpinnings that guide Harvest USA‘s ministry, emphasizing the importance of a proper ecclesiology and a biblically grounded anthropology. This episode not only addresses the pressing issues of our time but also offers hope and direction for the church to minister effectively in a culture of confusion and search for identity.

Join us for an enlightening discussion that bridges deep theological concepts with practical application, illuminating the path toward healing and wholeness in Christ amidst a world of sexual and gender confusion. Visit harvestusa.org for more resources and information on how you can engage with this important ministry.

Chapters

• 00:07 Introduction
• 04:06 The History and Ministry of Harvest USA
• 10:04 Reformed Theological Anthropology
• 25:47 Courses Available through Harvest
• 30:37 Discipling Your Children
• 37:35 The Tree Model
• 44:32 Thoughts from the Front Line
• 54:10 Additional Resources
• 57:18 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Mark Sanders

Carlton Wynne, Lane Tipton, and Camden Bucey turn to pp. 63–67 of Cornelius Van Til’s The Defense of the Faith to discuss the Christian theory of knowledge. In this section, Van Til speaks of the effects of sin and its curse upon human knowledge.

Chapters

• 00:00:07 Introduction
• 00:05:07 The Effects of Sin
• 00:21:08 God Is Self-Sufficient and Self-Complete
• 00:37:24 Aspects of Non-Christian Thought
• 00:48:40 The Contradiction of a Developing Absolute
• 00:56:57 Three Types of Consciousness
• 00:58:49 Kuyper and Common Grace
• 01:03:23 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Carlton Wynne, Lane G. Tipton

It was most likely between 1888 and 1890, during his time at the Theological School in Grand Rapids, that Geerhardus Vos both delivered his Natural Theology lectures and wrote his Reformed Dogmatics. Together those works present a comprehensive doctrinal system of confessionally Reformed theology and therefore ought to be interpreted in light of one another. 

In Reformed Dogmatics, Vos incisively leverages the Reformed doctrines of the image of God, the covenant of works, and original sin against “the externalist character of Roman Catholic religion”¹ that “has in principle appropriated the Pelagian conception of the will as liberum arbitrium.”² According to Vos, the nature-grace externalism of medieval Roman Catholicism stands in sharp contrast to the “deeper Protestant conception”³ of the image of God and the “deeper conception of original sin”⁴ entailed by it. 

In the recently published Natural Theology, Vos rejects the “semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic church”⁵ and identifies a cast of Roman Catholic “scholastics”⁶ who do not view the “human race” after the fall “as entirely corrupt.”⁷ He sets this semi-Pelagianism of the medieval Roman Catholic church over against “Augustine’s doctrine of human corruption” that was “revived during the Reformation.”⁸ He specifically highlights the classically Reformed rejection of the semi-Pelagianism imbedded in traditional Roman Catholic doctrine that sinners can “rely on their own powers for their knowledge of God”⁹—a view that Vos contends flows directly from a “weakened” conception of original sin.¹⁰

Reading Vos’ Natural Theology in light of Reformed Dogmatics illumines his critique of the traditional Thomistic nature-grace anthropology and the semi-Pelagianism that flows from it. Vos’ work from Reformed Dogmatics finds explicit and sweeping application in Natural Theology. Allowing the two works to interpret one another shines the spotlight from Reformed Dogmatics onto Vos’ recurring claim in Natural Theology that the Reformed explicitly rejected traditional Roman Catholic natural theology and forged in its place a distinctively Reformed alternative.

John Fesko fails to understand this central point in his “Introduction” to Vos’ Natural Theology, asserting that “Vos and Aquinas might seem like an ill-matched pair, but the two actually do belong together”¹¹ in their approaches to natural theology. Put a bit differently, Fesko thinks that Aquinas expresses a natural theology that is congenial to Vos’ in the quest for the “retrieval of a Reformed natural theology.”¹² While many might view Aquinas and Vos as “oil and water,”¹³ Fesko argues that such is not the case. According to Fesko, Thomas Aquinas, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Vos fit coherently within “general patterns of patristic, medieval, and Reformation expressions, that is, in terms of God’s two books, nature and Scripture.”¹⁴ Fesko makes these claims about Aquinas and Vos, even though Vos nowhere cites Aquinas in Natural Theology. Nonetheless, Vos does offer a sweeping and penetrating critique of the medieval Roman Catholic nature-grace model of explicit Thomistic provenance. 

In what follows I will propose a reading of Vos’ Natural Theology in light of his Reformed Dogmatics that will challenge Fesko’s interpretations of Vos and Aquinas and will enable a comprehensive engagement with and critique of traditional Roman Catholic natural theology.

Notes

1. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016),12. “Externalist” captures Vos’ comprehensive argument regarding the traditional Roman Catholic conception of religion. By “externalist” Vos alludes to what traditional Roman Catholic theology understands and sees as extrinsically and supernaturally added to the nature of Adam as the image of God. According to Vos, the traditional Roman Catholic conception of nature (imago) demands the ontological and ethical supplement of externally infused grace (similitudo) that enables a religious relation to God. Thus, Adam was not in his created nature in a religious relation to God and therefore needed an externally supplied infusion of grace to achieve such a religious relation. This is what Vos has in mind when he speaks of “the externalist character of Roman Catholic religion.”
2. Ibid., 2:13. Liberum arbitrium means “liberty of the will,” which, in the Pelagian conception, holds that the will is determined neither by natural causality nor by the decree of God.
3.  Ibid. This phrase captures Vos’ comprehensive argument regarding the “internalist” character of religion in classical Reformed theology. According to Vos, the deeper Protestant conception of the image of God yields a natural religious fellowship with God under the covenant of works with no need for a donum superadditum. This natural religious internalism of Reformed covenant theology presents a sharp contrast to Rome’s supernatural religious externalism. This contrast explains Vos’ rejection in Natural Theology of the semi-Pelagianism at the heart of the medieval Roman Catholic natural theology.
4. Ibid., 2:14.
5. Geerhardus Vos, Natural Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022), 8.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 10.
9. Ibid.
10. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:13.
11. John Fesko, introduction to Natural Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022), xvii.
12.  Ibid.
13.  Ibid.
14. To substantiate this claim, Fesko speaks of “general patterns of patristic, medieval, and Reformation expressions, that is, in terms of God’s two books, nature and Scripture.” (“Introduction,” xxix). He then cites from Thomas Aquinas and alludes to the Westminster Assembly’s comments on Romans 1:19–20. His appeal to “general patterns” and citations of common texts are urged to support his initial argument that Vos and Aquinas “actually do belong together” within a general history of natural theology that affirms the two books of Scripture and nature. Fesko’s claim that a common commitment to “God’s two books, nature and Scripture” supplies continuity between the classical Reformed and traditional Roman Catholic approaches fails to appreciate at least two factors. First, the commitment to underproportioned nature that requires the supernatural grace resident in the donum unites Trent (1563), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965). Second, this explains why Vatican II’s emphasis on “experience” does not alter the fundamental teaching of traditional Roman Catholic theology regarding nature and grace. In Roman Catholic theology in all eras, Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience, as interpreted by the magisterium, carries authority. These observations, along with Vos’ own treatment of medieval Roman Catholic natural theology in Natural Theology and in Reformed Dogmatics, neutralize whatever unity Fesko might propose exists when it comes to how the Reformation and Rome interpret “God’s two books, nature and Scripture.”

To read the full article, subscribe to our newsletter, and we’ll send you a link to download a PDF copy of our 2022 issue.

In another video, we spoke about the antithesis, the sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers. That distinction is covenantal, absolute, and ethical. We also spoke about how that distinction is not ontological. That is, believers and unbelievers all are still human beings.

That leads us to the question of the point of contact. Some people might wonder: if there’s such a distinction an absolute ethical and covenantal antithesis between believers and unbelievers, what do we have in common? How could we even speak with one another? How could a believer communicate with an unbeliever in the hopes of engaging them for the sake of Christ, sharing the gospel with them, praying for them, and hoping that the Lord would come and send his Spirit to work in their lives to redeem them from their sins and to regenerate them?

The point of contact is a theological principle or a concept that we use in Reformed apologetics to speak about the place where the believer and the unbeliever may meet. Quite simply, the point of contact is found in the image of God. All human beings are image bearers. That’s not just something that they have but it is something that they are. We are made in the image of God, and that image is ineradicable. It cannot be removed. It cannot be destroyed. If someone is a human being, they forever will be made in and continuing in the image of God.

Of course, when Adam fell into sin, he and all mankind were damaged. He was condemned and corrupted, and that corruption extends to the full man. We are not as corrupt as we could be, but we are corrupted fully throughout us. We are totally depraved, though not as some would say, utterly depraved.

