tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66940319445002177992024-03-05T19:01:44.176-08:00Reason From ScriptureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-3144307454353644332012-05-09T17:38:00.006-07:002012-05-09T17:49:40.447-07:00A Rational Argument and Model For the TrinityIntroduction<br /><br /> The Trinity has been an essential doctrine of the Christian worldview. The Trinity is what distinguishes Christianity from all other religious worldviews like Islam and Judaism. One could maintain then that with caeteris paribus that if there are good reasons for thinking that the Trinity is true then there are also good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true. In addition, arguments which attempt to demonstrate that the Trinity is logically incoherent will also show by implication that the Christian worldview is logically incoherent because the Trinity is an essential feature of Christianity. Thus, questions about the coherence and the warrant of the Trinity have a direct relationship to coherence and warrant of the Christian worldview. This is why it is important to give a philosophical justification for the doctrine of the Trinity and to defend it against any charges of incoherence. This is why it is the purpose of this paper to provide an argument for thinking that the Trinity is true and to defend it against any charges of irrationality and incoherence. I do this by first defining the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly, I give an argument for the Trinity from perfect being theology and the highest conception of Love. Thirdly, I give a defeater for an argument which attempts to show that the Trinity is logically incoherent. Lastly, I provide a modified immaterial constitution model of the Trinity which attempts to be both theologically and philosophically attractive.<br /><br />Defining the Trinity<br /><br /> Classical Trinitarian theism is committed to the following propositions:<br /><br /> 1) There is one God<br /><br /> 2) The person of the Father is God<br /><br /> 3) The person of the Son is God<br /><br /> 4) The person of the Spirit is God<br /><br /> 5) All three of the Divine persons are distinct from one another.<br /><br /> 6) All of the persons are fully God<br /><br />All six of these propositions are from traditional and biblical Trinitarianism. 1 is designed to secure the monotheistic unity to all three of the persons. 1 is also used to deny tri-theism and to affirm that there is only one Divine substance. 2-4 is used to ensure that each of the members of the Trinity is Divine and that there is no ontological subordinationism. 5 is used to guard against modalism which would deny the real distinctions between each of the persons of the Trinity. Finally, 6 is used to ensure that each member of the Trinity is not diminished in His Divinity. We want to be able to say that in some sense each member of the Trinity is fully God because there are passages of scripture that seem to commit us to this. Colossians 2:9 seems to suggest that Jesus had fully Divinity and if there is no ontological subordinationism in the Trinity then it would follow that each of the other two members have fully Divinity as well. Now that I have briefly outlined the propositions that one must be committed to in order to hold to the Trinity, I provide an argument for the Trinity.<br /><br />An Argument for the Trinity<br /><br /> In this section I provide an argument for thinking that Trinitarian theism is true. The sort of argument I give finds its origins in the work of Richard St. Victor and has been restated in a slightly different form by Richard Swinburne<br /><br />Richard Swinbourne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 1994); Ruben Angelici, Richard of Saint Victor On the Trinity: English Translation and Commentary (Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2011).<br /><br />. I present the structure of the argument and then I defend only the contentious premises. What is contentious will vary from context to context, but since this is a paper defending trinitarianism I will assume that the skeptic I am dealing with assumes the existence of a Unitarian God and this skeptic thinks that this Unitarian God is the greatest possible being. The argument structure is as follows:<br /><br /><br />1) The highest degree of love entails two persons, P1 and P2 having self-giving love for each other and this self-giving love is such that they have coperative self-giving love for another third person, P3 (let us call this sort of love GL for “greatest love”).<br /><br />2) There is one God.<br /><br />3) God is the greatest possible being.<br /><br />4) The greatest possible being has every moral perfection to the highest degree<br /><br />5) Love is a moral perfection<br /><br />6) God has love to the highest degree (GL)<br /><br />7) God either has GL entirely contained in the Divine substance or it is not entirely contained in the Divine substance.<br /><br />8) It is false that GL is not entirely contained in the Divine substance<br /><br />9) God has GL entirely contained within the Divine substance<br /><br />10) God is three persons<br /><br /><br /> In premise 1 GL entails two important aspects for supporting the entire argument. The first aspect is that GL involves one person having self-giving love for another person. In terms of the argument above what I need to establish is that this self-giving love between two persons is a better sort of love than giving love only to one’s self. The sort of love where one person just entirely loves himself is typically seen as more of a vice than a virtue. This sort of love only for oneself we would call selfish and surely selfless love for another is a greater degree of love than selfish love. Therefore, GL will at least entail self-giving love between two persons. The second aspect that GL will entail is cooperative self-giving love between at least two persons for another third person. Surely two persons who love each other in such a way that they function together for the purpose of having a cooperative self-giving love for another person has a higher quality of love than just two persons who love each in a self-giving manner. And because two persons having self-giving love for another third person is higher degree of love than just two persons having self-giving love then the GL will entail two persons having cooperative self-giving love for another person. <br /><br /><br /> I will spend the most space on Premises 7-8 for they are the most contentious premises for one who ascribes to Unitarian views of God. The Unitarian might argue that GL can be grounded in created beings in 7. This is to say that GL is such that it can necessarily be grounded in human beings or beings that are very much like human beings. And although created beings begin to exist they might argue that God had this sort of love prior to their existence on the basis of his foreknowledge.<br /><br /><br /> This response lacks plausibility for a variety of reasons. One reason is that God has libertarian free will so that he has the choice to create beings or to not create beings. The Unitarian might ask why think that God has libertarian free will? Here is a reason: God is the greatest possible being so he will have libertarian free will because it is better to have libertarian free will rather than not. In order, to have this sort of freedom he has to be a Trinitarian God because if he were Unitarian God he would have to create in order to exemplify GL and thereby not be libertarianly free. Another reason why this response lacks plausibility is that it seems like love between infinite persons is a higher degree of love rather than love just between an infinite person and a finite person. Love between divine persons is better to have than mere divine love for a created person and because God has GL he will have love between divine persons. It would also seem like love between three divine persons (as opposed to bringing in a created persons for P1, P2, or P3) is also the highest quality of love which God would necessarily have as the greatest possible being. A final worry about this Unitarian move is that it makes God’s attributes of love dependent upon the creation and surely a God who is dependent on the lesser creation for his divine attributes is not great as a God who is only dependent upon his own greatness for His divine attribute of love. So given that God is the greatest possible being he will only be dependent on himself for his divine attributes and Trinitarianism would follow from this. For these reasons then the Unitarian response is rebutted.<br /> <br />The premises follow to the conclusion that there are three persons in God, but there is still a worry that one might try to argue for more persons than three in the Godhead from principles stemming from this argument. In response to this worry: It is hard for me see and to come up with entailments from the highest degree of love which suggests that there are more than three persons. Furthermore, if one just adds more persons the conditions for self-giving love and cooperative love would be satisfied by premise 1 in the same way whether you have three persons or nine persons. The reason why the argument would only prove three persons as opposed to nine is that three persons are simpler and given Ockham’s razor we ought to prefer the simpler theories. Thus, there is no reason to think that we are in need of a fourth person in the Godhead given the principle of love found in premise 1 and we only have reason for thinking that there are three persons in God. <br /><br /><br />Defeating an Incoherence Argument Against the Trinity<br /><br /><br /> In this section of the paper I answer an objection which intends to demonstrate that the Trinity is logically incoherent. I will present the argument from the anti-Trinitarian objector and then I will show that the argument that the Trinity is incoherent is unsound.<br /><br /><br /> The arguments against Trinitarianism proceeds on propositions which the Trinitarian is committed to and then the anti-Trinitarian objector tries to derive a contradiction from the propositions to which Trinitarianism is committed to. I will outline the two ways in which the anti-Trinitarian objector attempts to draw out a contradiction from Trinitarian propositions. The incoherency argument is as follows:<br /><br /><br /> 1) There is one God<br /><br />2) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct<br /><br /> 3) The Father is fully God<br /><br /> 4) The Son is fully God<br /><br /> 5) The Holy Spirit is fully God<br /><br /> 6) The Father is the Son and The Spirit<br /><br /> 6*) There are three Gods<br /><br />6 and 6* are two ways in which the anti-Trinitarian objector can draw out a contradiction from 1-5. 6 would be deriving modalism from 1-5 which is inconsistent with Trinitarianism because Trinitarianism holds to the real personal distinctions in the God which is affirmed in 2. As for 6* this is deriving Tri-theism from 1-5 and this is inconsistent with Trinitarianism because the Trinitarian holds that there only exists one God as 1 indicates. In the next paragraph I will provide an argument against a crucial assumption that this anti-Trinitarian argument relies on and we will see later on that this assumption is false.<br /> <br />This anti-Trinitarian argument above assumes a principle which we will call principle P. Many philosophers hold to P for material objects and P is as follows: x and y are to be counted as one material object if and only if x and y are identical. P seems especially plausible with respect to material objects when x entirely fills the region R of a material object M and y fills the entire region R of a material object M. This is the assumption behind 6 and 6* which generates a contradiction with 1-5, but of course this is applied to immaterial objects in the case of the Trinity. But we will see that given a counter-example to P in the next paragraph that P is false.<br /><br /><br /> The Aristotelian view of accidental sameness in material objects provides a counter-example to the anti-Trinitarian argument. Those holding to the Aristotelian view of matter which instantiates many hylomorphic compounds can give examples in which there is an object where there is numerical sameness without identity. Here is such an example: Let us suppose that there is a bronze statue of Zeus which is also a pillar for a building. The one holding to numerical sameness without identity will attempt to show that the pillar, the statue, and the bronze are not identical. Yet they all entirely fill a region R and we would count the pillar, the statue, and the bronze as one material object. The way one would show that the statue, the pillar, and the bronze are not identical is by pointing out that each of these kinds have different modal properties. There are things that are true of the statue that are not true of the pillar, namely, that the statue can endure even if it is no longer used to support any part of a building. But of course this is not true of the pillar because if it was not offering support of anything then it would no longer be a pillar. Also there is something true of the bronze that is not true of the statue, namely, that the bronze can be melted into an orb. But surely this is not true of the statue for if the bronze were melted down to an orb like form then it would no longer be a statue. So we have a counter-example to principle P where there exists one material object with three kinds all entirely filling a region of space R.<br /><br /><br /> We can now see that the Aristotelian view of material constitution provides a counter-example to principle P employed in the anti-Trinitarian argument. The fact that there can be an x and y that entirely fills a region R that are not identical is a fact that can be dialectally effective in responding to the anti-Trinitarian objector. For instance, one could say that in created material things we see that in some sense there can be three kinds that can be fully in one material object and so given this assume it is reasonable to say that it is possible that there are three kinds of persons who are in some sense fully in one spiritual non-physical object. Given this dialectal strategy the burden of proof is on the anti-Trinitarian objector to demonstrate that it is incoherent to say that three kinds cannot be in some sense fully in a spiritual thing and that there is only one of these spiritual things. This is a very difficult burden to bear because it is hard to see how one can come up a knock down argument that demonstrates that it is incoherent to have numerical sameness without identity with spiritual objects while maintaining that it is possible to have numerical sameness without identity with material objects. Thus, for this reason the anti-Trinitarian argument from incoherence is unsound.<br /><br /><br />A Modified Immaterial Constitution view of the Trinity<br /><br /><br /> In this section I provide a modified immaterial constitution model of the Trinity which is not identical to Michael Rea’s and Jeffrey E. Brower’s model, but it is very similar to it. I first will provide a general overview of my model of the Trinity. I will point out three desirable and positive aspects of my theory. Lastly, I will present three worries about my theory and I will respond to them.<br /><br /><br /> My model of the Trinity is analogous to the matter and hylomorphic compounds in the Aristotelian view of how there can be numerical sameness without identity in a material object, but my model applies it to the one Divine spiritual object. The Divine nature would play the role of the matter in that it would fully constitute each of the members of the Trinity without the members of the Trinity being identical to one another. There would be only one Divine nature which would be the immaterial stuff which has the properties of metaphysical necessity and the property of essentially constituting three Divine persons. For x to be God on my model is that x has to fully consist of the Divine immatter (this is the word that I use to describe the none-physical stuff that plays the role of the matter in the Aristotelian view). Each of the persons of the Trinity is like a hylomorphic compound. Furthermore, each of the members of the Trinity fully consists of the Divine immatter. So it follows on my view that each of the persons of the Trinity is God and the Trinity as a whole is God. Yet, each of the persons is not identical to one another nor is any of the persons identical to the Divine nature. Given this view of immatter and hylomorphic compounds we can see that this model allows for a robust notion of the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity by virtue of the fact that they all share the same immatter of the Divine. On my model I hold that there is only one Divine individual and so my theory is compatible with thinking that there is an individuator in the Divine substance like a bare particular. But of course on my model one is free not to posit a bare particular if they thought it was incoherent or threatened the plurality of the persons.<br /><br /><br /> A point of difference in my model to Rae and Brower’s model is that I wish to go in more detail about what sort of properties each of the persons have. I would hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have one center of consciousness, cognitive faculties, and a divine will. Furthermore, I would say that each member of the Trinity has their own property of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, aseity and all the other essential Divine properties that we would think a Divine person has. So for instance, the Father has his own property of omniscience and the Son has his own property of omniscience. The members of the Trinity would be essentially distinguished by virtue of the unique essential necessary properties of eternal Fatherhood, Sonship, and Spiration. On my immaterial constitution view the Father alone would be eternally constituted of the divine immatter without any causation logically prior to eternally bringing about his personal constitution. The Son on the other hand would be constituted by the Divine immatter and this constitution is eternally caused by the Father from all eternity. The Spirit’s constitution would be eternally caused by the Father and the Son from all eternity. These are the common and unique properties that each of the personal hylomorphic compounds have in the Divine immatter.