Nevertheless, there is still an image of God and God’s word still touches and communicates to all who are made in God’s image. Every person retains a measure of moral and ethical faculties in their heart of hearts. They have a conscience, and they know what is right and wrong. Even in Romans Paul writes how the Works of the law have been written even on the hearts of Gentiles.

So no matter what people might do, how they might live their lives, how they might profess with their mouth, what they might say, or how much they might try to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, there’s always a point of contact. As Christian apologists, we need not be ashamed when seeking to provide a defense for the reason for the hope that we have within us. We need not fear because we know so long as we’re speaking with the human being and that there is a point of contact even though we may find ourselves on the other side of an absolute ethical antithesis.

You should have no hope in being able to defend the faith to dogs or cats (certainly not cats!) or other types of animals. But with human beings made in the image of God (and every human being is made and persists in the image of God) we may find this point of contact. That should give us great hope in terms of honoring the Lord with our apologia, that is, with our defense.

In the third volume of this new translation of Petrus Van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Theology,

Mastricht begins with a discussion of the decrees of God and how they establish His eternal purpose for everything. He then shows how the decrees are carried out in creation and in God’s continual providence. The volume concludes with Mastricht’s treatment of the apostacy of Adam from his original estate and the devastating effects of sin that followed. This is an important volume for learning how God governs all things, even the rebellious actions of those good things He created.

Jeff Waddington, Dan Ragusa, and Camden Bucey speak about several of the unique positions Van Mastricht held, including his somewhat mediating view between infra- and supralapsarianism, his argument against Copernicanism, his view of the third heaven, and his view of angelic and demonic activity.

Chapters

• 0:00:00 Introduction
• 0:04:35 Van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical
• 0:17:14 Infra- and Supralapsarianism
• 0:26:45 Copernicanism
• 0:36:31 The Third Heaven
• 0:42:59 The Covenant of Nature
• 0:54:44 Right Reason
• 1:00:40 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Dan Ragusa, Jeff Waddington

In Reformed Dogmatics 2:13–15, Geerhardus Vos coined a phrase for the image of God, entitled “the deeper Protestant conception.” When God formed Adam from the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7, he breathed into him the breath of life, and Adam was formed in natural religious fellowship with God. Original righteousness, holiness, and knowledge were implanted in him. That served his communion with God. He was wholly inclined toward God in natural religious fellowship that expressed itself in worship.

At the same time that God created Adam in this natural religious fellowship, at the exact same time, God condescended to him in an act of special providence and gave him the covenant of works. That special act of providence is the means by which that natural religious fellowship could reach its consummation if Adam obeyed perfectly, personally, exactly, and entirely. It would have occasioned a transition from his earthly probation at Eden into Sabbath rest in the heavenly places, the new heavens and new earth.

That deeper Protestant conception lays the creational background for the Christ-centered character of the gospel and union and communion with Christ, who, as the second and last Adam, not only has perfect fellowship with God in his earthly ministry climaxing on the cross but rises from the dead three days after dying, ascends into heaven, sits at the right hand of God, and receives the fullness of that fellowship with the Father in the power of the Spirit, and confers it on his church. That, in a thumbnail sketch, is the substance of what Vos termed “the deeper Protestant conception.” It is the produce of classical Reformed confessional theology.

Mutualism or correlativism are virtual synonyms. Cornelius Van Til, a prominent twentieth-century Reformed theologian, apologist, Orthodox Presbyterian, and founding member of Westminster Theological Seminary, taught that God and the creature at no point share in a common mode of development or becoming. He said that there is no point of correlativity—of mutual sharing and being or knowledge between the Creator and the creature. Even in the relation God remains unchanged and self-contained, and the creature remains the creature, dependent and derived. There is no correlativism or “mutualism,” is a more contemporary synonym.

To affirm mutualism is to say that in the Creator-creature relation, God and man are submerged in a common process of mutual development through time. “Correlativism” is Van Til’s older way of putting it while “mutualism” is a newer way of putting it. You could even add a third category of “personalism” in which some unorthodox theologians locate change in the Trinitarian persons. In other words, the persons would have un-actualized potential and change in their relation to creation.

Those views—whether relativism, mutualism, personalism, or any other view similar—erode and deny the integrity of the Creator-creature distinction by making God and man participants in a common thing. It’s a third thing that is neither fully God or fully man but something contingent like time, change, process, or history. Orthodox, biblical, creedal, and confessional theology is anti-correlativist, anti-mutualist, and anti-personalist, because it maintains the immutability of God in his freely determined relation to the mutable creature.

In biblical teaching summarized by Reformed theology, the creator-creature distinction brings into view the absolute ontological difference between the Triune God and the creature. The Triune God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

And the creature that comes into existence by an act of God’s sovereign will is not eternal, but temporal, not infinite, but finite, not immutable, but mutable. And the distinction between the two remains in the Creator-creature relation. While God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable apart from His relation to the creature, He remains such in relation to the creature.

If you narrow it down to the doctrine of Adam’s special creation as the image of God, the Creator-creature distinction is summarized so beautifully Westminster Confession 7.1. Though God is infinitely transcendent over the creature, He nonetheless condescended to the image-bearing creature and offered Himself to the creature as the creature’s blessedness and reward. Adam’s reward in relation to God under covenant was God himself. God is his blessedness and reward.

The creator-creature distinction and relation drives you to remember that the final, eternal and unchangeable Triune God is not only the transcendent sovereign over the creature but the one who in creation and in the voluntary condescension of covenant offered Himself to Adam for His blessedness and reward. And after the fall, he comes to be the blessedness and reward of every creature who is redeemed by Jesus Christ as the Last Adam. So that in union with Jesus Christ as the Last Adam the Triune God is the blessedness and reward of the church.

A listener of Christ the Center raised a useful question about Bavinck, noting that he denies the speculative conception of “innate ideas” in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, pp. 69–73 and wondered what such a denial might imply. 

In response to that excellent question, we should grasp that Bavnick clearly denied the philosophically speculative notion of “innate ideas” that leads to mysticism. However, while Bavinck denied the speculative notion of innate ideas found among the philosophers, he endorsed the notion of “implanted knowledge of God” found in Calvin’s theology of the sensus divinitatis. Bavinck says,

At the same time we must speak of the “implanted knowledge of God” in some sense. This means simply that, as in the case of language, human beings possess both the capacity and the inclination to arrive at some firm, certain, and unfailing knowledge of God. We gain this knowledge in the normal course of human development and in the environment in which God gives us the gift of life. From the entire realm of nature, both exterior and interior to us humans, we receive impressions and gain perceptions that foster in us the sense of God. It is God himself who does not leave us without witness.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:54

It is this original capacity and inclination before the fall that received the “impressions” from God in his self-disclosure that was “interior” to Adam as the image of God. In that way, God did not leave created Adam without a witness. This Calvinistic notion of “implanted knowledge of God” differs from the philosophically speculative notion of “innate ideas.” God did not create Adam with abstract “innate ideas” but with a personal “implanted knowledge of God” that underwrote his natural religious fellowship with God—a fellowship that according to Bavinck precludes the need for ontologically reproportioning grace as found in the donum superadditum (see RD 3:576–77). This is Bavinck’s way of stating what Vos termed the “deeper Protestant conception” of the image of God (see Vos’ RD 2:13–14).

Lane Tipton, Ryan Noha, Rob McKenzie, and Camden Bucey pull up to a table for the first podcast recording at the new Reformed Forum headquarters in Libertyville, Illinois. We discuss the new facility, the new course we recording in our Fellowship in Reformed Apologetics, and the current interest in natural theology.

For those watching the video, one of the cameras ceased recording after a few minutes. This led to a lack of visual coverage for Ryan and Lane and cinematography reminiscent of that capturing Dr. Claw in Inspector Gadget.

Chapters

• 00:00 Introduction
• 02:39 The New Reformed Forum HQ
• 13:46 Van Til’s Doctrine of Natural Theology
• 24:22 The Current Interest in Natural Theology
• 31:53 Natural Arguments in the Public Square
• 36:55 Natural Theology and the Doctrine of Sin
• 41:41 The Need for a Renewed Calvinist Militancy
• 48:31 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton, Rob McKenzie, Ryan Noha

Lane Tipton speaks about his new course on Van Til’s doctrine of revelation, which is the third course in our Fellowship in Reformed Apologetics. In this course, Dr. Tipton covers:

1. The implications of the self-contained and immutable Trinity for a doctrine of revelation in the work of creation and in the special act of providence in covenantal condescension
2. The distinctive character of natural revelation and the natural knowledge of God in Reformed theology, set in comparison and contrast to the views of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth
3. The relation between natural and supernatural, or general and special revelation, giving special attention to Van Til’s key essay, “Nature and Scripture”
4. The Vosian doctrine of eschatology as it bears upon the distinction and the relation of God’s revelation in nature and God’s revelation in covenant (and in Scripture).