<br /><br /><br /> I list the three benefits and virtues of this model of the Trinity. After I list each benefit I will expound in more detail why this is a benefit of my Trinitarian model.<br /><br /><br />1) It secures the oneness in essence and the plurality of the persons.<br /><br /><br /> The benefit of a strong sense of oneness and the plurality of the persons is that it guards against the heresies of tri-theism and modalism. The most attractive feature of the immaterial constitution model is that it secures that there is one divine immatter and this feature entirely prevents any tri-theistic notions of three individuals or three substances. Furthermore, given how I have articulated my modified immaterial constitution view it would seem hard to charge my model as modalistic because each of the persons have their own distinctive center of consciousness, cognitive faculties, and a divine will. My model is superior to Rea’s and Brower’s in that I have defined each of the members of the Trinity to entirely prevent any sort of modalism which has been a worry about their view. In short, my model has all of the positive aspects of Latin and Social trinitarianism without any of the major worries of modalism or tri-theism.<br /><br /><br />2) Each of the persons has a robust sense of Deity<br /><br /><br /> The way in which I define Deity is such that it allows each of the persons to be fully God. I would say x is God if and only if x fully consists of divine immatter. When I say that x fully consists of divine immatter I mean to say that 1) x comes into the relation of numerical sameness without identity with the divine immatter, 2) that x derives all its immaterial existence from the divine immatter and properties from the divine immatter. Each of the persons fully consists of divine immatter and so therefore each of the persons is fully God. On my view then each of the persons cannot be parts of God. The worry with saying that each of the persons are parts of God is that it seems to have not as a robust view of deity because the parts of God together add up together to equal the fully deity. In addition, the biblical data does seem to commit us to the notion that each of the persons is fully God. A good example of this is when Colossians 2:9 teaches of Jesus that he had the “whole fullness of deity”. Given these considerations then we ought to adopt the theory that makes us have each of the persons of the Trinity have the most robust sense of being divine. It seems to me that my theory satisfies that constraint and so this increases the attractiveness of my theory.<br /><br /><br />3) There is only one way to be Divine<br /><br /><br /> One of the most attractive features of my model is that it allows one to say that there is only one way to be divine with respect to the Trinity and to each of the Divine persons. This feature is unique to Latin models of the Trinity or material constitution models of the Trinity. The benefits of saying that there is only one way to be divine is that one can affirm that both the Trinity jointly is Divine and that the each of the member are Divine in same sense while affirming monotheism. Furthermore, there does not seem to be much scriptural warrant for thinking that we can ascribe two sorts of Divinity to God. This is possible on my model because each of the persons fully consists of the divine immatter and yet the Trinity as whole fully consists of the Divine immatter. This is possible much like it is possible with material objects when you have the one bronze lump fully constituting the pillar and the statue of Zeus. In this example one would want to say that the one bronze lump fully constitutes Zeus and yet the bronze fully constitutes both Zeus and the pillar. So too in the Trinity one want to say on my model that the Divine immatter fully constitutes the Son and yet the Divine immatter fully constitutes the Trinity as whole. Therefore, my model provides a consistent and orthodox approach to having one way for a thing to be Divine. <br /><br /><br /> I move to discuss three problems and worries with my model. In this section I will generally take two strategies by way of response: I will show that the objection does not have significant cost to abandon the model or that the objection has no cost at all.<br /><br /><br />1) Each of the persons of the Trinity is not identical to God<br /><br /><br /> One could certainly critique my model by saying that my view entails the position that Jesus is not identical to God or that each of the Trinitarian members are not identical to God. Instead my view holds that Jesus is God by virtue of the fact that he fully consists of Divine immatter. This distinguishes my model from Rea’s and Brower’s model<br /><br />Rea and Brower, 278.. Rea and Brower argue that each member is identical to the one spiritual object God and so in this way we can assert things like Jesus is identical to God. But I tend to think that such assertion is metaphysically impossible given classical Trinitarian commitments. For there is something true of the one spiritual object that is not true of Jesus, namely, that the Spiritual object has immatter and has three personal hylomorphic compounds. But the hylomorphic compound of Jesus does not have three personal hylomorphic compounds which it has or constitutes rather it is only the immatter which can be said to have or constitute three hylomorphic compounds. Given these consideration I do not see how one can hold that Jesus is identical God and yet hold to the Trinity and logical consistency. Since I do not think it is logically possible for one to hold consistently that Jesus is identical to God and the doctrine of the Trinity then I regard the costs of denying that Jesus is identical to God of no cost at all for my Trinitarian model. <br /><br /><br />2) The term “stuff” cannot be properly said of immaterial objects like God<br /><br /><br /> A common objection to my model is that it does not make much sense to ascribe the terms like immaterial stuff, immatter, Divine spiritual stuff to non-physical things like God. The thought here is that these are terms that are only applied to material objects and so have no application to immaterial objects like God. After all terms like “fully” and “stuff” are terms of space and location which cannot properly be applied to God who is not extended in space. In response to these worries one can take the route of saying that these terms have analogical application to immaterial objects. And that this is hardly a worry because one could say that most if not all of predication of the divine is analogical. But if this is the worst case scenario then I do not think this cost out weights the general benefit of my model. However, I do not think one is necessarily reduced to this worst case scenario if one holds to my model. For one, it is not entirely clear to me that phrases like “stuff” and “fullness” cannot be applied to immaterial things. I can conceive of an immaterial thing apart from space that have this sort of primitive stuff aspect that is more than just properties which gives full form to immaterial kinds and in addition gives those kinds unity in one object. There does not seem to be anything clearly incoherent and logically contradictory with this notion of other things consisting of immatter and that immatter being the sort of thing that makes all those kinds it consists of numerically one object. Furthermore, I do not even see how this language presupposes shape and size either. But it must be honestly conceded that this notion of immatter and it fully constituting hylomorphic compounds is an irreducible and primitive with respect to non-physical objects such that it cannot be given further analysis. This is indeed a concession because any theory that adds primitives raises the theoretical price of that theory (one would like to have as little primitives as possible and explain as much as possible). But it seems like this cost is worth it because of the fact that my immaterial constitution theory allows one to hold to a robust notion of Divinity among the Divine persons and it has the advantage of there being one sense of Divinity while securing monotheism.<br /><br /><br />3) The use of “Divine Stuff” is untraditional<br /><br /><br /> William Lane Craig argues that the material constitution view is untraditional in taking the one essence in the Trinity to be a sort of Divine immaterial stuff which constitutes all three of the persons. Craig argues that what the council of Nicea meant by homoousios that not that the Father and the Son were made out of the same spiritual stuff but rather that they “shared the same generic nature or being”. Even if were Craig were right about this and this model does seems inconsistent with the Nicean creed then this is still a price I will gladly pay. I think we should trump tradition when it is inconsistent with reason and scripture. But fortunately for those fans of tradition I do think that Craig is mistaken about this. I would say that the constitution view is consistent with the Father and the Son sharing the same being as this what Craig asserts what the council intended. For surely if the Father and the Son are constituted by the same necessary Divine immatter it would follow from this that they share the same being. So there is no inconsistency with the constitution view and the council of Nicea. What Craig needs is to show evidence that the majority of those formulating the document held that homoousios was incompatible with the constitutional view. And Craig has simply not done this. So this objection has no cost at all, but even if I were wrong in my assessment it still seems that the cost is very small given the three major benefits of the theory that I have outlined above. <br /><br /><br />Concluding Thoughts<br /><br /><br /> In this paper I have argued that there are good reasons for thinking that the Trinity is true and that all of the charges of irrationality and incoherence are unfounded. I have done this by arguing for the Trinity on the basis of the highest conception of love and from God being the greatest possible being. Furthermore, I have argued that the anti-Trinitarian arguments from incoherence are dubious. And lastly I have provided and defended a rational model of the Trinity. For these reasons the Christian can boldly believe that there is one God who is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Bibliography<br /><br />Angelici, Ruben. Richard of Saint Victor On the Trinity: English Translation and Commentary. Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2011.<br /><br />Brower, Jeffrey, Rea, Michael C. “Material Constitution and the Trinity,” Faith and Philosophy, 22 (2005): 487-505.<br /><br />Craig, William Lane. 2005. “Does the Problem of Material Constitution Illuminate the Doctrine<br />of the Trinity?” Faith and Philosophy 22: 77 - 86.<br /><br />Flint, Thomas P., and Michael Rea, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.<br /><br />Howard-Snyder, Daniel. 2003. “Trinity Monotheism” Philosophia Christi 5: 375 – 403.<br /><br />Leftow, B., 1999, “Anti Social Trinitarianism”, in The Trinity : An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, S. T. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 203–49.<br /><br />Pruss, Alexander, McCall, Thomas, and Michael Rea, eds. Philosophical and Theological Essays On the Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2010.<br /><br /><br />Swinbourne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 1994.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-72706109932533289992011-08-14T20:28:00.002-07:002011-08-14T21:01:55.642-07:00The Meaning of the SabbathQuestions as to the meaning of the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day for believers in God’s New Covenant administration are preeminently issues in biblical-theological hermeneutics. There is no overt discourse in the NT concerning what relation obtains between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day or specifying what ethical obligations are associated with observance of the Lord’s Day. Therefore, these respective Old and New Covenant ordinances must be compared in light of the biblical hermeneutical principles we are given to guide our evaluation of cross-covenantal development and application of biblical ordinances in general, so that thoroughly biblical inferences might be drawn. Exegesis of the texts explicitly outlining these hermeneutical principles, and inductive study of Christ’s and His apostles’ working hermeneutic are thus also relevant in the synthesis of texts dealing with the Sabbath and Lord’s Day which seeks to appropriate Scripture’s full counsel on these practical matters.
<br /> Thesis: The weekly Sabbath, as a ritual type, is fulfilled in the reality of Christ’s inauguration of eschatological Sabbath rest, and no longer requires prefigurement in the prescribed rites of the original ordinance; yet the Lord’s Day, as a celebration of Christ’s inauguration of eschatological Sabbath rest, entails specific obligations of worship for God’s New Covenant people.
<br /><span id="fullpost">In order to explain and defend this thesis I will first present the biblical hermeneutical principles by which we must proceed in interpreting and applying the Mosaic Law in the New Covenant era. Second, I will examine some of the most important biblical texts dealing with the theology of the Sabbath and the Sabbath commandment and show the manner in which the Sabbath receives eschatological fulfillment in Christ in terms of its theological significance and ethical obligation. Finally, I will briefly indicate the key New Testament material outlining the significance of the Lord’s Day and the obligations the Lord’s Day entails for New Covenant believers.
<br />
<br />
<br />1) The fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ and correspondent hermeneutical principles.
<br /> Craig Blomberg is right in identifying the fulfillment motif as paradigmatic in Christ’s and His apostles’ self-conscious understanding of the relation of the New Covenant which they heralded to God’s Old Covenant administration. Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:17 in His Sermon on the Mount are properly taken to articulate the quintessential principle operative in the NT appropriation of the full-orbed OT revelation. Here our Lord denies that His aim in coming is “to tear down” (καταλῦσαι) the Law and the Prophets and asserts that it is contrarily “to fulfill” (πληρῶσαι) them. The phrase, “the Law and the Prophets” may be understood to compass the whole of the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Mosaic Law and the subsequent prophetic witness which enabled the Law to be correctly apprehended. The Greek verb πληρόω, that Jesus selects to describe the activity toward which His incarnation and ministry are directed with regard to the Hebrew Bible, is best translated “to give the true meaning to,” (L&N) or “to show (something) forth in its true meaning” (BDAG) in this context. Jesus carries out just this activity in His Sermon in the capacity of a teacher, giving a heightened sense to some of the centrally important moral commandments of the Mosaic Law, and enjoining moral obedience in respect to other Mosaic stipulations transcending that which the original laws could have required. Furthermore, through certain elements in the Sermon such as the repeated “ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν…” formula conveying self-referential authority (Matt. 5:22,28,32, etc.), and the promise of blessing for endurance in persecution on account of allegiance to Himself (Matt. 5:12), Jesus unmistakably indicates that it is not merely His teachings but His very person which gives the true meaning to the Law and the Prophets. Thus, while insisting that the Law maintains abiding significance and binding obligation (Matt. 5:18), Jesus shows Himself to be the One in whom this abiding significance receives its full expression and the One to whom this binding obligation is ultimately due.
<br />The rest of the NT bears out the manifold notion of Christ as the fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible and specifically the obligations of the Mosaic Law, primarily in setting Him forth as the culmination of the Law’s salvific function (Rom. 10:4). Yet although believers in Christ as adopted sons and daughters of God are absolutely free of the tutelage of the Mosaic Law as it sets forth the means of meriting eternal life and the measure of judgment and curse for disobedience, the whole of the Law as fulfilled in Christ remains eminently relevant to New Covenant life (Rom. 3:31). Inductive study of Jesus’ and His apostles’ expository on the Law reveals that different aspects of the Mosaic Law receiving different manners of fulfillment in Christ have different New Covenant applications. Moral obligations of the Law are seen as fulfilled in Christ in terms of their heightening and intensification in His life and teaching. These fulfilled moral norms are repeatedly enjoined upon New Covenant believers and comprehended under the “law of love” for God and neighbor set forth as a perpetual rule and guide for the sanctification and ethical life of God’s people (Matt. 22:37-40, Rom. 13:10, Gal. 5:14, Jas. 2:8). Ceremonial and other typological obligations of the Law are viewed as fulfilled in Christ in terms of the reification in His person, word, and work of those things which their observance had foreshadowed. While the history of the Old Covenant typological rites remains illustrative as to the nature of the Spiritual realities these rites prefigured, New Covenant believers are loosed from continued observance of the rites that they might through faith participate in the realities of eternal salvation in Christ (cf. Acts 10-11:18, Eph. 2:11-22, Heb. 10:1-14).
<br /> Thus, before moving on to consideration of Sabbath and Lord’s Day ordinances, we may formulate two biblical hermeneutical principles key to correct interpretation of cross-covenantal development and application of Mosaic Law ordinances in general. 1) Every element of the Mosaic Law, whether or not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, must be understood and applied in the New Covenant in light of its particular fulfillment in Christ (no portion may be discounted as irrelevant since Jesus Himself has assured us of the whole Law’s abiding significance and permanently binding obligation). 2) Different aspects of the Law receiving different manners of fulfillment in Christ have different New Covenant applications, and so careful attention must be paid to the particular manner of each element’s fulfillment in Christ’s person, word, and work in order that we may make correct life application.
<br />2) Sabbath fulfilled in Christ
<br /> Resuming admonishment of the saints at Colossae against the liability of being “taken captive” by proponents of philosophico-religious alternatives to Christian faith, the apostle Paul exhorts, “[L]et no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (Col 2:16-17 ESV).” As this text has prima facie potential to offer pivotal NT comment on both the theological significance of, and the New Covenant obligation associated with the Sabbath, it is no surprise that the meaning of the term σάββατον as here employed is a topic of controversy. The controversy is not insoluble, however, and the exegesis of Col. 2:16-17 thus proves rewarding and auspicious as a starting point for this study.
<br /> Blomberg cites this text as a plain reference to the weekly OT Sabbath celebration and accuses those who would take measures to impute a different meaning to σάββατον in this context of exegetical sleight of hand. Since the three terms “festival” (ἑορτῆς), “new moon” (νεομηνίας), and “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) are listed together in a number of OT texts clearly referencing celebratory ordinances of the Jewish calendar, it is clear that Paul’s use of this triad has such mandated Jewish holy days in view (Cf. Ezek. 45:17, Hos. 2:11, 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3, Neh. 10:33, Isa. 1:13–14). Blomberg suggests that it is natural to read Paul as making exhaustive reference to holy days prescribed in the Jewish Law by enumerating in succession those which occur yearly (festivals), monthly (new moons), and weekly (Sabbath observance). Given that the OT loci which Paul’s locution most closely resembles appear to have precisely this same referential effect, Blomberg’s suggestion seems highly plausible.
<br /> Seventh-Day Adventist and Sabbatarian exegesis of Col. 2:16-17 often attempts to show that Paul uses σάββατον in v.16 to indicate special Sabbath celebrations associated with the Mosaic system of appointed feasts and not weekly Sabbath observance. Ronald du Preez advances the hypothesis that the immediate lexical context of σάββατον (or שַׁבָּת) in the OT and NT consistently indicates whether the weekly Sabbath ordinance or festal observance is to be understood. According to du Preez’s study, one or more members of a certain set of Hebrew and Greek lexemes (including those translated to English as “keep,” “the Sabbath,” “day,” “holy,” and “my”) consistently occur in the syntactic context of σάββατον (שַׁבָּת) when the weekly Sabbath is manifestly intended, while one or more members of a disjoint set of lexemes (including those translated as “your” or “her”) consistently occur with σάββατον (שַׁבָּת) when the festal Sabbaths are contemplated. Since none of the usual lexical signals of the weekly Sabbath are present in Col. 2:16, and since one of the specified lexical signals of the special festal Sabbaths is present in Hosea 2:11, the LXX text with which Paul’s triad in Col. 2:16 evidences the strongest structural affinity, du Preez concludes that Paul must have meant to exhort and instruct the Colossians in matters of festal, and not weekly, Sabbath observance.
<br /> Blomberg handily shows this conclusion to be wanting for corroboration by pointing out that, even granting the validity of du Preez’s hypothesis concerning contextual lexical indicators of the meaning of σάββατον, du Preez’s exegesis of Col. 2:16 does not follow since none of the lexemes signaling either meaning of σάββατον are present in Col. 2:16. Furthermore, the hypothesis itself comes to appear dubious upon close evaluation of the OT texts. In Hosea 2 the prophet likens idolatrous Israel to an adulterous wife and pronounces imminent judgment against her which will entail the termination of a variety of the people’s holy day celebrations as enunciated in verse 11. The immediately apparent reason for the third feminine singular suffix appended to שַׁבָּת in verse 11 is the sustained metaphorical portraiture of Israel as an unfaithful wife rather than the intentional lexical marking of the term for special festal denotation. Since, as Blomberg notes, the judgment foretold in this verse entails the halt of all holy day celebrations (general nouns modified byכֹּל bracket the trio of festival, new moon, and Sabbath) it makes sense that the weekly Sabbath would be mentioned in addition to yearly and monthly celebrations. Ezek. 45:17 is another probable candidate as the background of Col 2:16 which du Preez utilizes in support of both his hypothesis and his exegesis of the Colossians passage. In the proximate context the prophet elaborates upon the different kinds of holy days this verse lists in succession. Ezek. 46:1-3 expounds details concerning the rites to be associated with Sabbath observance in the restored temple and makes clear that the weekly Sabbath is in view (even employing du Preez’s lexical indicators of weekly Sabbath). To suggest an equivocation on שַׁבָּת in this near context requires impressive exegetical sleight of hand indeed. If du Preez’s hypothesis is discounted, these OT texts, along with many of the others which enumerate the triad of festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths, may be seen to support and strengthen the view that Paul’s statement in Col. 216 makes exhaustive reference to holy days prescribed in the Jewish Law.
<br /> It seems most reasonable, therefore, to conclude that in Col. 2:16-17 Paul is urging believers not to let themselves be judged in regard to weekly Sabbath keeping since the weekly Sabbath, like the food laws, the new moon and festival days, was a shadow (σκιὰ ) of the coming things (τῶν μελλόντων) , but the reality (σῶμα ) is Christ. In urging them thus, Paul effectively looses the Colossian Christians from continued observance of the rites associated with weekly Sabbath keeping and directs them to Christ that they might through faith participate in the realities these rites had foreshadowed. This evinces a conception of the Mosaic Sabbath as a typological ordinance which is fulfilled in Christ. Paul’s teaching that the weekly Sabbath ordinance is fulfilled in Christ should not surprise anyone. Yet Paul’s teaching concerning the typological manner in which the weekly Sabbath ordinance is fulfilled in Christ seems at odds with the view of the Sabbath as morally binding in its New Covenant obligation.
<br /> The view of the Sabbath command as a moral aspect of the Mosaic Law is commonly motivated in large part by the hermeneutical presupposition of the Decalogue’s primary functionality as a legal code propounding the moral core of the Mosaic Law as “timeless expression of God’s moral will.” Appeal is made to the distinguished character of the Decalogue within the rest of the Torah, and to several NT texts forthrightly reaffirming parts of the Decalogue and applying them together as perpetually binding moral imperative in order to ground this presupposition (Matt 5:21-29, Matt. 19:17-19, Rom. 9-10). Yet while the unique nature of the Decalogue and its majestic moral revelation should be appreciated and reverenced, the notion that the purport of the Decalogue is limited to the exposition of legal code delineating the “moral essence” of the Mosaic Law does not stand up to exegetical scrutiny. Meredith Kline laments the fact that a customary tendency to take the “ten words” written by the finger of God on two stone tablets and given to Moses as a legal code has obstructed the apprehension of their true nature as a suzerainty treaty, epitomizing the covenant granted by YHWH to his elect and redeemed servant, Israel. Kline insightfully compares the form of the “ten words” and the manner of their bestowal with parallel ANE treaty form and protocol to demonstrate that the two tablets given to Moses and deposited inside the ark were duplicate copies of content that was intended to represent and bear witness to the whole of the Sinai covenant, not merely two tables of a brief ethical catechism. Viewing the Decalogue as representative of and witness to the whole of the Sinai covenant, we may expect to find typological as well as moral aspects of that covenant summarily comprehended therein. Thus Paul’s conception of the Fourth Commandment as a typological ordinance fulfilled in Christ should not strike us as surprising or disconcerting.
<br /> If asserting that an element of the Sinaitic Decalogue is typological in character appears daring, proposing that the creation ordinance that it republishes is so might seem cavalier. Yet the consistent testimony of Scripture confirms rather than cautions us in viewing the creational mandate of the weekly Sabbath as a calling for God’s covenantal image-bearers to imitate His eschatological seventh day rest as a way of typologically prefiguring their future participation in the Lord’s eternal eschatological rest and enthronement. In order to appreciate the Sabbath ordinance in its typological function we must first apprehend its antitype telos and then trace the lines of its tributary flow toward fulfillment in that telos.
<br />The Gen. 1-2 creation account clearly indicates the movement of God’s fiat-creational activity toward consummation in the seventh day. After the account describes God’s work in days one through three of constructing the diverse cosmic realms and in days four through six of constituting beings to “rule” or “have dominion” over the respective realms, it announces the plenary completion of God’s handiwork in Gen. 2:1, and in 2:2 relates that God rested (שׁבת ) from all His work on the seventh day. The pattern of the narrative’s hierarchical ascent from focus on realms to focus on rulers of the respective realms guides us to an understanding of God’s rest upon the finishing of all the heavens and earth and all their hosts as a rest of absolute dominion over all. There is no mention of “morning,” and “evening,” in association with the seventh day (these are the rhythmically reiterated terminal markers of every other day-frame), which meaningful omission reserves for the divine rest of that day an unbounded transcendent duration wherein God’s perpetual Kingship over all things is unshakably established.
<br />Fuller, more direct exposition uniting consummatory and regal aspects of God’s rest in Gen. 2:2 is given in the NT book of Hebrews. In Heb. 3:11 the author, through his quotation of Ps. 95:11, invokes the historical type of the Israelites’ entry into and occupation of the land of Canaan (or their failure of enter and occupy) in the homiletic application of urging believers to persevere that they might enter the eschatological rest which God has set before them. In 4:3-4 the antitypal promised rest (κατάπαυσις) which the unbelieving Israelites failed to enter (3:19), and which even Joshua who led the successful conquest of Canaan could not give (4:8) is associated with God’s rest on the unbounded seventh day of creation. It becomes clear in 4:9-11 that the eschatological Sabbath rest (σαββατισμός) which the author exhorts the believers to strive to enter is a precisely a participation in the same seventh day rest which God has enjoyed from the foundation of the world (cf. especially 4:10).
<br />Genesis 2:3 sets forth the original Sabbath ordinance. This verse records God’s acts of blessing the seventh day and making it holy. As Kline notes, God’s previous acts of blessing in the creation account were aimed specifically at beatifying the creatures’ spheres of existence (Gen. 1:22, 1:28). Throughout the Torah the designation of persons, places, and objects asקֹדֶשׁ marks their commitment to employ in the sacramental typological rites of Old Covenant worship. We may thus recognize in Genesis 2:3 a similar designation of an element of the creaturely realm of existence marking it for commitment to use in typological covenantal worship ritual. The consummative enthronement of YHWH over the heavens and the earth and all their hosts heralded in 2:1-2 immediately issues in a mirroring anticipatory religious mandate for His covenant creaturely vice-regents. In Exod. 20:11 the Fourth Commandment cites Genesis 2:3 as rationale for abiding by its stipulation of a weekly Sabbath noting that because God rested on the seventh day, therefore He blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Kline plausibly suggests that this variation in terminology bespeaks a conscious distinction and correlation between archetype (God’s transcendent eschatological regal repose) and ectype (God’s consecration of a day of the week for human celebration of the former) consonant with the distinction and correlation evident in Genesis 2:1-3.
<br />Hebrews 4:1-11 thus confirms what we might have inferred about the hope and expectation which would have been the spirit of this ordinance’s observance from the very beginning. Eschatological Sabbath rest (σαββατισμός) – participation in the in the seventh day rest which God has enjoyed from the foundation of the world - is the antitype and telos of weekly Sabbath keeping for man. Thus before the Fall, man would have yearned after this telos, as he was reminded in the pattern of his weeks’ movement toward Sabbath celebration, of the pattern of all things’ movement toward the great seventh day of the Lord’s consummate enthronement which would reward his own obedience with eschatological blessing. Since the Fall, God has graciously opened to sinners the promise of entering His rest, and as the promise has stood open, yet pending, believers have yearned for this telos. At one time they were reminded through weekly Sabbath keeping of the movement of history toward the seventh day of the Lord and the eschatological blessing it would somehow bring for them despite their disobedience. But these were a shadow of the things to come, the reality is Christ’s.
<br />Though our full inheritance of σαββατισμός is still outstanding, Jesus Christ’s is not. Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Holy Spirit by His resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4), and by way of this conquest, the Lord of the Sabbath entered into the eschatological rest and enthronement of God’s seventh day. Believers in Christ are given His Holy Spirit (who is also featured in the protology/eschatology of the creation narrative) and so are granted a foretaste and earnest of the participation in God’s consummation rest which Christ now fully enjoys (Rom. 8:23). The eschatological σαββατισμός which Christ has thus inaugurated in His resurrection for all His own is the fulfillment of the ritual type of the weekly Sabbath. This reality may now be tasted and expectantly awaited simply through faith in Christ, and thus faith in Christ and rest in Him are the binding New Covenant obligations associated with the fulfilled Mosaic Sabbath ordinance.