The course gives sustained attention to a close reading of central primary sources in Van Til’s corpus that bear on his doctrine of the revelation of the self-contained Trinity in nature and in covenant.

Before sharing one of the lectures from the course, Lane and Camden compare and contrast Cornelius Van Til’s theology with that of Thomas Aquinas on the natural knowledge of God as well as man’s religious fellowship with God.

Chapters

• 00:00:00 Introduction
• 00:01:23 The Fellowship in Reformed Apologetics
• 00:17:51 Van Til and Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Knowledge of God
• 00:23:33 Differences between Roman Catholic and Reformed Natural Theology
• 00:31:15 Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Knowledge of God
• 00:38:10 Aquinas on Ontological Re-Proportioning to Participate in the Essence of God
• 00:44:35 Preview Lecture on Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Knowledge of God
• 01:11:24 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

Danny Olinger delivers an address at the 2021 Reformed Forum Theology Conference. The event was held October 8–9, 2021 at Providence OPC in Pflugerville, Texas.

The conference theme was, “The Promise of Life: God’s Plan for His People in the Covenant of Works.” In contrast to Roman Catholic, modernist, and evangelical approaches, we explored a thoroughly Reformed understanding of God’s relationship to Adam as he was created. We learned how Jesus Christ ultimately brings us to the glorious future which God originally offered to Adam in the garden of Eden.

Danny Olinger is General Secretary for the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He is the author of Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologian, Confessional Presbyterian and the editor of A Geerhardus Vos Anthology: Biblical and Theological Insights Alphabetically Arranged.

Chapters

00:00:00 Introduction
00:04:46 Geerhardus Vos and the Covenant of Works
00:10:49 Summary in The Eschatology of the Psalter
00:16:20 Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15
00:26:06 The Promise of Life in the Covenant of Works
00:41:28 The Nature and Destiny of Man
00:48:43 Reformed and Roman Catholic Theology
00:59:15 Theology from Genesis 2:16–17
01:02:22 The Sabbath Day
01:12:25 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey, Danny Olinger

The beatific vision (1 John 3:2) is the consummation of God’s relationship with his people. While Christians of all traditions acknowledge this blessed future to some degree, there are significant differences as to how it all works out. The Reformed tradition has understood this future and its genesis in terms of a covenantal relationship between God and Adam.

If you have listened much to our podcasts or courses at Reformed Forum, you likely have heard us discuss “the deeper Protestant conception.” This is a phrase first used by Geerhardus Vos in his Reformed Dogmatics. It involves the notion that man originally was created good yet with an eschatological purpose. Even before the fall into sin, Adam was intended to advance to a higher, more glorious, eschatological life with God in heavenly places. Elsewhere, this is captured in the phrase, “eschatology precedes soteriology.”

Yet developments in Roman Catholic theology throughout the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century gave rise to a movement that also advocates for eschatology preceding soteriology and a dismantling of the traditional dualistic separation of nature and grace.

In this address, Camden Bucey traces the historical developments of Roman Catholic theology in the twentieth century. In so doing, we may deepen our understanding of the already deeper Protestant conception while improving our ability to represent the diversity of Catholic thought leading up to and following the Second Vatican Council.

This address was delivered at our 2021 Theology Conference held at Providence OPC in Pflugerville, Texas.

Chapter Markers

00:00:00 Introduction
00:05:22 Nature, Grace, and Covenant
00:11:01 Basic Features of the Covenant of Works
00:18:42 The Deeper Protestant Conception
00:31:43 Twentieth-Century Developments in Catholicism
00:40:03 Henri de Lubac’s Proposal
00:45:57 Karl Rahner’s Response
00:50:22 Understanding Merit in Relation to Nature, Grace, and Covenant
00:57:40 Twentieth-Century Catholicism and the Reformed Tradition
01:10:55 Conclusion

Participants: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey reviews Stewards of Eden: What Scripture Says About the Environment and Why It Matters (IVP Academic, 2020) by Dr. Sandra L. Richter, the Robert H. Gundry Chair of Biblical Studies at Westmont College. In this book, Dr. Richter addresses humanity’s role as stewards of creation—those entrusted to care for that which God has placed in their charge. In exploring this theme, Richter addresses issues such as the ethics of sustainable agriculture, the consumer’s role within the supply chain, and even mining practices and pollution in light of Scriptural examples and biblical-theological themes.

Richter speaks about the old covenant people of God and their relationship to the land as renters or lessees rather than landlords. She addressees the land grant aspects of their covenant relationship to Yahweh in Deuteronomy. She then moves to a discussion of their tithing and offering practices, developing their responsibilities and dependence upon the Lord. The Sabbath rest required in and of the land is also an indication of practices that encourage sustainable agriculture (Exod. 23:10–12; Lev. 25:4–7). This may add dimension to the Lord’s statement to the people that by abiding by these laws, they shall prolong their days in the land (Deut. 5:33; 30:18; 32:47). This statement may refer to the Lord’s allowance for them to remain. In other words, by obeying the Lord, he would not exile them. Even though that may be the primary dimension, perhaps there is a secondary dimension referring to the viability of the land itself. If these laws have practical application for sustainable agriculture, then the people may not be “exiled” because they destroyed the fruitfulness of the land (p. 24).

Chapter three is titled “The Domestic Creatures Entrusted to Adam.” The author enters into a discussion of the Sabbath and its role in organizing and in a sense, restricting, man’s task. The Sabbath prevents man from becoming totally absorbed in the task of subduing creation (p. 30). This is placed within a larger discussion of the supply chain and the ethical responsibilities of producers and consumers within that economy. Old Testament law established and required a close connection between the Israelites and their livestock for example, particularly when it came to slaughter. They were allowed to slaughter the animals they raised, but according to Leviticus 17, they were required to consider the animal’s life and bring the animal before a priest first. In support of this point, the author references Jacob Milgrom, who commented that the method of slaughter in ancient Israel ensured the animal would be rendered unconscious and die a swift, humane death. Animal death always confronted the Israelites, but they were never to take it lightly. Most people today never give a thought to the lives and deaths of their food. I would venture to say that many young people might not even know their food was alive in the first place.

Richter then turns to the wild animals that God has entrusted to Adam. Responsibilities include the protection of habitat for species. She points to Deut. 22:6–7 as warrant for protecting native species. It demonstrates the principle of preserving the means of life and thereby upholding sustainability. Even during wartime, the Israelites were to consider the long-term effects of their treatment of creation. For example, Deut. 20:19 does not permit the Israelites to cut down the trees of a city or region they are besieging. They were permitted to each of the trees but not to cut them down. Many of the fruit-bearing trees of the region (e.g. olive, date) take as many as twenty years to reach full production. Destroying the trees in warfare would have implications for generations to come. One thing I greatly appreciated is the author’s skill in studying biblical examples such as these while prompting further thought for our contemporary context.

Overall, this is an important contribution to the theological communities served by publishers such as IVP Academic. Readers who prefer books that connect the dots on practical matters will appreciate the many case studies and examples the author provides throughout its pages. Some readers may experience a knee-jerk reaction to various portions of the book. Perhaps that reveals a greater issue: that we may be taking our cues on creational stewardship from the talking points and news cycles of our political parties and media outlets of choice rather than from Scripture. Whether or not you agree with the author’s conclusions on specific matters, you may be provoked to think more deeply about your principia and why you hold your specific views on these issues, if you hold any at all.

Participants: Camden Bucey

Dr. A. Craig Troxel speaks about With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will toward Christ (Crossway, 2020). Whereas contemporary culture identifies the “heart” with feelings and emotions, Craig Troxel speaks about the range of uses of the word “heart” in the Bible. The heart knows, desires, and chooses. This fuller conception of “heart” helps us understand our battle with sin and the redemption that has been wrought by Jesus Christ.

Dr. Troxel is professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary California. He previously served as pastor of Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wheaton, Illinois and Calvary Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Glenside, Pennsylvania.

Participants: A. Craig Troxel, Camden Bucey

David VanDrunen speaks about his forthcoming book, Politics After Christendom (Zondervan Academic), reflecting upon the status and responsibilities of Christians in their contemporary pluralistic political communities. Dr. VanDrunen presents a biblical-theological model of political engagement and exploring themes such as race, religious liberty, justice, authority, and civil resistance.

David VanDrunen is Robert B. Strimple Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California. He is the author and editor of several books, including Aquinas Among the Protestants, God’s Glory Alone: The Majestic Heart of Christian Faith and Life, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought, and Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law.

Participants: Camden Bucey, David VanDrunen

Dr. Bracy V. Hill, senior lecturer in history at Baylor University, speaks about Christian perspectives on sport hunting. While hunting isn’t the first thing on the minds of biblical scholars, hunting is mentioned and used in numerous metaphors throughout Scripture. One particularly mysterious account is that of Nimrod in Genesis 10. Moreover, the activity of hunting raises many important theological issues, such as man’s relationship to creation, the nature and eschatology of death, and the Christian’s directedness away from a wilderness toward a heavenly city.

Dr. Hill is co-editor of God, Nimrod, and the World: Exploring Christian Perspectives on Sport Hunting in which many of these themes are addressed. Dr. Hill is the author of many article and wrote a dissertation titled, “The Language of Dissent: The Defense of Eighteenth-Century English Dissent in the Works and Sermons of James Peirce.” He also appeared on the Meateater Podcast to discuss many of these themes but to an audience of hunters.

Participants: Bracy Hill, Camden Bucey

Daniel Schrock speaks about self-conception in light of the Revoice movement and the Nashville Statement. Looking to the believers’ union with Christ in his death and resurrection, Schrock provides a way to answer questions such as, “Is it proper to speak of being gay as a Christian’s identity?” The basis of this episode is Schrock’s article, “The Gospel and Self-Conception: A Defense of Article 7 of the Nashville Statement.”

Participants: Camden Bucey, Daniel Schrock

If you stop and take the time to take notice of just how often in the New Testament the Gospel impacts, changes, gives imperatives for, or opposes the cognitive life of man, you will find that the prevalence is staggering.[i] As Christ claims all things for himself in his redemptive work, so he claims for himself the consciousness of man.

Jesus in his explanation of the Greatest Commandment, as the Lord and Lawgiver of his people, sees fit to append to Deut. 6:5 that we are to love God with all of our mind, as well as all heart and soul (Matt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27). Paul tells us that the Gospel demands of us not to “be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom. 12:2)

Among this mass of intersections between the Gospel and the cognitive life of man is an imperative in Romans 6:11 which has particular relevance for discussions in the PCA which have now gained even more gravity in light of the actions of the 47^th General Assembly.

In response to Overture 4 from Calvary Presbytery the 47^th General Assembly opted (after a lengthy and impassioned debate) to “declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s ‘Nashville Statement’ on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the ‘Nashville Statement’ to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.”

Debate over this proposal covered a wide range of things which I will not touch upon here. But one of the most salient objections marshalled by those opposed to the overture which spoke to the actual content of the Nashville Statement centered on Article 7 of the statement.

Article 7 reads:

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

In the words of the Missouri Presbytery’s report on their investigation of Revoice, “The statement alienated the Side B community, who felt that the authors of the Nashville Statement did not consider the,ir [sic] viewpoints or experiences. They were especially offended by the language ‘we deny adopting a homosexual or transsexual self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes’ since Side B proponents identify as ‘gay,’ but qualify the meaning of the term.”[ii]

Questions of Identity and Nate Collins’ Project

Nate Collins, the founder and president of ReVoice, authored a book in which the question of the relationship between same-sex attraction and Christian identity was at the center of his overarching purpose. His descriptive subtitle indicates that centrality: All but Invisible: Exploring Identity Questions at the Intersection of Faith, Gender, & Sexuality. We cannot treat the entire complex of issues which Collins addresses in his 312 page book in the space of this post, however, putting our finger on a few key elements is needed before we proceed, especially given that frequently it is claimed in the debate over “side B” Christians that the various spokespersons are talking past one another.

One element that needs to be noted is that Collins deploys an array of eclectically appropriated sociological schools of thought in order to serve the goal of helping to “understand the concrete benefits of encouraging gay people to integrate their orientation into their Christian identity.”[iii] Prominent in the conceptual framework Collins constructs is the school of social identity theory represented in Henri Taijfel and John Turner.[iv] I will not give a detailed recounting of Collins deployment of these thinkers here. I note them, however, in order to point up how much of the technical terminology Collins deploys in his own systematic-theological project assumes the conceptual framework of these schools. His use of terms like “nested subgroup,” and “subgroup v. subtype” comes from this appropriation. This makes a conversation about Collins’ claims about a space for an identity as a “gay Christian” quite complex. His project of constructing space within the church for a “gay Christian identity” is at points largely dependent upon very specific and very detailed theories of sociology.

Another key element that needs to be noted in Collins’ project is his central thesis that “being gay (understood as an aesthetic orientation) is not sinful in itself. . .”[v] Collins contends that what the church needs in order to address the current crisis of sexuality is “a degree of theological innovation”[vi] which involves a re-centering of gay orientation off an exclusive focus on sexual attraction and onto what Collins terms an “aesthetic orientation.”[vii] Collins writes,

If we are to speak of an aesthetic orientation and use it to differentiate between gay and straight, we would say that both gay men and straight women are, for example, less aware (in general) of the beauty of feminine personhood than straight men or lesbian women. These general patterns that we discern in the way people experience the beauty of others are now the basis for distinguishing between straight and nonstraight orientations, rather than an impulse toward sexual activity.[viii]

This theological-ethical innovation which moves gay orientation off an axis of sexuality to a relational aesthetic is the linchpin of Collins’ claim that a gay orientation can be and should be integrated into a larger Christian identity for those who experience same-sex attraction. It is what allows Collins to claim that as “individual people with a particular identity” Christians who experience same-sex attraction can submit their gay orientation to Christ as part of “the global claim of the Christian calling to submit all things to the lordship of Christ”[ix] and yet not have the lordship of Christ eradicate that orientation from one’s identity.

As submission to the lordship of Christ looks categorically unique when it comes to submitting one’s sinful desires to Christ, we can say without exaggeration that the entirety of Collins’ projects hinges upon his attempt to carve out a space for a gay orientation that is morally neutral. While both a chaste heterosexual orientation for a single Christian and a monogamous heterosexual orientation for a married Christian sit in a subordinate way to union with Christ in the hierarchy of Christian self-conception and identity, a homosexual orientation and self-conception sit in an antithetical way to union with Christ as it is sinful. The two things are morally incomparable in that respect. They are thus also in many ways (but not all ways) incomparable in what they respectively look like as the Christian submits them to the lordship of Christ. Now, a full critical engagement and refutation of Collins’ thesis about a morally neutral gay aesthetic orientation is beyond the scope of my purposes here. Such an engagement is needed, but that would require an entirely distinct article from what follows. I will simply say here that it is most unclear what exactly a non-sexual gay orientation is, or to put things in the common terminology of the conversation, it is apparently contradictory to speak of a nonsexual homosexual orientation.

A redefinition of gayness which takes sexuality out of the picture produces a conceptual mutation that appears to be rather unrecognizable in comparison to the issues involved in the debate over a Christian sexual ethic thus far. If an aesthetic orientation towards members of the same gender is non-romantic and non-sexual, it is hard to see how it could be labeled as “gay,” since gayness has historically been understood to encompass an aesthetic appreciation for the physical and personal beauty of another member of the same sex that is irreducibly oriented to the possibility of romance and sexual intercourse. The rest of my article will proceed on the assumption that Collins’ conceptual project to create a theological category for gayness as a morally neutral aesthetic orientation is an unsuccessful one.

Without his assumption that gayness can be such, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that what a homosexual or gay orientation is oriented towards is something unlawful. It desires something that is categorically prohibited by the law of God, i.e. a romantic and sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Thus, an orientation towards this for the Christian—its spontaneous givenness notwithstanding—is, in the Reformed understanding, an example of remaining corruption which “though it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” (WCF 6:5)

Much more could be said, but hopefully this positions us now to work through a Biblical reasoning for why Article 7 of the Nashville Statement is in fact Biblically faithful in its denial “that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.”

Self-Conception and the Gospel

In Romans 6:11 Paul issues a command to the Christian which flows out of the intricate chain of reasoning he constructs from the opening of the chapter in order to answer the rhetorical question “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1). Paul declares in Romans 6:11, “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

This verse is particularly relevant to the debate over Article 7 of the Nashville Statement. In it Paul issues an imperative which refers to a cognitive act or process. The Greek verb he uses (λογίζεσθε) is sometimes translated as “reckon” in the sense of mathematical calculation or a crediting in the realm of accounting. More broadly its semantic domain covers the activity of consideration or categorization. It refers to the cognitive process of the way of conceiving a thing.