<br />3) The Lord’s Day
<br />All the gospel writers take pains to highlight the fact that Christ’s resurrection conquest occurred on the first day of the week. In Revelation, John purposively notes the date of His visions of the eschatologically enthroned Lamb who rules and conquers on behalf of His saints to have been the Lord’s Day, the day of the Lord’s resurrection, so as to promote the use of the apocalypse in church’s liturgy. Luke evidences intentionality in recording two occasions of the believers’ gathering to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. The consistent and intentional apostolic witness is sufficient evidence to guide our inference that association of the corporate worship which the Lord requires of us with the celebration of Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week is obligatory. Such specific obligations of worship as the convoked gathering to hear the preached Word, and the celebration of the sacrament are required on the Lord’s Day per the NT. Devotion of the whole of the day to public and private worship of the Lord, Christian fellowship, and acts of mercy are beneficial in lands and societies which allow or promote such activities among Christians on the first day of the week. Yet, general cessation of work on the Lord’s Day is nowhere Scripturally required. Simply in view of the specificity of the Lord’s Day as a particular day out of the seven day week some relation to the fulfilled Sabbath ordinance is naturally suspected. From the synthesis of the biblical notions we will not falter in viewing our Lord’s Day worship as a celebration of Christ’s inauguration of eschatological Sabbath rest and an anticipation of our entry into that rest at His consummatory return.
<br /></span>David Brunerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12693822722538988552noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-58791438126981070562011-04-13T15:28:00.000-07:002011-04-13T15:37:46.394-07:00On Sabbatarianism: My New PositionI have recently embraced the position that the New Testament supports the position that there is to be a New Covenant Sabbath rest on Sunday. My reasoning for this new position of mine is the following theological argument:<br /><br />In my estimation the best theological argument in favor of new covenant sabbath observance on Sunday is Mark 2:23-28 in conjunction with a whole host of passages where Christians are meeting on the first day of the week which John calls the Lord's day in Revelation 1:10. In Mark 2:23-28 it is important to notice that Jesus does not abolish the sabbath as he does with other Mosaic covenant laws in Mark 7:19, rather Jesus corrects the Pharisee's application of the Sabbath. If Jesus wanted to abolish the Sabbath then this would be place to expect such an abolition, but instead we have Christ using the Mosaic Law to justify his understanding of the Sabbath in verses 25-26. When Jesus says that the Sabbath is made for man, but that man was not made for the sabbath this suggests that the sabbath was made for the benefit of man and that man was not made for benefit of the sabbath. In other words, Jesus is saying that when the sabbath was made at creation it was made for the benefit of man. Jesus then is teaching that an essential attribute of mankind is that they benefit from a sabbath rest. Because Jesus is teaching that a sabbath rest is essentially beneficial for mankind then he positively establishes a type of sabbath observance for the new covenant. In verse 28 Jesus says that he is Lord of the Sabbath and the present tense has a gnomic usage here. The fact that it is a timeless truth that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath moral obligation then it is reasonable to think that Sabbath observance is a timeless moral truth. Therefore, Jesus is teaching in the New Testament that there still is a sabbath rest. On the basis of Colossians 2:16 we know that the Mosaic observance on Saturday has been abolished. So then the question before us then is which days is the most plausible day for a sabbath rest on the basis of the New Testament evidence? The best candidate for a sabbath rest then is the first day of the week (Sunday) because this was the day when Chris resurrected and when the new covenant church gathered for the preaching of the word, collecting of offering, and administering the sacraments (John 20:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10). For these reasons then I think we have good reason for thinking that there is some type of Sabbath observance on the Lord's Day (Sunday).Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-48640663175918167532011-02-13T19:08:00.000-08:002011-02-13T19:13:58.976-08:00Debate on The Future of Israel Mp3 Nathanael Taylor vs Ben RochesterThe debate can be downloaded here: http://ruberad.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/hs-romans-11/<br /><br />The debate is downloaded in two parts so if you want to listen to the entire thing make sure to download both parts. Listen and decide for yourselves which is the correct view.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-18793335180284669312011-02-08T12:55:00.000-08:002011-02-08T13:02:45.784-08:00Kevin DeYoung: Tradition Still Requires An InterpretationKevin DeYoung has put up a very helpful article over at The Gospel Coalition regarding the interpretation of tradition. It's an argument that has been made many times here at this blog, but a good refresher never hurts. Follow the link below.<br /><br /><a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/08/tradition-still-requires-interpretation/">Tradition Still Requires Interpretation</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-78525709313522730912011-02-07T14:42:00.000-08:002011-02-07T14:56:54.485-08:00Upcoming Debate on the Future of Ethnic IsraelThis upcoming Saturday I will be participating in a formal debate with Ben Rochester. I will be arguing that it is reasonable to think that the word of God promises in Romans 11 that there will be a future conversion of ethnic Israel, whereas Rochester will be arguing that it is not reasonable to think that the word of God promises that there will be a future conversion of ethnic Israel. If anybody would want to come then that would be great. I would greatly appreciate your support. But if you are not able to make it I will provide a free mp3 audio recording of the debate on this blog. <br /><br />Here are the details about the debate:<br /><br />What is Hoagies & Stogies?<br /><br />Hoagies & Stogies is a men’s fellowship for reformed, theological debate; it was created by one of my elders before he was an elder. When he was ordained, he got too busy, and he gave the reins of the ministry to me. The men gather for a simple meal of hoagies, with home-brewed beer, or soft drinks. After a while, we all refill our glasses, and those who are so inclined light up their best stogies and kick back and enjoy a theological debate. But if you are not a smoker (like me), or not a drinker (or not both!), you are still welcome. (You can consider it your mission to ensure that Christian liberty is exercised with due charity!)<br />What/when/where is the next Hoagies & Stogies?<br /><br /> * What: Rom 11 and the future of Israel<br /> * When: Feb 12, 5pm–<br /> * Where: Patton Compound: 3768 Miles Ct, Spring Valley.<br /> * Who: We’ve got two WSCAL students. On the ”Future for Israel” side, Nate Taylor. On the ”No National Conversion side”, Ben Rochester.<br /><br />If anyone wants to come please RSVP in the message box on this site: http://ruberad.wordpress.com/hoagies-stogies/ so they know how many people to expect. So far we are expecting to have about 50 men coming.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-26462302010591961012011-01-04T13:12:00.000-08:002011-01-04T13:17:35.273-08:00An Argument for the Active Obedience of Jesus Christ<meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P.sdfootnote { margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 10pt } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A.sdfootnoteanc { font-size: 57% } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><u><b>An Argument for the Imputation of The Active Obedience of Jesus Christ</b></u></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><i><b>Introduction</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> There are many Christians who are perfectly comfortable saying that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins. But the Historic Reformed Protestant Christians have wanted to say more than this. Reformed Christians have wanted to say that Jesus Christ not only paid the legal debt for our sins on the cross, but that Jesus also followed the demands of the law perfectly in our place<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></sup>. In other words, Jesus' suffering the debt for our sins and his perfect obedience to God’s law is legally imputed to us in our justification. Jesus' suffering for the legal debt of our sin is referred to as the passive obedience of Christ, whereas Jesus following the law perfectly in our place for our justification is referred to as the active obedience of Christ. Evangelical Protestants who hold to justification by faith alone typically hold that justification involves the forgiveness of sins on account of Christ's death on the cross. However, there are many who hold to both passive obedience and justification by faith alone, but reject Christ’s active obedience, arguing that there is no clear scriptural evidence for this doctrine. This position is endorsed by evangelicals like Robert Gundry and Norman Shepherd, and also many federal visionist proponents<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></sup>. The question of whether or not Christ's active obedience is imputed to us is very pressing because it concerns our justification: how we are made right before a Holy God. Moreover, many have cast much doubt on this crucial doctrine, which makes it all the more important to investigate. Therefore, it is my intent to argue that the active obedience of Jesus Christ is taught in scripture by a good and necessary inference from the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I do this by first giving a biblical and theological justification for the use of a good and necessary inference from scripture to support doctrinal positions. Secondly, I argue that justification requires perfect obedience to the law, which cannot be replaced by sacrifice. Thirdly, I argue briefly for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Fourthly, I use the previous three points to establish that Christ is the ground of our active obedience, which is legally imputed to us. Lastly, I answer an objection to my thesis. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><i><b>A Good and Necessary Inference</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Many individuals object to the active obedience of Christ on the basis that there is no specific text that says "Christ's perfect obedience to the law is imputed to you". This is why it is essential to my argument that I demonstrate that, from scripture, a good and necessary inference is legitimate for establishing points of doctrine. To be clear, a good and necessary inference is an inference that is compatible with other biblical truths, and is reasonable to the degree that to doubt it would be unreasonable<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></sup>. I will now give a theological justification of a good and necessary inference for establishing doctrine. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The two main reasons it is warranted to make a good and necessary inference are that we presuppose it in the doctrine of the two wills of Christ, and we see that Jesus makes use of a good and necessary inference when he reasons from the Old Testament during his earthly ministry. There is no text in the Bible that says that Jesus has two wills- a human will and a divine will. However, this is a legitimate inference when we read texts that tell us that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, because a fully divine nature will have a divine will, and a fully human nature will have a human will. So if the inference is legitimate with respect to the two wills of Christ, then it ought to be legitimate when formulating other doctrine. The second reason we should hold that a good and necessary inference is warranted when establishing doctrine is because the Bible, itself, teaches this method for establishing doctrine. This is what Jesus does in Matthew 22:31-32 when he argues for an afterlife by appealing to the Old Testament against the Sadducees, who rejected an afterlife. Jesus makes the inference that because God is God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, they will have an afterlife. He is implying that if God is your God, you will not be dead, but living. The text that Jesus appeals to does not explicitly say anything about them having an afterlife at all. Rather, Jesus infers from the text that the great patriarchs of the Old Testament will have an afterlife, based on the nature of God and his relationship to the patriarchs. Hence, because it was legitimate for Jesus to make a good and necessary inference from scripture to establish points of doctrine, it is also legitimate for us to make a good and necessary inference from scripture to establish points of doctrine. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"> <i><b>Perfect Obedience For Justification</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> With this understanding of scripture and doctrine in place, I can move on to the second step in the argument, which is that God demands in his law perfect perpetual obedience for justification, which cannot be replaced by sacrifice.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> One of the strongest biblical arguments in favor of God demanding perfect perpetual obedience for justification is Luke 10:25-28. In verse 25 we see that the Lawyer asks Jesus this question: "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" The Lawyer is asking a question that has to do with how someone can have the right to inherit eternal life. Jesus answers in verse 26 by asking the Lawyer his understanding from the law, of what one needs to do to have the right to inherit eternal life. The Lawyer answers in verse 27 by saying that one needs to love God with all that he is and that one should also love his neighbor as himself. Jesus confirms his understanding in verse 28 by saying "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” To firmly establish that Jesus is teaching that in order to have the right to inherit eternal life one needs to be perfectly perpetually obedient, two points from this text should be considered. The first point is that when Jesus says "do this, and you will live" he is not speaking of earthly life, but of eternal life. Given that the context indicates that the nature of the lawyer’s question in verse 25 has to do with eternal life, this is the most plausible reading of the text. The second point is that the conditions for eternal life in the passage are that "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind," and this entails perfect perpetual obedience to God’s law. The reason for thinking that this entails perfect perpetual obedience to God's law is that if a person does not follow just one commandment, then he could not be loving God with all that he is. If the person were loving God with all that he is, then he would follow all of the commandments perfectly. To delineate this more precisely, suppose we have two persons, Jones and Smith. Jones follows all of the commandments except one, whereas Smith follows all of the commandments perfectly. It seems we would say that Smith is loving God with all that he is and Jones is not loving God with all that he is. Therefore, it follows that if one were to love God with all that he is, then he would have to follow the law with perfect perpetual obedience; this, according to Jesus, is what it takes for one to have the right to inherit eternal life. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The general testimony of the scriptures affirm that in order to be justified one needs to follow the law with perfect perpetual obedience. For instance in Romans 2:13 Paul writes<b> </b> "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. " Paul writes this verse in the context of a larger argument that shows that both Jew and Gentile are guilty before God on the basis of their works (Rom. 3:19-20). Therefore, the sense in which <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">dikaio,w </span>is being used in this passage is not demonstrative, but it is in the sense that those who do and follow God’s law will be declared righteous<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a></sup>. According to James 2:10, if one fails to do and follow the law at just one point, he or she is guilty for all of it. So, in order to do the law at all one has to do all of it perfectly, because if one were to fail at any point, he or she would be held accountable for all of it. This is further clarified in Galatians 3:10 were Paul argues that all who want to be justified by keeping the law are under a curse because a person has to do "all" of the things in the law or else be under a curse. Clearly, Paul says that all are under this curse because everyone has failed to do all of the things in the law. This curse is contrasted by the blessing of justification by faith alone, and Paul’s implication is that one who is under this curse cannot be justified. In addition, when Jesus is communicating the true meaning of the Mosaic Law at the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5, he reveals to us God's standard in his law. Verse 48 states "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." When this phrase in verse 48 is used, it occurs within the context of Jesus quoting and commenting on a commandment contained in the Mosaic Law, so it is evident that this phrase has to do with God’s obligation to us in the Mosaic Law. Therefore, the scriptures clearly teach that in order to be justified one needs to "do" with perfect perpetual obedience. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Another reason for thinking that justification requires perfect obedience is Anselmian Perfect Being Theology<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a></sup>. Perfect Being Theology starts with the premise that God is the most perfect being, and from that premise infers certain characteristics about the nature of God<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></sup>. The reasoning for the law requiring perfect obedience for justification is as follows: God is the most perfect being, and because he is the most perfect being, he will have every property that is better for him to have rather than lack. It is better for God to have the property of requiring perfection in his law for justification, rather than not requiring perfection in his law for justification. A perfect being would obligate perfection for justification rather than be satisfied with imperfection for justification. Therefore, it follows that God, a perfect being, obligates perfection for justification. It also seems likely that it would be better for the most perfect being to have the highest quality of righteousness, rather than lack this property. The highest quality of righteousness would require perfection for righteousness. God has the highest degree of righteousness, and therefore requires perfection for righteousness. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The requirement for perfect perpetual obedience for our justification cannot be replaced by any sacrifice or a payment of the debt we owe as sinners, but rather obedience in addition to sacrifice is required. It is not that sacrifice or payment of debt can replace obedience, but rather obedience must be in addition to a payment of debt or a sacrifice. The example given by Dr. David VanDrunen suffices to demonstrate this point: Suppose there was a father who told his son that if he completed all of his homework he would receive dessert as a reward, and if he failed to complete this task he would be punished<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></sup>. The boy, in fact, fails to complete the task and is punished. It would then be counter-intuitive to think that because the boy was punished he is rightfully entitled to the reward of dessert that he was initially promised, if he then completes his homework<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></sup>. This is analogous to the position that Adam was in when he was asked by God to follow a command to receive eschatological life, as symbolized by the tree of life. As demonstrated in previous paragraphs, God requires perfect perpetual obedience to his law for justification, thereby meriting the attainment of eschatological life. Therefore, in order for a person to be justified he or she would need to pay the debt of the sins committed, and to obey the commandments given by God. It would be irrational to think that this could be replaced by any mere sacrifice or payment of debt.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The fact that sacrifice and payment of debt cannot replace perfect perpetual obedience to God’s law is not just a truth of reason, but a truth of scripture, which is specifically taught in Mark 12:28-34. In Mark 12:30, Jesus teaches that the greatest commandment is to love God with all of our ability. In verse 33, the scribes say this about the nature of the relationship between obedience and sacrifice: "And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Affirming the scribes in verse 34, Jesus teaches that perfect perpetual obedience to God's law cannot be replaced by sacrifices to pay the debt for our sins, because perfect perpetual obedience is the most important element in keeping God's law<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></sup>. If obedience is better than sacrifice from God’s perspective, then it is implausible to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice could replace God's demand for our perfect perpetual obedience. Therefore, perfect perpetual obedience remains a necessary condition for anyone to be justified, and this demand cannot be replaced by any sacrifice. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><i><b>Justification by Faith Alone </b></i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The doctrine of justification by faith alone is very relevant to the question of active obedience because if justification is truly by faith alone, then there are no works or upholding of the law that can contribute to one's justification. Therefore, when a person is justified by faith alone, the keeping of the law cannot be on the basis of the sinner’s work, but on the basis of a sinless person’s work. It is the purpose of this section to establish the forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone, so that in the next section I can make a good and necessary inference that Christ is the ground of our active obedience. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The scriptures explicitly teach the forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone. Romans 3:28 says<b> </b>"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Those who disagree with justification by faith alone try to object to this passage on the basis that "works of law", or <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">e;rgwn no,mou, </span>refers only to a specific type of works, therefore not excluding all types of works from justification. The problem with this response becomes apparent as Paul continues his argument about the nature of justification in Romans 4 as indicated by verses 1-2 and 5. Paul reaches a crucial point in verse 5 when he says that a person is ungodly when justified. The Greek word for justified is <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">dikaio,w, </span>and this word means to be declared righteous, to acquit, or to treat as righteous. But what <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">dikaio,w </span>can never mean is to be inwardly transformed to be righteous, and then declared righteous. So when Paul says in Romans 4:5 <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">evpi. to.n dikaiou/nta to.n avsebh/ logi,zetai h` pi,stij auvtou/ eivj dikaiosu,nhn\, </span>he does not mean to suggest that God transforms the ungodly sinner to be righteous and then the individual is declared righteous. Rather, what the text is suggesting is that the ungodly are legally declared righteous by God. This legal context is all the more apparent when one realizes that terms such as count or <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">logi,zomai</span><span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;"><b> </b></span>in Romans 4:5<span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;"><b> </b></span>can carry a legal meaning as well<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a></sup>. In addition, <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">logi,zomai </span>is also used in verse 4 with <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">ovfei,lhma, </span>which is a legal term for debt<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a></sup>.<b> </b> If the ungodly are justified by faith in Romans 4:5, then it would it follow that there are no type of works that have contributed to one's justification. If any work could count toward one’s justification, then it would be the same as the godly being justified, which clearly contradicts Romans 4:5. Therefore, when Paul speaks of <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">e;rgwn no,mou</span> in Romans 3:28, he is excluding all types of works since Romans 4:5 teaches that one is ungodly when justified by faith. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Another argument in favor of justification by faith alone is that works are incompatible with the gracious nature of justification. Romans 3:24 describes justification as ultimately gracious when it says that we have been "justified by his grace". If we then discover that grace excludes all types of works, I will have good reason for thinking that one is justified by faith alone when Paul speaks of being "justified by his grace" in Romans 3:24. According to Romans 11:5-6, if something is on the basis of one's works then it is no longer grace, because grace by definition excludes works as its basis. One may object to my understanding of Romans 11:5-6 by saying that <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">e;rgon </span>is being used to indicate a specific type of work, rather than good and bad works in general. However, the problem with this objection is that in Romans 9:11 <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">e;rgon</span> is being used synonymously with good and bad actions. Moreover, in Romans 4:16 we see Paul teaching that a promise is by faith in order that it can have a gracious character. Grace, in Paul's thought, is such that it excludes works as its basis, yet it is compatible with the nature of faith that he describes in Romans 3 and 4. Therefore, when Paul speaks of justification by grace in Romans 3:24, he is speaking of a justification that excludes all types of works, yet includes faith; this is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"> <i><b>Justification in Christ Alone</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Now that I have established that necessary inference from scripture is legitimate, the requirement of perfect perpetual obedience to the law for justification, and justification by faith alone, we can infer from these three truths that Jesus's active obedience is legally imputed to us in justification. In order for us to be justified, God requires perfect perpetual obedience that cannot be replaced by sacrifice. When one is justified by faith alone, it cannot be because of one's own perfect perpetual obedience. There are two reasons for this assertion. The first is that every person has failed to meet God's demands for perfect perpetual obedience because all persons other than Jesus are sinners (Rom. 3:23; Heb. 4:15). The second reason why it cannot be one's own perfect perpetual obedience after he or she has been justified, is because the doctrine of justification by faith alone requires that no work contributes to justification. Since it cannot be our own perfect perpetual obedience that justifies, it follows that it is another person’s perfect perpetual obedience legally imputed to us in justification. There was only ever one person who was perfectly obedient to God's standards, and the scriptures teach that this is the God-man Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:15; 1 Jo 2:1). Therefore, it follows that Jesus Christ’s prefect perpetual obedience to the law is imputed to us in our justification. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><b>Answering an Objection</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> In this section I answer an objection to the doctrine of the active obedience of Christ. There are many common objections to this doctrine that are either implicitly answered in this paper, or are not compelling<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a></sup>. In this section I answer a unique objection to the active obedience of Christ that may seem to be compelling. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> One of the most compelling objections against the active obedience of Christ is that the doctrine relies on an unbiblical notion of merit<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a></sup>. This argument has been leveled by many who are in involved in the so-called "Federal Vision" movement<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a></sup>. The argument made by federal visionist proponents is that active obedience presupposes merit, and merit is unbiblical, therefore, active obedience is unbiblical. Those who object to this notion of merit often just simply claim that it is not taught in the Bible, thus it is unbiblical<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="#sdfootnote15sym"><sup>15</sup></a></sup>. However, James Jordan goes a step further and argues that Luke 17:7-10 teaches against the idea of meriting or earning a reward<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="#sdfootnote16sym"><sup>16</sup></a></sup>. In this parable Jesus teaches that when a servant obeys his master’s commands, he does not expect a thank you because he is only doing what he ought to do. Likewise, when Christians do what God requires they should think themselves unworthy servants, because they have just done what they ought to do. Jordan then appeals to Philippians 2:7 to warrant the idea that Jesus was a servant, and because he was a servant of God he could not merit anything, because he would only be doing what was commanded of him by the Father<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="#sdfootnote17sym"><sup>17</sup></a></sup>. Jordan then claims the reason we get redemption through Christ is on the basis of the Father's promise to Christ, and not on the basis of the Father rewarding Christ for what he earned.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote18anc" href="#sdfootnote18sym"><sup>18</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> The fundamental problem with Jordan's argument from the parable is that this parable is in the context of sin, and it is illegitimately applied to Christ. The first clear indication that this parable is to be seen in the context of sin and fallen humanity is that Jesus is addressing this parable to his disciples, who are sinners (Luke 17:1). The second indication that this is being applied to sinners is that in verse 10 the servants are deemed to be <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">avcrei/oj, </span>which means worthless or unprofitable<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote19anc" href="#sdfootnote19sym"><sup>19</sup></a></sup>. This parable is perfectly compatible with the idea of one meriting salvation as defended in this paper, and it is also compatible with the Reformed Protestant tradition, because only persons who are sinless are in a position to merit an eschatological reward. Furthermore, Jordan's contention that this applies to Jesus on the basis of the Philippians 2:7 language of Jesus being a "servant" is not plausible, because Jesus is indeed a servant, but it does not say that he is a worthless servant. In addition, it hardly seems appropriate to call the second person of the trinity assuming human flesh to be a servant who is worthless or unprofitable, as the Greek word <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">avcrei/oj </span>suggests. Jordan's view of this parable is without any support, and it seems that there are good reasons for doubting his interpretation of this parable. Therefore, this parable cannot serve as an argument to refute the idea that Jesus Christ merited justification for us. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Contrary to the claims made by Jordan and other federal visionists, the idea of merit is directly taught in the scriptures. Romans 4:4-5 contrasts two alternative means of justification: one of works meriting an eschatological reward and the other trusting in God for justification. In verse 4, the first means of justification is by working, and the person who works receives a reward. Paul makes it clear that this reward is not a gift, but it is rather something <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">ovfei,lhma, </span>or owed to the individual who has done these works. The idea that God owes us something for our works is inherent in the concept of meriting, or earning. Furthermore, verse 4 is clearly about justification because this is the context that Paul sets up in 4:1-2. Finally, Paul uses the Greek word <span style="font-family:Bwgrkl, Times New Roman;">de.</span> to contrast verse 4, which speaks of earning a reward by doing works, and verse 5, which speaks of justification by trusting. This suggests that Paul is contrasting two alternative ways to salvation: one meriting justification by works and the other trusting in God for justification<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote20anc" href="#sdfootnote20sym"><sup>20</sup></a></sup>. Therefore, the scriptures clearly teach the category of merit, contrary to the claims made by Jordan and the other federal visionists. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> Another reason for thinking that a perfect person can merit justification is as follows: if one rejects the idea of merit, then he or she has ultimately undermined the idea that God is the most perfect being<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote21anc" href="#sdfootnote21sym"><sup>21</sup></a></sup>. For God to be the most perfect being entails that he will have the highest degree of justice. It would be entirely unjust of God not to reward a creature who were to follow all of his demands perfectly. If God did not reward the perfectly good creature with a good reward, then God would not be a perfect being. God is a perfect being, however, so out of the necessity of his nature, he has to reward the perfectly good creature with a good reward. Clearly, when one rejects the idea of a creature meriting by perfect perpetual obedience an eschatological reward from God, then one has ultimately undermined the perfection of God. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER"><i><b>Conclusion</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;"> In this paper I have demonstrated that the active obedience of Jesus Christ is taught in scripture by a good and necessary inference from the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I established this by giving a biblical and theological justification for the use of a good and necessary inference from scripture to support doctrinal positions. Secondly, I established that justification requires perfect perpetual obedience to the law that cannot be replaced by sacrifice. Thirdly, I established the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Fourthly, I argued that these three truths lead to the conclusion that Christ is the ground of our active obedience, which is legally imputed to us. Lastly, I responded to an objection to this thesis. Throughout this paper we have seen that a rejection of the active obedience of Christ is not only unbiblical, but it either undermines the doctrine of God, or it undermines the doctrine of justification. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 200%;" align="CENTER">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;" align="CENTER"><u><b>Bibliography</b></u></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Bibleworks 6.0</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Clark, R. Scott. <i>Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California</i>. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2007. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Husbands, Mark, and Daniel J. Treier. <i>Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates</i>. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Johnson, Gary L. W., and Guy Prentiss Waters. <i>By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification</i>. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Moo, Douglas J. <i>The Epistle to the Romans</i>. The new international commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1996. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Morris, Thomas V. <i>Anselmian Explorations: Essays in Philosophical Theology</i>. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Sandlin, Andrew. <i>Backbone of the Bible: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective</i>. Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2004. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Sandlin, Andrew, John H. Armstrong, Don B. Garlington, Mark Horne, Peter J. Leithart, Rich Lusk, and Norman Shepherd. <i>A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to Westminster Seminary California</i>. La Grange, Calif: Kerygma Press, 2007. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="line-height: 0.07in;">Spear, Wayne R., and Anthony T. Selvaggio. <i>The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear</i>. Westminster Assembly and the Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub, 2007. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">The Westminster Confession of Faith </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">White, James R. <i>The God Who Justifies</i>. Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, 2001. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;">Wilkins, J. Steven, and Duane Garner. <i>The Federal Vision</i>. Monroe, La: Athanasius Press, 2004.</p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI Of Justification, Paragraph 1. </span> </p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc">2</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Husbands, Mark, and Daniel J. Treier. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004,pg.17-45; Wilkins, J. Steven, and Duane Garner. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>The Federal Vision</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Monroe, La: Athanasius Press, 2004, pg. 192-195; Sandlin, Andrew, John H. Armstrong, Don B. Garlington, Mark Horne, Peter J. Leithart, Rich Lusk, and Norman Shepherd. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>A Faith That Is Never Alone: A Response to Westminster Seminary California</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. La Grange, Calif: Kerygma Press, 2007, pg. 249-278.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc">3</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Spear, Wayne R., and Anthony T. Selvaggio. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Westminster Assembly and the Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub, 2007, pg. 171-190. </span> </p> <p class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<br /> </p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="#sdfootnote4anc">4</a> Moo, Douglas J. <i>The Epistle to the Romans</i>. The new international commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1996, pg. 147-148.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="#sdfootnote5anc">5</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Morris, Thomas V. Anselmian Explorations: Essays in Philosophical Theology. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987, pg. 10-25.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="#sdfootnote6anc">6</a>Morris, Anselm, 10-25.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="#sdfootnote7anc">7</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Johnson, Gary L. W., and Guy Prentiss Waters. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006, pg. 136.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="#sdfootnote8anc">8</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Johnston, By Faith Alone, 136.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote9"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="#sdfootnote9anc">9</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Johnston, By Faith Alone, 137.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote10"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="#sdfootnote10anc">10</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> White, James R. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>The God Who Justifies</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, pg. 209.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote11"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="#sdfootnote11anc">11</a>White, Justifies, 209.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote12"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 0.07in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="#sdfootnote12anc">12</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Clark, R. Scott. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2007, pg. 252-265.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote13"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="#sdfootnote13anc">13</a>Sandlin, Andrew. <i>Backbone of the Bible: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective</i>. Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2004, pg. 85-101. </p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote14"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="#sdfootnote14anc">14</a>Wilkins, Federal Vision, 192-195</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote15"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="#sdfootnote15anc">15</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Sandlin, Never Alone, 276-278.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote16"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="#sdfootnote16anc">16</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Wilkins, Federal Vision, 192-193.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote17"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="#sdfootnote17anc">17</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Wilkins, Federal Vision, 192-193.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote18"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote18sym" href="#sdfootnote18anc">18</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Wilkins, Federal Vision, 192-193.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote19"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote19sym" href="#sdfootnote19anc">19</a>Bibleworks 6.0</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote20"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote20sym" href="#sdfootnote20anc">20</a>David VanDrunen, Class Lectures on Justification, Fall 2010.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote21"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote21sym" href="#sdfootnote21anc">21</a>Morris, Anselm, 10-25.</p> </div> <span id="fullpost"></span>Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-2175077888974002262010-11-09T22:35:00.001-08:002010-11-09T22:46:37.029-08:00A New Essay By Mike Horton On Sola ScripturaIn this month's issue of Modern Reformation magazine, Mike Horton argues for the classic Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura, and reminds us that the Mainline Reformers have always had to argue against two extremes, Rome and the Anabaptists (or "Radical Reformers"). Since both of these positions are alive and well today (and since Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists have a tendency to lump all Protestants together under the radical or Anabaptist view), this article is timely and helpful. <br /><br />Dr. Horton's essay is available for free <a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1191&var3=main&var4=Home">here.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-60118269623940647582010-11-09T15:17:00.000-08:002010-11-11T19:55:03.649-08:00A Philosophical Argument in Favor of Perfect Perpetual Obedience for JustificationA reason for thinking that justification requires perfect obedience is from Anselmian perfect being theology. Perfect being theology starts with the premise that God is a perfect being and then from that premise it infers certain characteristics about the nature of God. The reasoning then for the Law requiring perfect obedience for justification would be as follows: God is the most perfect being and because he is the most perfect being he will have every property that is better to have rather than for Him to lack that property. It is better for God to have the property of requiring perfection in his law for justification rather than not. This is a strong intuition because of the fact that a perfect being would obligate perfection for justification rather than be satisfied with imperfection for justification. Therefore, it follows from this that God obligates perfection for justification. Furthermore, it also seems that it would be better for the most perfect being to have the highest quality of righteousness rather than lacking this property. The highest quality of righteousness would be such that it would require perfection for righteousness. God has the highest degree of righteousness and therefore requires perfection for righteousness. <br /><br />This is for the paper I am writing for Active Obedience in my Holy Spirit Class @ WSCAL, so any feed back would be most appreciated. (Just so everyone knows this is a indirect argument for justification in Christ alone by faith alone because only Christ was perfect to earn justification in our place which is received by us through faith).Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-56610276111398507282010-10-30T13:52:00.000-07:002010-10-30T14:02:59.716-07:00Eastern Orthodoxy is Necessarily False?!Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that there are three things that God is comprised of: the Essence, the Energies, and the Hypostasis. The Essence of God is entirely unknowable in Eastern Orthodoxy. The energies are the uncreated light or actions of God. The Hypostasis is the persons who are distinct but are related to the Divine essence. Now what is the problem with all this?<br /><br />Well it seems to me that there is at least one thing they know about the Divine Essence, namely, that they cannot know anything about it. They would end up knowing something about a unknowable thing which is a contradiction. Contradictions are necessarily false and this view of the Divine Essence is contradictory. Therefore, it would seem to follow that Eastern Orthodoxy which embraces this view of the Divine Essence is necessarily false.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-58336992681300374652010-09-23T23:22:00.000-07:002010-09-24T02:01:14.831-07:00A Consideration In Favor of the Paedo-baptist ViewThe best formulation of the credo-baptist position to which I have been exposed seems to be the formulation under which physical generation's having significance for covenantal succession is seen to be equivalent to Israelite ethnic identity's having significance for covenantal succession, and as the latter sees fulfillment in Christ so does the former. Yet, while Israelite ethnic identity certainly ceases to bear decisive significance for covenantal succession as Jesus completes His work as the faithful Israelite and ascends to heaven, and pours out His Spirit and opens the covenant of grace to all peoples at Pentecost, I would ask my Baptist brothers and sisters why (biblically speaking) physical generation should not continue to bear significance across the distinct covenant epochs. <br /><br />There is no explicit NT statement asserting that physical generation's significance for covenantal succession ends with Jesus' advent. And nowhere is it explicitly indicated that physical generation's significance for covenantal succession only concerns matters of Israelite ethnic identity. Therefore, this equivalence of significance has to be inferred or assumed. <br /><br />I find this inference or assumption to be mistaken. The covenant promise elaborated to Abraham in Genesis 22 includes the proviso that through Abraham all the peoples of the earth will be blessed. This has the force of a qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) pronouncement certifying that all types of people will be blessed through the outworking of God's gracious covenant (not that every person on earth will partake of its blessing). OT Prophecy foretelling New Covenant times in which many distinct people groups will come to worship the one true God and NT statements concerning the proclamation of the Gospel to the many peoples or families or nations indicate that in the ancient world members of the human race were very much conceived of as diversified under national and ethnic identities and that the inclusion of all people's under the grace of the New Covenant meant the inclusion of people from the many distinct national and ethnic identities. Peoples of these diverse ethnicities and nationalities would have, like the Israelites, understood the succession of their various groups in terms of physical generation. When people of the Jews and the diverse Gentile people groups responded to the calling to be part of a heavenly race at the head of which was Christ the heavenly king, they would have naturally understood their own physical generation to also carry significance for the succession of their new transcendent ethnic identity. Thus the New Covenant entails the fulfillment of the significance of Israelite ethnic identity for covenant succession, and in fulfilling the significance of this specific ethnic identity, it could be seen to broaden the scope of the significance of physical generation for covenant succession to extend this significance to members of Gentile people groups now identified among Christ's transcendent heavenly ethnicity. <span id="fullpost"></span><em></em><em></em>David Brunerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12693822722538988552noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-86707657825608613192010-09-10T03:31:00.000-07:002010-09-10T06:12:29.084-07:00Why I Believe In AnalogyIt has been some time since I have put forth the effort to contribute a post for this blog. Former posts of mine on "Reason From Scripture" have been dedicated to challenging the Thomistic doctrine of Analogy (Clarifying Analogy) and formulating a paradigm of archetypal/ectypal knowledge without resorting to the Thomistic notion (The Concept of Archetypal Knowledge). In this post, with a mild degree of humility and embarassment, I would like to demonstrate that I have had a change of heart and share the reasons that I am now a proponent and defender of a specific formulation of Thomistic analogy. Perhaps you too will find them compelling.<span id="fullpost"> <br /><br />I was persuaded that we must resort to analogy in referencing God through consideration of the way in which Kant arrives at the notion of noumena. Kant is led to posit the concept of "the noumenal" through his recognition that logical possiblity exceeds the range of phenomena which can possibly appear to the human subject in his/her humanly conditioned mode of consciousness and cognition. Kant claims, for example, that that the human mode of consciousness is temporally and spatially conditioned so that the range of phenomena that can possibly appear to the human subject will be all alike temporally and spatially conditioned. Yet, no contradiction is involved in the notion of a timeless and spaceless "something" therefore it must be acknowledged that possibly such a "something" could exist though it can never appear within the human consciousness/cognition. Thus the placeholder: noumena. On Kant's formulation of noumena, however, one would have to remain strictly agnostic as to whether such entities exist and as to what they would be like since we are by definition and of necessity precluded conscious cognitive access to them.<br /><br />In the domain of orthodox Christian theology, a notion of the being of God is given which defies conceptualization under the human mode of cognition. A God is confessed who is in His essence, according to systemmetized revelation, timeless and spaceless, 3 and 1, simple and multi-faceted, etc. While no two of the revealed aspects of God's nature yeild contradiction, taken together they clearly show that human cognition of God "in Himself" is precluded based on the limitations of the human cognitive intellective mode. Still, we are given in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, authoritative, infalible revelation as to what God is "like." Various creaturely pure perfections are supplied after these ends. With the application of each creaturely concept to God, however, it is to be remembered that this manner of predication only indicates what God is "like" in that He is <br />(perfection <em>x</em>) to a degree greater than can be humanly concieved. Thus analogical ascription to God of any creaturely pure perfection "<em>x</em>" sanctioned in Scripture could take the following analytic form: God's nature is "<em>x</em>" like creature <em>s</em> exhibits <em>x</em> but to a degree greater than can be humanly concieved. For instance: God's nature is "wisdom" like Socrates exhibits wisdom but to a degree greater than can be humanly concieved. Thus, through revelation, we are given an analogical notion of what God is like although He defies comprehension under our cognitive mode. </span>David Brunerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12693822722538988552noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-2159435433450667812010-08-26T22:22:00.000-07:002010-08-26T22:47:05.899-07:00A Defense of The Active Obedience of Jesus ChristThis was originally a sermon I preached at Grace URC but I have adapted it to my blog.<br /><br />In this post we are going to take up the Defense of Christ's Active obedience. This is an important doctrine for understanding justification by faith alone and there have been some who even claim to be “Reformed” who reject this doctrine. Christ's Active obedience is Christ's perfect obedience with respect to the Law of God and this is imputed to us when we first have saving faith in Christ. This is distinct from but not separate from Christ's passive obedience which is Christ allowing himself to be the just satisfaction for our sins on the cross. Both the active and passive obedience of Christ are given to us in our justification. If we do not have both the passive and active obedience of Christ no one can be saved. The active obedience of Christ is a very important topic because it has to do with the Gospel. It is a sad thing that many in the church are either ignorant of this doctrine or they explicitly reject this doctrine. So it is more than fitting that we look at the scriptures to establish this essential doctrine of the Christian faith. <br /><br />One way to prove active obedience is to start with the assumption of the truth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Rom. 4:1-8). In the Reformed doctrine of justification one is entirely righteousness to inherit eternal life without adding any works of their own to their justification. However, the Bible teaches that one needs to follow the Law perfectly to obtain heaven so this means that when we are justified by faith alone we have to be imputed a persons perfect Law keeping. As the scriptures teach there is only one person who followed the Law of God perfectly and that is Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). Therefore, when we are justified by faith we are imputed the perfect law keeping of Jesus Christ. The controversial step in this line of reasoning is that we have to follow the Law perfectly in order to obtain heaven. So let us look to God's word to support that in order to be justified one needs to follow the Law perfectly: <br /><br />Luke 10:25-28 25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" 27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." <br /><br />This verse teaches that if we follow God with all our ability then we will inherit eternal life. If we sin just once we have failed to love God with all of our ability and this means that the Law does not just require relative obedience for eternal life but perfect perpetual obedience for eternal life. When Jesus says “do this, and you will live” he does not mean physical life but eternal life because in context that was the question asked to him by the Lawyer (v. 25). Therefore, to enter into heaven one has to be perfectly righteous. Mark 12:28-34 is another passage that is similar to Luke 10 but Mark shows us that the requirement of perfection cannot merely be substituted or satisfied by sacrifices:<br /><br />“28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.” <br /><br />This section of scripture sheds light on a very important principle: Obedience is better than sacrifice (v. 33). This means that any sacrifice cannot be a mere replacement of perfect law keeping because obedience to the Law is better than sacrifice. Many people who reject active obedience do so on the basis that we do not need perfect law keeping imputed to us because all we need is Jesus' sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, but verse 33 teaches that sacrifice cannot be a replacement of obedience because obedience is valued more by God. Rather in order for us to be right before God we need sacrifice and perfect obedience to be credited to our account. So we cannot say that the passive obedience can replace the