Noteworthy in Romans 6:11 is the fact that the object of that cognitive process is the believer’s very self (ἑαυτοὺς). What must be conceptually categorized in a very specific way is the very personhood of the believer, or put another way, their understanding of their identity or self-conception. The cognitive reckoning that the believer must do towards themselves is to consider themselves “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

John Murray helpfully points to the exact nature and ground for Paul’s command here. “We are not commanded to become dead to sin and alive to God; these are presupposed. And it is not by reckoning these to be facts that they become facts. The force of the imperative is that we are to reckon with and appreciate the facts which already obtain by virtue of union with Christ.”[x]

Charles Hodge provides a similar commentary on this verse, “What is true in itself, should be true in their convictions and consciousness. If in point of fact believers are partakers of the death and life of Christ; if they die with him, and live with him, then they should so regard themselves. They should receive this truth with all its consoling and sanctifying power, into their hearts, and manifest it in their lives.”[xi]

Assumed in Paul’s reasoning is that the believer has been represented by Christ in his once and for all actions in redemptive history of executing judgment upon sin as a power (Rom. 6:7), that Jesus not only died for the sins of the believer in his substitutionary death on the cross, but also that in his representation of his people he also died a death to sin on their behalf (Rom. 6:10). Furthermore, Paul assumes that in his resurrection, Christ, as our representative head, has left the realm of the dominion of the flesh and death never to die again (Rom. 6:9) and is alive in resurrection power in a life lived unto God (Rom. 6:10). In order to lay the ground for the freedom which the believer has from sin, Paul appeals to both the decisive, unrepeatable, and irreversible actions of Jesus’ crucifixion and his resurrection. As Murray puts it,

It is just because we cannot allow for any reversal or repetition of Christ’s death on the tree that we cannot allow for any compromise on the doctrine that every believer has died to sin and no longer lives under its dominion. Sin no longer lords it over him. To equivocate here is to assail the definitiveness of Christ’s death. Likewise the decisive and definitive entrance upon newness of life in the case of every believer is required by the fact that the resurrection of Christ was decisive and definitive. As we cannot allow for any reversal or repetition of the resurrection, so we cannot allow for any compromise on the doctrine that every believer is a new man, that the old man has been crucified, that the body of sin has been destroyed, and that, as a new man in Christ Jesus, he serves God in the newness which is none other than that of the Holy Spirit of whom he has become the habitation and his body the temple.[xii]

This is what theologians refer to as “definitive sanctification.” The process of progressive sanctification in the Christian life in which the believer more and more dies to sin and lives in obedience to God unfolds from an alpha point in which the Christian is existentially united to Christ by the Spirit, and thus has the Spirit apply to them what Christ has already accomplished on their behalf as Jesus represented them in his person and work in redemptive history. Herman Ridderbos summarizes this relationship well.

The reverse side of all this is that just as the church has once died with Christ, it also has been raised with him. Here again the aorists denote the redemptive-historical moment, that of Christ’s rising. The thought is thereby that as in Christ’s death on the Cross the church has died to the powers of sin, world, and law, in the resurrection of Christ it has been set at liberty for Another, in order to live for him, under his government, for Christ himself (Rom. 7:4; 2 Cor. 5:15); or for God (Gal. 2:19). From these passages, too, which speak of having been raised with Christ, it is evident how much the new life of the church not only has been grounded—as something that has taken place for them and outside them—but also has been given and has begun in the resurrection of Christ. This finds clear expression, for example in Ephesians 2:4ff.: “God . . . For his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heaven in Christ Jesus. . .”[xiii]

Paul’s cognitive command for the believer’s self-conception in Romans 6:11 flows out of the definitive character of Jesus’ death and resurrection as it has ransacked the kingdom of Satan and debilitated the cosmic power of sin.

Remaining Sin and Self-Conception

However, as any self-aware believer can attest, that definitive conquest of the power of sin of which the Christian becomes participant in their union with Christ, does not mean that the remnants of sin are obliterated in the believer. The Christian still lives as one in need of waging a war against the internal reality of indwelling sin and the external reality of the temptation of the world and Satan. Frank Thielman captures well the almost counter-intuitive nature of Paul’s command in Romans 6:11.

Here too Paul asks his readers to draw conclusions that do not at first seem obvious. They have not experienced physical death as Christ does; and they still experience the effects of the sinful world around them, including its deceptive appeal. Nevertheless, because they are ‘in Christ’ they are now in the realm that he rules. Within this sphere, his death and resurrection have effectively atoned for sin, reconciled them to God, and broken the power of sin (3:24–25; 5:1–6:11; cf. 8:1). They can only live in a way that is consistent with these truths if they “count” (λογίζεσθε) them as true for themselves. . . In light of the sinful nature of the visible world around them, they will need to make a conscious mental effort to reason from their identity in Christ to conduct that is consistent with this identity.[xiv]

Herein lies the struggle of the Christian life, the struggle assumed by Paul’s imperatives regarding the believer’s war against sin which appear throughout every letter Paul wrote. As Murray puts things,

The exhortation, ‘Put to death, therefore, the members which are upon the earth,’ is one that arises from the categorical propositions which precede. It is clear, as in Romans 8:13, that the activity of the believer is enlisted in this process. The implication is, therefore, to the effect that, notwithstanding the definitive death to sin alluded to in Colossians 2:20; 3:3, the believer is not so delivered from sin in its lust and defilement but that he needs to be actively engaged in the business of the slaughterhouse with reference to his own sins.[xv]

In Romans 6:11 Paul is providing a reference point by which believers are to reckon themselves that is not primarily indexed to the existential experience of the believer. It is primarily indexed to the once and for all death and resurrection of Christ which he accomplished on behalf of his people. True, we only come into possession of that by the existential experience of a Spirit-wrought union with Christ through faith. Nevertheless, the cognitive imperative which Paul extends in Romans 6:11 calls the believer to look beyond their existential experience, or rather look through their existential experience of union with Christ, and back to the objective work of Christ on their behalf as he accomplished it once for all in redemptive history.

It is thus a call for a self-judgment which is based upon faith; and like all faith it looks beyond what is seen to what is unseen (Heb. 11:1; cf. Rom. 8:24–25). It is a call for the Christian to imitate Paul in the life they now live in the flesh, to be lived in a way that looks beyond the existential experience of the present with all of its imperfections and sinful orientations, and instead lives in the flesh in the present by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us (Gal. 2:20).

One glorious implication of this is that the present state of frustration which the believer experiences in their battle against the remnants of the corrupt flesh which still inhabits their members is not the primary standard by which the Christian should judge themselves. The cognitive experience of the internal opposition of the desires of the flesh and the desires of the Spirit which keeps us from doing the things we want to do (Gal. 5:17) is not the cognitive moral ideal for the believer. The present experience of the internal contradiction of the Christian life is to be expected, but that expectation does not make that internal contradiction ethically normative, nor the standard by which the believer is to conceive of their identity.

This is not to deny the reality of the intensity of struggle that obtains from this war within the self, nor to deny how it manifests in a uniquely difficult form for those Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is also not to deny that this real experiential and psychological struggle for same-sex attracted Christians might in fact persistently resurge throughout their Christian life. But it is to point out that we cannot equate the psychological and experiential real with the moral ideal.

The Christian ought not to reckon their identity by means of the present experience of their struggling and often failing battle with temptation and sin. Rather, the Christian ought to reckon their identity—their conception of self—in a way that is indexed to the once-for-all judgment Christ has executed against sin, the world, and Satan in his death and resurrection. Our union with Christ summons us to lift up our eyes away from our contemporary experience with the exasperating hindrance to holiness which our remaining sin presents, and to behold by faith the cross and the empty tomb and there find the decisive standard by which we are to conceive of ourselves.

 This allows us to pinpoint the problem with the objections to the denial set forth in Article 7 of the Nashville Statement. The imperative to “consider yourself” in Romans 6:11 assumes the context of the pervasive and ongoing struggle of the Christian life. The cognitive warfare of establishing a self-consciousness and self-perception that is fundamentally aligned with what is already true of us by virtue of our union with Christ is merely a permutation of mortification of sin and vivification unto God.

Whenever we fail to adorn our mental life and self-conception with our identity in Christ in such a way that is fundamentally calibrated unto the past victory which Jesus accomplished over sin in redemptive history, we are then failing in a Gospel imperative. Whenever we conceive of ourselves, or adopt a self-conception, in such a way that fails to reckon with the definitive breach with sin that has occurred in us on account of our union with Christ, we are then acting in inconsistency with God’s holy purposes in redemption.

That is true of a self-conception that frames our personhood or self-identity in terms of homosexuality or transgenderism, but it is equally true of self-conceptions that would frame our personhood or self-identity with any other remaining corruption within us be it gossip, pride, adultery, fornication, greed, alcoholism, etc. In light of Paul’s exhortation in Rom. 6:11, we can safely say that the battle of self-conception is one more place, indeed one preeminent place, where the believer must be “actively engage in the business of the slaughterhouse,” in the business of putting sin to death.

It is not to say that the irreconcilable war between the remnants of our flesh and the Spirit who is within us will not continuously exert its pressure upon that most central sphere of our life, i.e. our very consciousness as it is directed towards our own personhood. It is to say rather, that even there in the realm of self-consciousness or self-conception that a Gospel ideal lies before us, a Gospel imperative with which we must daily reckon. We must conceive of ourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. In fact the hope that the Christian awakens to every day is that, despite our failures to live in a way that is dead unto sin and alive unto God—even the cognitive failures to reckon ourselves thus—the Gospel imperative of Romans 6:11 still calls us to look beyond those failures to the irrevocable work of Jesus and there find the identity which will endure for us until the day when all the ransomed church of God be saved to sin no more.

Article 7 of the Nashville Statement does not necessarily deny the life and death struggle of pervasive internal corruption which seeks to enthrone itself in command and control of our very self-consciousness, or the unique way that struggle unfolds for the Christian who contends with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Article 7 does not necessarily deny the persistent difficulty and imperfection which Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria face in fending off this military coup which would place the junta of sin over their very personhood.

But Article 7 of the Nashville Statement does hold before us the Gospel imperative and the Gospel ideal of a cognitive life of consciousness towards self in which no sin, including homosexuality and transgenderism, claims hegemony over our very personhood. Christ has planted his flag there, and he will countenance no rivals.

[i] If you would like to trace through the repetitious appearance of intersections of the Gospel with the life of human cognition, just take the time to run through this sampling of the New Testament – Mat. 6:28ff.; 15:16; Mk. 12:33; Rom. 1:28ff.; 7:23ff.; 8:5–7; 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1:26; 2:16; 3:18; 7:36; 10:12; 10:18ff; 14:15–19; 14:20; 2 Cor. 3:14; 4:4; 10:12; Gal. 6:3; Eph. 2:3; 4:17–24; Phil. 1:27–28; 2:2ff.; 3:15; 3:19–21; 4:4–7; 4:8; Col. 1:9; 1:21ff.; 2:2–4; 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 1:6–9; 3:2; 3:11; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:7; 3:8; 4:5; Titus 1:15; 2:2; Heb. 8:10; 10:16; 10:24; 12:3; 13:7; 12:3; James 1:6–8; 1:26; 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2:19; 3:6; 3:7; 3:8; 4:1; 4:7; 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:1ff.; 1 Jn. 5:20). I am sure much more could be added to this list, but I hope it is enough to grasp the magnitude of the Gospel’s impact upon the life of human consciousness.

[ii] Missouri Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Memorial Presbyterian Church for Hosting the Revoice 18 Conference in July 2018, pg. 17.

[iii] All but Invisible: Exploring Identity Questions at the Intersection of Faith, Gender, & Sexuality, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017),pg. 289.

[iv] Ibid, 245–249.

[v] Ibid, 303.

[vi] Ibid, 142.

[vii] Ibid. 149–156.

[viii] Ibid, 150. Emphasis original.

[ix] Ibid, 292.

[x] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), vol. 1, 225–226.

[xi] Charles Hodge, Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, (Philadelphia: William S. & Alfred Martien, 1864), 315.

[xii] John Murray, “The Agency in Definitive Sanctification,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust), vol. 2, 293.

[xiii] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 211.

[xiv] Frank Thielman, Romans: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 309.

[xv] John Murray, “Progressive Sanctification,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust), vol. 2, 296

J. V. Fesko has written Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith (Baker Academic, 2019). In the book, Dr. Fesko criticizes, among others, Cornelius Van Til. In this conversation, we interact with the book and compare its claims with those of Van Til. A central claim of Dr. Fesko’s is that Van Til rejects “common notions.” He writes:

in the middle of the seventeenth century, philosophers such as John Locke (1632–1704) rejected the idea of common notions. In the twentieth century, this rejection made its way to liberal and conservative Reformed theologians alike, including Karl Barth (1886–1968) and Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987).”[1]

He draws particular attention to Van Til’s discussion of authority and reason on pages 168–169 of Defense of the Faith (3^rd edition).[2] On those pages, Van Til makes an important distinction:

A word must now be said about the idea of ‘common notions’ referred to in the quotation given above. The present writer made a distinction between notions that are psychologically and metaphysically, that is revelationally, common to all men, and common notions that are ethically and epistemologically common.[3]

Van Til continues, “All men have common notions about God; all men naturally have knowledge of God.”[4] So, what is Van Til getting at? There are notions common to all men, but there are some things common to believers and others common to unbelievers. Van Til explains what is also common to natural man as a consequence of total depravity:

It is this actual possession of the knowledge of God that is the indispensable presupposition of man’s ethical opposition to God. There could be no absolute ethical antithesis to God on the part of Satan and fallen man unless they are self-consciously against the common notions that are concreated with them. Paul speaks of sinful man as suppressing within him the knowledge of God that he has. . . . It is these notions of human autonomy, or irrational discontinuity and of rationalistic continuity that are the common notions of sinful or apostate mankind.[5]

[1] J. V. Fesko, Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 24.

[2] Fesko, 24n56.

[3] Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: P & R Publishing, 1967), 168.

[4] Van Til, 168.

[5] Van Til, 168.

[6] Van Til, 168.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

Lane Tipton delivers the first plenary address at the Reformed Forum 2018 Theology Conference at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois. Download the lecture notes to follow along.

Participants: Lane G. Tipton

Jeff Waddington previews his address for the 2018 Theology Conference. He speaks about Pseudo-Dionysius, a key influence upon Thomas Aquinas. Dionysius attempted to integrate neoplatonism with Christianity. The result was a Christianization of the great chain of being. Register for the upcoming conference.

Reading List

• Daria Spezzano, The Glory of God’s Grace: Deification According to St. Thomas Aquinas
• Dominic Legge: The Trinitarian Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas
• Lawrence Feingold: The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters
• Hans Boersma, Seeing God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington

What did the Tree of Life symbolize in the Garden of Eden? Why does it reappear in Revelation 2:7 and 22:2? We discuss the symbolism of the tree and the eschatological mode of life it signifies and seals.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jim Cassidy

We speak about God’s original intent for the image of God and how his offer to Adam in the garden was of a higher, consummate mode of life.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington

God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom are often thought to be in competition with one another in a sort of zero-sum game: either God is sovereign or I am free. This has led to thinking that there are only two basic options on the table from which to choose:

Option #1: God’s sovereignty is limited by man’s freedom. Man’s moral and rational capacities are withdrawn from the eternal decree of God and given an independent and autonomous significance and existence. Option #2: Man’s freedom is eliminated by God’s sovereignty. Man’s moral and rational capacities are wholly determined by the eternal decree of God and cease to have any real significance or existence at all.

The first option is correctly labeled “Arminianism.” The second option is often thought to be the teaching of “Calvinism,” but is actually in fundamental disagreement with Calvinism. It is a kind of fatalism or determinism, which Calvinism has properly rejected full force. Both options fail to maintain the basic Creator-creature distinction, which has led to the assumption that God’s freedom and man’s freedom are qualitatively the same. Hence, the zero-sum game. Accordingly, where one is free the other is not. So while options 1 and 2 seem to affirm totally opposite positions, they are actually both situated on the same rationalistic spectrum, just at opposite ends. Calvinism rejects this rationalistic spectrum entirely and provides us with a third option that is most consistent and faithful to God’s revelation in Scripture.

Option #3: Man’s freedom is established by God’s sovereignty. Man’s moral and rational capacities are created and maintained within the eternal decree of God and therefore have real existence and significance.

Whereas options 1 and 2 begin with man’s reasoning, Calvinism begins with God’s Word. It does not claim to solve the mystery, but properly relates God’s sovereignty and human freedom as friends, not enemies. God’s sovereignty does not eliminate man’s freedom, nor does man’s freedom limit God’s sovereignty, instead God’s sovereignty establishes man’s freedom. This is encapsulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (3.1).

Herman Bavinck also avoids the rationalism that would set God’s freedom and man’s freedom in opposition to one another, rather than understanding the former to “create” and “maintain” the latter.

“If God and his human creatures can only be conceived as competitors, and if the one can only retain his freedom and independence at the expense of the other, then God has to be increasingly restricted both in knowedge and in will. Pelagianism, accordingly, banishes God from his world. It leads both to Deism and atheism and enthrones human arbitrariness and folly. Therefore, the solution of the problem must be sought in another direction. It must be sought in the fact that God—because he is God and the universe is his creation—by the infinitely majestic activity of his knowing and willing, does not destroy but instead creates and maintains the freedom and independence of his creatures” (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:376-77, emphasis mine). “The fact that things and events, including the sinful thoughts and deeds of men, have been eternally known and fixed in that counsel of God does not rob them of their own character but rather establishes and guarantees them all, each in its own kind and nature and in its own context and circumstances. Included in that counsel of God are sin and punishment, but also freedom and responsibility, sense of duty and conscience, and law and justice” (The Wonderful Works of God, 145).