active obedience because both the passive and active obedience are both necessary conditions for us to be right before God. Another passage that shows us that God requires perfection is Matthew 5:48 which says <br /><br />“48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”<br /><br />There verse could not be any clearer in communicating this: God requires us to be morally perfect just like he is morally perfect. God does not grade on a curve he expects perfect obedience to his Law because his perfect nature demands it. It is therefore, established that to do the Law one needs to follow it perfectly because this is what God requires. In order for a human being to be justified one has to follow the Law as Romans 2:13 teaches <br /><br />“13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”<br /><br />In order for a human being to be justified before God he has to do the law and as I have shown to do the Law means to follow it perfectly. However, only one person has followed the Law perfectly and that is Jesus Christ. So the only way for us to be justified is to be imputed Christ's perfect law keeping. This is one clear way to prove active obedience and it is legitimate because it is a clear and necessary inference from the Bible like the Trinity and the two wills of Jesus Christ. But there are actually texts that seem to explicitly affirm that Christ's perfect obedience to the Law is imputed to us, one clear example of this is Romans 5:19: <br /><br />“19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” <br /><br />This is one of the clearest verses on Active obedience. This verse clearly teaches that the basis of us being imputed righteousness is Christ's perfect obedience. In other words, this verse teaches that the ground of our righteousness is the imputation of Christ's obedience to the Law. This cannot be a infused righteousness because of the fact that infused righteousness is logically incompatible with the objection that Paul anticipates in Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” This is an objection that could only arise if in fact Paul was teaching a legal imputation of righteousness through grace by faith alone. Lastly, the preceding context also gives us a strong indication that Paul is working with a legal context (Rom. 4:5-8; 5:1). Therefore, this verse clearly is teaching that Christ's obedience is the legal basis by which we are imputed righteousness. Another verse like 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 helps us connect the dots by teaching that Christ's righteousness is our righteousness, it reads as follows: <br /><br />29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." <br /><br /> This verse is used to show us that the righteousness of Jesus Christ is our righteousness. In other words, this verse shows us that it is Christ's righteousness that makes us righteous. The context suggests this strongly because it emphasizes that we cannot boast before the Lord and the only way this would be true is if the perfect righteousness we had for entering heaven was not our own righteousness but the righteousness of Jesus Christ, then and only then would we not be able to boast in ourselves, but only in the Lord for he is our righteousness. And we receive the righteousness of the Lord by faith as Paul teaches in Philippians 3:8-9 <br /><br />“8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-”<br /><br />Paul counts all of his accomplishments and all of his good deeds as loss by only trusting in Christ and receiving the righteousness from God. Paul says that he has no righteousness of his own, but rather he has the righteousness from God by faith in Christ. Paul cannot trust in his active obedience anymore for righteousness but the only active obedience he can trust in for his justification is Christ' righteousness. For if we were to ever trust in our own law keeping for righteousness we would all be doomed. There would be no hope in this life if we did not have Christ's righteousness because we fall into sin every day, we are so very far from perfection. This is why I am so deeply moved by the words of Dr. J. Gresham Machen shortly before he died he sent his final telegram to his friend Professor John Murray. The words of the telegram were these: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it." There is so much significance and truth packed into Machen's last words to John Murray. The fact is that without Christ's righteousness there is no hope because our own best righteousness is like fifthly rags. It might not be today and it might not be tomorrow but someday we will all die. And in your last dying breath, the moment right before you go, do you want to die knowing that you are about to go before a holy God with just your daily sins? Or would you rather die knowing that you have been imputed with Christ' perfect righteousness? For the Apostle Paul and Machen the answer to this was clear we must only rely on Christ and his perfect righteousness because without it there is simply no hope in this life.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-63103061013092452422010-08-03T00:42:00.001-07:002010-08-03T01:03:01.208-07:00Can Anything Seperate Us From The Love Christ Jesus?The Bible clearly states that nothing can separate the saved from the Love of Christ as Romans 8:37-39 clearly states: <br /><br />"37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." <br /><br />But some people who have rejected the doctrine of perseverance of the saints have said that this passage does not mention the fact that we can separate ourselves from the love of Christ Jesus by our actions whether it be by sin or free will. However, it seems that Romans 8:37-39 does teach that even a believers sin and free will cannot separate them from the love of Jesus Christ as the following argument demonstrates:<br /><br />Premise 1: Anything that is creation cannot separate us from the love of Christ<br /><br />Premise 2: Believers are a part of creation<br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, Believers cannot separate themselves from the love of Christ<br /><br />Premise 1 is supported by verse 39 that tells us that nothing in creation can separate us from the love of Jesus Christ. From premise 1 the rest of the argument logically follows and so from Romans 8 we can derive the teaching that nothing can separate those who are saved from the love of Jesus Christ. Another interesting thing we can infer from Romans 8:1 is that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So we find out a beautiful combination of truths from Romans 8 that those who are in Christ Jesus cannot ever be separated from his love nor be condemned. This is surely a comforting truth for all believers in Christ Jesus.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-79603384903170942612010-07-27T17:41:00.000-07:002010-07-28T15:06:52.348-07:00Sola Scriptura as an Epistemological Principle?It is objected by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that there is no verse that teaches sola scriptura. But I tend to disagree with this assessment because I believe that 1 Corinthians 4:6 teaches sola scriptura. But suppose I am all wrong about that and it in fact does not teach sola scriptura, does this entail that I should be a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox? In other words: What are the implications if one rejects that sola scriptura is taught in the Bible? My contention is that there is really no major implication to Protestantism if scripture alone is not taught in the Bible.<br /><br />So let us suppose for the moment that sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible and that we reject the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic arguments (as I have done elsewhere on this blog) then all we are left with is scripture. So we could modify our view of God's revelation to be as follows: Scripture alone is the only infallible and authoritative rule for faith and practice that we have knowledge of. As for there being additional revelation other than the Bible we should withhold belief that such additional revelation exists. In other words, with respect to the proposition that there is additional revelation other than the Bible we should be agnostic with respect to this proposition. <br /><br />Once one has accepted this epistemological form of sola scriptura (the criteria given above) then it seems like the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claims of incoherence lose their weight. This is because the conjunction of reason and scripture warrant the conclusion that these are the only scriptures we know of (this is of course assuming that the other church authority arguments fails). Therefore, there is no logical incoherence with this epistemological version of sola scriptura. <br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />So even if Protestants cannot provide a proof text for sola scriptura this still does not entail that one should be a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. In fact it would appear that the epistemic status of Protestantism is not effected at all if one cannot give a proof text. <br /><br />Additional arguments must be given and have dealt with those arguments in the posts referenced below. <br /><br />For the refutation of all the positive arguments that the East and Rome gives for believing their positions see the following blog posts:<br /><br />Canon Argument:<br /><br />http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-canon-argument.html<br /><br />Perspicuity:<br /><br />http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-roman-catholic-and.html<br /><br />Infallible Interpretations:<br /><br />http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/do-we-need-infallible-interpretation-of.html<br /><br />Scripture Alone:<br /><br />http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/sola-scriptura.htmlNathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-40840315463318491162010-07-23T23:13:00.000-07:002010-07-23T23:49:08.223-07:00Gerry Matatics and The Sinlessness of MaryIn his debate with James White on the Marian Doctrines Roman Catholic Apologist Gerry Matatics makes the following argument for the sinlessness of Mary:<br /><br />P1: Honoring your Mother entails that if S has the ability to keep S's mother sinless then S would bring it about that S's mother is sinless<br /><br />P2: Jesus has the ability to keep his mother sinless <br /><br />C: Jesus brought it about that his mother is sinless <br /><br />The problem with this argument is obvious: When Mary was born and inherited original sin at that time she was not Jesus' mother (Jesus with respect to his human nature was not born). So Jesus at that time was not under obligation to bring about her sinlessness. Another obvious problem with this argument is that the commandment says to honor your *father* and your mother. This means that if this argument was carried out consistently then we ought to think that Joseph was sinless, but neither Catholics nor Protestants teach this. All this to say: arguments like these are entirely desperate attempts to hide the obvious truth that Roman Catholic churches teachings cannot be justified by scripture and right reason.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-75981026294233005502010-07-21T03:59:00.000-07:002010-07-21T11:34:29.773-07:00Will There Be A Future Divine Judgment By Works?Introduction<br /><br />Historic Protestantism has always taught that the Bible teaches that justification is by faith alone. The Doctrine of justification by faith alone is clearly taught in Romans 3:28 28 “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” However, there has been in recent years some Protestants that reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone on the basis of a future justification based on works. This rejection of justification by faith alone can be explicit or implicit depending on who you are reading. This tendency to reject sola fide on the basis of a future justification by works is primarily held by those who are proponents of the Federal Visionists movement. To give a concrete example: Rich Lusk is a Federal Visionists proponent and he says the following from his blog here http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/future-justification-to-the-doers-of-the-law concerning future justification: <br /><br />“The initial clothing in white is received by faith alone. This is the beginning of Joshua’s justification. But if Joshua is to remain justified — that is, if the garments he has received are not to become re-soiled with his iniquity — he must be faithful. Thus, initial justification is by faith alone; subsequent justifications include obedience.” <br /><br />And again Rich Lusk says:<br /><br />“Again, we find the Bible teaching that future justification is according to works. Final justification is to the (faithful) doers of the law (Rom. 2:1ff) and by those good works which make faith complete (Jas. 2:14ff). Justification will not be fully realized until the resurrection.” <br /><br />In these two quotations we see an explicit denial of the traditional doctrine of justification by faith alone. Therefore, because of the seriousness of this issue in even Protestant circles now. I believe it is important that we look at the biblical texts that are often used to support future justification by works. It is my position that the Bible does not teach a future justification by works. I shall deal with the Bible passages that are appealed to support a future justification by works and I shall demonstrate that none of these passages in fact teach this doctrine that is incompatible with sola fide. <br /><br />Romans 2:6-8<br /><br />The first text I will look at is Romans 2:6-8 which reads “ 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” Paul is teaching in Romans 2:6-8 that the only way for us to obtain eternal life is by works. Protestants do not actually disagree with this nor is this principle incompatible with justification by faith. This is because in the doctrine of justification by faith we are legally imputed Christ's perfect work by faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 5:19). So we will go to heaven by this works principle. However, this is not our works but Christ's works which are legally imputed to our account (Rom. 5:19). Therefore, this text does not disprove justification by faith alone, but it rather this proves the principle behind justification by faith which is this: that in order to obtain eternal salvation one needs to have fulfilled a works principle. <br /><br />Romans 2:13<br /><br />Romans 2 contains another passage that is used to attempt to support a future justification by works, this is in Romans 2:13 which reads “13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” This is an additional passage that expresses the principle in Romans 2:6-8. The principle is this: In order to be righteous one needs to do the Law of God perfectly. This is what Jesus did for us and it is imputed to us by faith alone in Christ Jesus (Rom. 4:5; 5:19). Contextually, this is the most plausible understanding of this text because Paul in Romans 3:9-20 teaches that in light of human sin no one can be justified by works because everyone has failed to follow the law. So if we were to take this passage in the way that some Federal Visionists do then we would end up contradicting Paul's thought in the larger context of Romans; the Federal Visionist interpretation of this text contradicts Paul's thought on the lack of ability of humans to follow God's Law and on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The best explanation of these two texts in Romans 2 is to understand them as a principle that is behind justification by faith alone.<br /><br />2 Corinthians 5:10<br /><br />Another text that is mistakenly used to support a future justification by works is 2 Corinthians 5:10 which reads 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” The best way to understand this passage is that it is referring to God's perfect standard of Justice for goodness or good deeds done in the body. The only way we are going to get to heaven is if we are good in our bodies, but we have all failed to do this. So the only option for a sinful person is to have faith in Jesus, so that his goodness is legally imputed to us by faith alone. <br /><br />Matthew 7:21-23<br /><br />Now we are going to moving from Paul's Epistles to the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 7:21-23 is one of many sections in Matthew that has been mistakenly thought to be teaching a future justification by works, it reads “21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” This verse is compatible with justification by faith alone and it actually teaches against a future justification by works. These people are condemned by God because they are appealing to their good works so that God will let them into heaven. God's response is that what they are doing is against his “will” and that he never knew them. What is God's “will” for sinners so that they can enter into heaven? God's prescribed “will” for sinners is that they are to have faith in Christ so that they can enter heaven. So far from contradicting justification by faith this verse is compatible with it and it teaches against a future justification by works. <br /><br />Matthew 12:36-37<br /><br />Another passage that is used in Matthew to support a future justification by works is Matthew 12:36-37 which reads “36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." The context here is that Jesus is condemning the self-righteous Pharisees. The way Jesus is condemning them is by holding before them a perfect standard of speech which they have failed. The principle behind these passages is the same sort of principle we have seen in the previous passages we have looked at. This principle is that God requires perfect obedience and in this case Jesus is emphasizing perfect obedience in speech. The only person who had perfect speech was Jesus Christ himself and we receive all of his righteousness by faith alone. <br /><br /><br /><br />Matthew 25:31-46<br /><br />The last passage we will look at is Matthew 25:31-46 and it reads “31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." These passages are not teaching that one is justified by these good deeds, but rather Jesus is pointing out their good works to demonstrate to them that they have been justified by faith alone. The final judgment has an element which is demonstrative. In other words, on the final day of judgment God will speak of your good works to show that you were imputed Christ righteousness when you had faith in Christ. God will give you evidence that you are believer and he will give others evidence that they are unbelievers. This is what Matthew 25 is teaching. <br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />We have seen no good reason to believe in a future justification by works. This view is incompatible with what Paul teaches on justification by faith alone and it is also incompatible with the Gospel of Grace. When we as believers die we should not fear a future judgment by works because we will be judged by Christ's perfect works. Therefore, on that glorious day God will say to us “well done good and faithful servant, enter into the Joy of your Master”. The only reason why God will say this is because of Jesus, who was a good and faithful servant in our place.