Geerhardus Vos likewise understands God’s sovereign decree not to destroy or limit but to establish and ground man’s freedom.

“God’s decree grounds the certainty of His free knowledge and likewise the occurring of free actions. Not foreknowledge as such but the decree on which it rests makes free actions certain” (Reformed Dogmatics, 1:20). “…God can realize His decrees with reference to His creatures without needing to limit their freedom in a deterministic manner. Their free acts are not uncertain and the certainty to which these acts are connected is not brought about by God in a materialistic, pantheistic, or rationalistic manner. As the omnipresent and omnipotent One, the personal One, He can so govern man that man can do nothing without His will and permission and still do everything of himself in full freedom. When God sanctifies someone, He is at work in the depths of his being where the issues of life are, and then the sanctified will acts of itself and unconstrained outwardly no less freely than if it never had been under the working of God. The work of God does not destroy the freedom of the creature but is precisely its foundation” (Reformed Dogmatics, 1:90-91, emphasis mine).

Cornelius Van Til employs the archetype-ectype distinction and the Reformed covenantal structure to uphold both God’s freedom and man’s freedom in their proper relation.

“Our view of man as the spiritual production of God points to God as the archetype of all human freedom. Human freedom must be like God’s freedom, since man resembles God, and it must be different from God’s freedom since man is a finite creature. In God, then, lies the archetype of human freedom. … We are fashioned after God and our freedom after God’s freedom. But never ought we to lose sight of the fact that our freedom is distinguished from God’s freedom by reason of our finitude” (“Freedom,” 4). “We found … that the Reformed covenant theology remained nearest to this Biblical position. Other theories of the will go off on either of two byways, namely, that of seeking an unwarranted independence for man, or otherwise of subjecting man to philosophical necessitarianism. Reformed theology attempts to steer clear of both these dangers; avoiding all forms of Pelagianizing and of Pantheizing thought. It thinks to have found in the covenant relation of God with creation the true presentation of the Biblical concept of the relation of God to man. Man is totally dependent upon God and exists with all creation for God. Yet his freedom is not therewith abridged but realized” (“The Will in Its Theological Relations,” 77, emphasis mine).

For more on this listen to this episode of Christ the Center in which we dive deeper into this topic with a consideration of Van Til’s representational principle.

Camden Bucey and Jeff Waddington discuss the image of God and whether man retains the image after the fall into sin. Man was made in the image of God, yet there has been a change in humanity that was brought about through the Fall into sin. We must negotiate what that change entails and whether or not it has led to a loss of the image.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington

Camden Bucey speaks at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois on October 8, 2016.

Participants: Camden Bucey

Lane Tipton delivers his second address at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois on October 8, 2016.

Participants: Lane G. Tipton

Jeff Waddington speaks at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois on October 8, 2016.

Participants: Jeff Waddington

Glen Clary speaks at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois on October 8, 2016.

Participants: Glen Clary

Jim Cassidy speaks on Herman Bavinck’s consistently Reformed defense of the faith at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois.

Participants: Jim Cassidy

Lane Tipton delivers the first address at the 2016 Reformed Forum Theology Conference held at Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Grayslake, Illinois.

Participants: Lane G. Tipton

Participants: Camden Bucey, Glen Clary, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Lane G. Tipton

The doctrine of man’s creation in the image of God has received considerable attention in the history of the Reformed churches. Zacharias Ursinus provides a reasonably full statement of the main elements of the doctrine:

The image of God in man, is a mind rightly knowing the nature, will, and works of God; a will freely obeying God; and a correspondence of all the inclinations, desires, and actions, with the divine will; in a word, it is the spiritual and immortal nature of the soul, and the purity and integrity of the whole man; a perfect blessedness and joy, together with the dignity and majesty of man, in which he excels and rules over all other creatures.[1]

This definition of the image proper focuses on the constitution of man. Connected to that is the moral status man did and ought to have, and his place and function with reference to creation. For Ursinus, the function of man as ruler depends on his constitution. Man could not excel and rule over other creatures if he were not created with a superior dignity. While the ontological, moral, and functional elements mentioned by Ursinus embrace a great deal of what is comprehended in the image of God, there is at least one point that does not get mentioned. Dorothy Sayers identifies this point in one of her most fascinating works when she writes:

Man, very obviously, is not a being of this kind: this body, parts, and passions are only too conspicuous in his makeup. How then can he be said to resemble God? Is it his immortal soul, his rationality, his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim to this rather startling distinction? A case may be argued for all these elements in the complex nature of man. But had the author of Genesis anything particular in his mind when he wrote? It is observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man, he has given no detailed information about God. Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the “image” of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, “God created.” The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and ability to make things.[2]

In other words, the beginning of the Bible talks about God creating (Gen. 1:1). When it tells about man being made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26), the primary thing revealed so far in the text is that God is the creator. Believing that “father” has been much more studied than “maker,” Sayers develops the thesis that man, made in the image of God, images God in the creative process. She analyzes the phenomenon of creativity and argues that there is a Trinitarian quality to it. In the mind of the artist at work, it is possible to see the closest image there is in created reality to the original Creator of all. The work thus stands as a serious contribution to Trinitarian theology, as well as a major work of artistic theory. Sayers had an advantage in pursuing this line of inquiry, she herself was gifted with no small degree of literary creativity. No doubt it would have been quite difficult for someone who was not a creative artist to explore the analogy with suitable insight. To be sure, there are certainly points to question in the development of her arguments and the dogmatism of her statements. For instance, one of her contemporaries and creative counterparts identified a glaring exaggeration in her thesis:

I must therefore disagree with Miss Sayers very profoundly when she says that ‘between the mind of the maker and the Mind of the Maker’ there is ‘a difference, not of category, but only of quality and degree’ (p. 147 [170]). On my view there is a greater, far greater, difference between the two than playing with a doll and suckling a child.[3]

Another point is perhaps more subtle, but still worth remarking. Even allowing for all the different forms of human endeavor, not everyone is equally creative; yet this does not make one person more the image of God than another. Moreover, creativity must never be equated with or set above godliness. Artistic endeavor is certainly good, but the new man is created after God’s likeness in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24), not in genius and inventive fertility. Thus the more modest account offered by Philip Edgecumbe Hughes rests on a firmer basis.[4] Notwithstanding the disagreements it will and should provoke, The Mind of the Maker remains a stimulating and illuminating work, in more than one field. It is perhaps not surprising that it was a creative artist with an interest in theology who put considerable thought into the question of God’s image as it relates to creativity. She was not the only one to make the point, however. Nearly 1500 years before Sayers wrote, the Antiochene scholar, Theodoret of Cyrus (d.457), made these observations:

Now, when such precision appears in music, listeners marvel at the rhythm and harmony of the strain, yet they do not appreciate human articulation. Art, however, imitates nature, but it is nature that makes the voice articulate. The voice is the creation of God, who is the Maker of all things. … As man is the image of the Creator he strives to imitate the Creator. And the things he makes are like shadows contending with the truth; they are true to their forms but lack their native energy. Seeing such providence manifested in human organs, then, stop calling it want of care.[v]

Man’s artistry is only an imitation of God’s artistry, abundantly found in nature. Imitating nature in our art, we imitate God in our creativity. It is certainly possible to push this insight too far, as Dorothy Sayers did in places. Yet it is a helpful reminder that in the act of making us in his image, our divine Creator gave us also a creative faculty. This means that in the exercise of creativity, we may reflect the glory of God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. This includes the arts, of course, but also innovation in other fields of endeavor. Since that is true, it follows also that creativity is not neutral. Here also we must remember and reflect our Creator (Ecc. 12:1). The God who judged his whole creation very good (Gen. 1:31) does not leave us directionless in the evaluation of our own work. Because the Creator of all is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the human act of artistic creation provides an analogy to the mode of working among the persons of the Trinity. It should not be overlooked, however, that this work was an exercise of love. The new man is created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 2:10). Therefore we most truly image our (re-)Creator when we engage in the works of love, even if they are not “creative” in the artistic sense.

[1] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. G. W. Williard, trans. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company reprint, n.d. [1852]), 30. [2] Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), 34. [3] C.S. Lewis, Image and Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 168. [4] Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) 62–64. [5] Theodoret of Cyrus, On Divine Providence. Ancient Christian Writers No. 49, Thomas Halton, trans. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988), 36.

Sections

1. Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative. Confirmation of the answer.

2. Another absurdity of Aristotle and Pelagius. Answer by a distinction. Answer fortified by passages from Augustine, and supported by the authority of an Apostle.

3. Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysostom. Answer by a negative.

4. Fourth absurdity urged of old by the Pelagians. Answer from the works of Augustine. Illustrated by the testimony of our Saviour. Another answer, which explains the use of exhortations.

5. A third answer, which contains a fuller explanation of the second. Objection to the previous answers. Objection refuted. Summary of the previous answers.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

Sections

1. Connection of this chapter with the preceding. Augustine’s similitude of a good and bad rider. Question answered in respect to the devil.

2. Question answered in respect to God and man. Example from the history of Job. The works of God distinguished from the works of Satan and wicked men. 1. By the design or end of acting. How Satan acts in the reprobate. 2. How God acts in them.

3. Old Objection, that the agency of God in such cases is referable to prescience or permission, not actual operation. Answer, showing that God blinds and hardens the reprobate, and this in two ways; 1. By deserting them; 2. By delivering them over to Satan.

4. Striking passages of Scripture, proving that God acts in both ways, and disposing of the objection with regard to prescience. Confirmation from Augustine.

5. A modification of the former answer, proving that God employs Satan to instigate the reprobate, but, at the same time, is free from all taint.

6. How God works in the hearts of men in indifferent matters. Our will in such matters not so free as to be exempt from the overruling providence of God. This confirmed by various examples.

7. Objection, that these examples do not form the rule. An answer, fortified by the testimony of universal experience, by Scripture, and a passage of Augustine.

8. Some, in arguing against the error of free will, draw an argument from the event. How this is to be understood.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

Sections

10. A fourth Objection. Answer. Fifth Objection. Answer. Answer confirmed by many passages of Scripture, and supported by a passage from Augustine. 11. Perseverance not of ourselves, but of God. Objection. Two errors in the objection. Refutation of both. 12. An objection founded on the distinction of co-operating grace. Answer. Answer confirmed by the testimony of Augustine and Bernard. 13. Last part of the chapter, in which it is proved by many passages of Augustine, that he held the doctrine here taught. 14. An objection, representing Augustine at variance with himself and other Theologians, removed. A summary of Augustine’s doctrine on free will.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

In our treatment of the doctrine of the image of God, then, we must highlight, in accordance with Scripture and the Reformed confession, the idea that a human being does not bear or have the image of God but that he or she is the image of God. As a human being a man is the son, the likeness, or offspring of God (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9).

—Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, 554.

Jeff Waddington compares Alvin Plantinga and Jonathan Edwards on the perennial anthropological question regarding the relationship between the intellect and the will. In 2000, distinguished Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga offered an account of how Christian belief squares with warrant in the culmination of his warrant series, Warranted Christian Belief. Key to this analysis is Plantinga’s version of the sensus divinitatus, which is then extended to include explicitly Christian belief with three elements: The Bible, the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit, and faith. Faith, for Plantinga, involves both the intellect and the will. In the book, Plantinga discusses the relationship between the intellect and the will and assesses the view of Jonathan Edwards. In this episode, Jeff Waddington argues his case that Plantinga has misconstrued Edwards. Instead of prioritizing the intellect, Waddington believes Edwards rejects a hierarchical faculty psychology.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy

Sections

5. Though man has still the faculty of willing, there is no soundness in it. He falls under the bondage of sin necessarily, and yet voluntarily. Necessity must be distinguished from compulsion. The ancient Theologians acquainted with this necessity. Some passages condemning the vacillation of Lombard.

6. Conversion to God constitutes the remedy or soundness of the human will. This not only begun, but continued and completed; the beginning, continuance, and completion, being ascribed entirely to God. This proved by Ezekiel’s description of the stony heart, and from other passages of Scripture.

7. Various Objections.—1. The will is converted by God, but, when once prepared, does its part in the work of conversion. Answer from Augustine. 2. Grace can do nothing without will, nor the will without grace. Answer. Grace itself produces will. God prevents the unwilling, making him willing, and follows up this preventing grace that he may not will in vain. Another answer gathered from various passages of Augustine.

8. Answer to the second Objection continued. No will inclining to good except in the elect. The cause of election out of man. Hence right will, as well as election, are from the good pleasure of God. The beginning of willing and doing well is of faith; faith again is the gift of God; and hence mere grace is the cause of our beginning to will well. This proved by Scripture.

9. Answer to second Objection continued. That good will is merely of grace proved by the prayers of saints. Three axioms—1. God does not prepare man’s heart, so that he can afterwards do some good of himself, but every desire of rectitude, every inclination to study, and every effort to pursue it, is from Him. 2. This desire, study, and effort, do not stop short, but continue to effect. 3. This progress is constant. The believer perseveres to the end. A third Objection, and three answers to it.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

Dr. Lane G. Tipton builds upon his first plenary address by developing a biblical-theological and systematic approach to considering whether there is a republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic economy.

Unedited and Unprocessed Recording of the Livestream

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTB7r10Ap-4

Participants: Camden Bucey, Lane G. Tipton

• a mutable, losable communion with God,
• the perpetual possibility of sinning against God,
• the perpetual presence of the dragon/serpent seeking to devour and destroy you,
• and a constant threat of death from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Contrast that first-Adam scenario with the second-Adam scenario. By his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ has passed the probationary test that Adam failed and

• has crushed the serpent’s head,
• not only conquers death and is raised to new life himself, but becomes a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45)
• has the power of an indestructible life (Heb. 7:16)
• has risen never to die again (Rom. 6:9)
• allows believers to eat of the tree of life (Rev. 2:7)
• grants believers entrance into the new city where nothing unclean will ever enter it (Rev. 21:27).

Rather than longing to get back to Eden, Christ points us forward to the new Eden he has secured for his people, where only then will it truly and perfectly be as good as it gets.

…to fuel modern reformation in the African American community and with a multi-ethnic mindset by providing biblically-faithful resources, by connecting Christians who adhere to Reformed doctrines–especially African Americans, and by building theology in community from a Reformed and African American perspective as well as with others from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Participants: Jared Oliphint, Jemar Tisby, Phillip Holmes

1. The intellect and will of the whole man corrupt. The term flesh applies not only to the sensual, but also to the higher part of the soul. This demonstrated from Scripture.

2. The heart also involved in corruption, and hence in no part of man can integrity, or knowledge or the fear of God, be found.

3. Objection, that some of the heathen were possessed of admirable endowments, and, therefore, that the nature of man is not entirely corrupt. Answer, Corruption is not entirely removed, but only inwardly restrained. Explanation of this answer.

4. Objection still urged, that the virtuous and vicious among the heathen must be put upon the same level, or the virtuous prove that human nature, properly cultivated, is not devoid of virtue. Answer, That these are not ordinary properties of human nature, but special gifts of God. These gifts defiled by ambition, and hence the actions proceeding from them, however esteemed by man, have no merit with God.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

21. Fourth argument. Scripture ascribes the glory of our adoption and salvation to God only. The human intellect blind as to heavenly things until it is illuminated. Disposal of a heretical objection. 22. Human intellect ignorant of the true knowledge of the divine law. This proved by the testimony of an Apostle, by an inference from the same testimony, and from a consideration of the end and definition of the Law of Nature. Plato obviously mistaken in attributing all sins to ignorance. 23. Themistius nearer the truth in maintaining, that the delusion of the intellect is manifested not so much in generals as in particulars. Exception to this rule. 24. Themistius, however, mistaken in thinking that the intellect is so very seldom deceived as to generals. Blindness of the human intellect when tested by the standard of the Divine Law, in regard both to the first and second tables. Examples. 25. A middle view to be taken—viz. that all sins are not imputable to ignorance, and, at the same time, that all sins do not imply intentional malice. All the human mind conceives and plans in this matter is evil in the sight of God. Need of divine direction every moment. 26. The will examined. The natural desire of good, which is universally felt, no proof of the freedom of the human will. Two fallacies as to the use of terms, appetite and good. 27. The doctrine of the Schoolmen on this subject opposed to and refuted by Scripture. The whole man being subject to the power of sin, it follows that the will, which is the chief seat of sin, requires to be most strictly curbed. Nothing ours but sin.

Participants: Robert Tarullo

Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy

Chris Brauns visits Christ the Center to speak about covenant solidarity through his book Bound Together: How We Are Tied to Others in Good and Bad Choices published by Zondervan. Chris is the pastor of The Red Brick Church in Stillman Valley, Illinois and has also written Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds, an excellent treatment and call to return to a biblical conception of forgiveness.

Participants: Camden Bucey, Chris Brauns, David Filson

Participants: Camden Bucey, David Filson, Jeff Waddington

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.

Participants: Robert Tarullo