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-68583617521674926272010-07-13T01:17:00.000-07:002010-07-24T23:27:39.359-07:00A Defense of Covenant Infant Baptism Part 2This was a sermon I preached @ grace URC and has been adapted for this blog, This blog post operates on the assumption that perseverance of the saints is true which I establish here: http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-you-lose-your-salvation.html<br /> <br />If you recall last weeks post I was giving positive biblical reasons for the truth of infant baptism. The three reasons I gave were 1) continuity of the covenants, 2) the replacement of circumcision by baptism, and 3) and children being in the covenant community. I argued that all three of these reasons show that from scripture the case for infant baptism is more plausible than it's negation. Today I am arguing that there are no good reasons for thinking that credo baptism is true. In this post I will show that none of the strongest arguments against infant baptism are sound and persuasive.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />Objection 1: Only Believers in the New Covenant<br /><br />One of the most common objections against Infant baptism is that children can no longer be in the covenant anymore as they were in the Abrahamic covenant because the new covenant is different in that only believers are in this covenant. And because children are not believers then they therefore cannot be in the new covenant. The Baptists typically justify this theological argument by one obscure and foggy prophetic text: Jeremiah 31:31-34 which reads 31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." The baptists interprets verse 34 to mean that all believers in the New covenant will be saved. However, Reformed paedobaptist interpreters have understood verse 34 to either be a reference to the new heavens and the new earth (amill. interpretation) or they have understood it to mean that in the age of the New covenant there will come a point were most people in the world will be saved (post-mill interpretation). Both interpretations are entirely plausible depending on which view of the end of the world you hold to. There are two fundamental problems with the baptist interpretation of this text: 1) it is incompatible with the teaching of the New Testament and 2) it is logically incompatible with Calvinism. The one text that demonstrate these two points are Hebrews 10:28-31. Let us first look at Hebrews 10:28-31 which reads as follows: Hebrews 10:28-31 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. What we have in this text is a man who is sanctified or set apart by the new covenant that falls away from it and is going to receive damnation for falling away from the covenant. Now if you say as the baptists do that all those in the new covenant are saved then the logical conclusion to this text is that someone has fallen away from salvation. If we take the baptists interpretation of this text then it would be incompatible with the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance of the Saints which is clearly taught in Romans 8. So on the baptists interpretation we generate a contradiction with Calvinism and worse with the Word of God. But on the classical Reformed paedobaptists view we can account for this text by saying that people can fall away from the New covenant and not be saved because the covenant functioned the same way as the Abrahamic covenant. The function of the Abrahamic and the New covenant in the classical Reformed view is that there are both believers and unbelievers in the covenant community. If we understand Hebrews 10:29 in this sense then there is no contradiction in the Word of God. Moreover, the text teaches that the person who is condemned in the covenant community is considered to be a part of the people of God. This is evident when the author of Hebrews says in verse 30 "The Lord will judge his people." Therefore, this clear New Testament text teaches us that there are unbelievers in the New Covenant community. The classical Reformed hermeneutic is more consistent because we interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament and we interpret the clear by the unclear. So the logical implication is that we ought to interpret the unclear Old Testament prophetic text of Jeremiah 31 by the clear teaching on the covenant community found in the New Testament, like Hebrews 10:29. Thus, the baptists argument that the New Covenant is only comprised of believers is defeated by clear New Testament scripture. <br /><br />Objection 2: Only Believers are Baptized in The New Testament<br /><br />One very popular objection by baptists is that every example of Baptism in the New Testament involves professing adults, therefore, the New Testament teaches that only professing believers ought to be baptized. This argument is an argument from silence that assumes that the other clear Reformed infant baptism arguments are unsuccessful. Furthermore, the argument is unclear because there are some examples in which we do not know if all people that were baptized professed faith. For example in Acts 16:15 it reads: 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.” In this text we have a household baptism that does mention whether or not if all the members of the household professed faith. So it is entirely unclear whether or not only professing believers were baptized in the New Testament. Because this argument is an argument from silence that assumes that the other infant baptists arguments are unsuccessful and it is altogether unclear then this argument is to be regarded as a failure. <br /><br />Objection 3: Children are not Disciples<br /><br />Another very popular objection is that 1) Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that we should only baptize disciples, 2) infants are not disciples, 3) hence would should not baptize infants. Before I answer the objections let us take a look at Matthew 28:19-20 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." The text is saying that the way we make disciples is by baptizing and teaching them. So there is nothing in the text that would exclude infants because after all we can teach infants (otherwise how would they ever learn) and we can baptize them. Therefore, it seems that we can make infants disciples because we can baptize and teach them so far from this verse disproving infant baptism it actually supports infant baptism (after all Judas was disciple, how much more should believers children be disciples). <br /><br />Objection 4: Infant Baptizers are Inconsistent<br /> <br />The last argument is that paedobaptists are inconsistent with how they think about how circumcision relates to Baptism. The inconsistency arises from this claim that we as infant baptizers make, this is the claim: that baptism replaces circumcision so therefore we ought to baptize babies because circumcision applies to babies. The baptists claim that this claim is inconsistent with the paedobaptist's position because we do not baptize infants on the eighth day, we do not baptize slaves, and we do not baptize all males. They draw out this inconsistency from Genesis 17 so let us turn there to understand how our Reformed baptists brothers are reasoning, Genesis 17:9-14 which reads 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." The baptist understand this text to be saying that all infants are to be circumcised on the 8th day and that all men were to be circumcised and that it did not matter if they were believers or not. Now lets deal with these baptists claims one at a time. The first claim is that we are inconsistent because we do not baptize babies on the eighth day as they did in the Abrahamic covenant with circumcision. The continuity of the Abrahamic covenant and Matthew 19:14 does teach that children are in the new covenant community, but the Bible abrogates the practice to observe ritualistic Old Testament days, Galatians 4:10 “10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!” So as a general rule we need not to observe Old Testament days anymore. Therefore, the paedobaptist need not observe the eighth day to baptize their child, but children are still in the covenant community and still need the covenant sign so the parents are under obligation to baptize their children. The second baptist claim is that Genesis 17 allows for unbelieving males to be circumcised because in verse 10 it says that “every male is to be circumcised”. They conclude from this that the Abrahamic covenant allowed for the possibility of unbelievers being circumcised so that therefore we have to be willing to baptize unbelievers. The problem with this argument is that it breaks two fundamental hermetical principles which are 1) let the New Testament interpret the Old, and 2) differentiation in accounts does not entail a contradiction of the accounts. It should be first mentions that the text never says that unbelievers ought to be circumcised and the narrative does not address this question. But the New Testament does address this question in Acts 2:38 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” When Peter was speaking to adults who were had the gift of tongues he told them that they were to repent and be baptized and the consistent testimony of Acts is that when unbelieving Adults profess faith they are baptized. So for adults receiving the sign of baptism this should be connected to repentance and faith. Now Genesis 17 does not say that, but does that mean that Genesis 17 is incompatible with the New Testament teaching? No, because in the Bible one Gospel records that there was one angel by the tomb and in the other it says that there was two. This is not a contradiction because in two angels you at least have one angel. The issue here is Genesis 17 and Acts 2 are addressing different topics, but not contradictory topics so we should be consistent Reformed Christians and let the New Testament interpret the Old and when we do this we will find that there is no reason to believe that God was commanding that circumcision ought to be administered to known unbelievers. So for the reasons above I simply think that none of the standard baptists objections to Reformed infant baptism are reasonable or sound. So with that being said I would like to conclude that we have seen in this brief two part series that the Bible teaches that we should baptize our children because our God is a covenant making God that does not just deal with believers, but believers and their children. <br /></span>Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-72225546592269329992010-07-10T22:35:00.001-07:002010-07-10T22:47:12.587-07:00New Comment PolicyAfter a good amount of discussion, the authors here at RFS have decided that we should no longer allow anonymous comments. There are three primary reasons for this: (1) It is impersonal, (2) it removes accountability and responsibility on the part of the commenter, and (3) we find it annoying when we have to repeatedly address someone as "anonymous" (which only gets more confusing when there are more than one anonymous commenters on a single post). <br /><br />From now on everyone will have to sign in using a Google account, Livejournal account, Wordpress account, etc. This will provide a level of accountability that we feel will help to foster a more charitable and academic dialog. <br /><br />Thank you for your patience. We look forward to your comments!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-54959827856456672742010-07-07T12:16:00.000-07:002010-07-07T12:22:53.751-07:00A Defense of Covenant Infant Baptism Part 1This was my sermon manuscript that was preached @ Grace URC, but I have adapted it for this blog.<br /><br /> In this blog post we will be looking at the issue of Covenant Infant Baptism. I say Covenant Infant baptism because I will be arguing for the Reformed understanding of Infant Baptism which says that we do not baptize infants because they are regenerate nor do we baptize infants to make them regenerate rather we baptize infants because God commands us in his word that we ought to administer the visible sign of the covenant (in the New Covenant Baptism) on the covenant members which include children. This view is contrasted from believers or professors baptism which says we only are to baptize persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ. But the classical Reformed Infant baptism position says that if a person were not baptized as a infant and became a Christian latter on in life then that person should be baptized when he is a professing believer. It would make very little sense for Reformed people to go around baptizing people who do not want to be in the Christian church. My basic contention is that there are good reasons to believe in covenant infant baptism and that there are no good reasons for thinking that believer's baptism is true. The first part of this series will look at the good reasons in favor of covenant baptism and the second part I will demonstrate that none of the believer's baptism arguments are successful. <br /><br /><span id="fullpost"> <br /><br />Argument 1: Covenant Continuity<br /><br />The first argument we will look at is the argument from presumed continuity of the covenants and the commandments of God. This argument relies on a very reasonable philosophical and theological principle which is this: If God commands or reveals a way of functioning in His word we ought to follow it unless God gives us a implicit or explicit indication that a commandment is no longer ethically binding or a indication that God is no longer functioning that way. I am going to support this principle both philosophically and theologically but first I need to tell you why this principles supports infant baptism. This principle supports infant baptism because God in his word clearly commands that Infants of believer's are in the covenant community and that male infants are to have the sign of the covenant which is circumcision. This is taught explicitly in Genesis 17:1-14 which reads: When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." 3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." In this passage we have the sign of the covenant administered to infant boys, so if my principle of continuity were true then it would follow that the sign of the covenant (baptism) would be administered to male infants in the New covenant. The reason why this principle would follow is because there is no verse in the New Testament were God implicitly or explicitly abrogates this commandment or the Abrahamic covenant in general. But what we do find are alterations and additions to the commandment to put the covenant sign on infant males who are in the covenant. For example we see that the covenant sign is added on to so that it includes women (Acts 8:12) and that the covenant sign is altered to baptism (Col. 2:11-12). So we see that the principle I discussed earlier gives warrant to infant baptist position. It is appropriate that I give philosophical and theological arguments in favor of the principle I developed earlier, let us call this principle “the principle of presumed continuity”. The philosophical reason for holding to this principle is that if one did not hold to it then consistency would then allow for the possibility that when God gives you a commandment you could just presume that it no longer applies to you. But surely this is not right because we could use this to rationalize away commandments like “you shall not murder” or “you shall not commit adultery”. The rationalization for no longer following the commandments not to murder and not commit adultery could go something like this: “well God has not told to me that I should stop following it, but he has not commanded this in awhile so I am not longer obligation to follow these commandments”. Because rejecting the principle of presumed continuity has ethically disastrous results then we are rational in affirming the principle to avoid these absurd results. Not only is this principle reasonable but the scriptures teach it. We see an example of this principle being carried out in Paul's theological reasoning in Galatians 3:15-18 which reads “15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” Paul is saying that when the Mosaic covenant came to be it did not abolish nor do away with the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Mosaic covenant did add and qualify the Abrahamic covenant by giving different Laws and regulations. So Paul's principle in this verse is that we are to assume covenant continuity even if a additional covenants comes about. Lastly, this verse connects the Abrahamic covenant to the Mediator of the New Covenant Jesus Christ. Therefore, we see that in the same text that teaches the principle of presumed continuity it also implicitly connects the New Covenant with the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, we have strong reason for thinking that the principle of continuity is true and that the Bible even implicitly teaches that the Abrahamic covenant is connected to the New Covenant. The natural inference from this data is that because there is no hint of abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant and because the Word of God connects to the Abrahamic covenant to the New Covenant then we ought to give the covenant sign to covenant children by virtue of it being commanded in the Abrahamic covenant.<br /><br />Argument 2: Baptism Replaces Circumcision<br /><br />The second argument for infant baptism is that circumcision is connected to and is replaced by baptism so we should assume that the replacement functions the same unless there is a sufficient reason to doubt it. Now let us look at the various ways circumcision and baptism connect and parallel. We see in Colossians 2:11-12 that both circumcision and baptism points to our salvation and the death of Christ, Colossians 2:11-12 which reads 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. In this case circumcision points to the death of Christ and Baptism points back to the death of Christ. Ultimately circumcision and baptism are related in that they both are connected in Jesus Christ and his death. We also see that circumcision and baptism are connected by external visual symbols of the representations of the inward realities of our salvation in Christ Jesus. We are circumcised by Jesus cutting off our sinful flesh and this is done by being buried with him in baptism. In Paul's mind baptism and circumcision were so linked and connected that he could use them as overlapping imagery to point to Christ's death and to describe our inward regeneration. The implications of this text for infant baptism is 1) that baptism and circumcision both point to regeneration and 2) that those who are regenerated have a circumcision of the heart by having been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Paul does not use this visual salvation language for no reason, but rather he uses this imagery to show the truth that we have the equivalence of the sign physical circumcision having been baptized physically. This interpretation can make sense of the context and concerns of the book of Colossians because Paul is dealing with Jewish mystical moralist who wants to follow the Jewish Laws (which circumcision was one of them) in this letter (Col. 2:16-23). The way Paul deals with this moralist that want to follow the Old Testament Laws is that he uses this new regeneration by Jesus and his death by using physical signs that point to the death of Christ. Paul shows in the same statement that we need not follow the system of the circumcision anymore because we have that and more in our baptism. Now if circumcision is equivalent to baptism in the sense that baptism now functions in the place of circumcision. Therefore, we ought to assume they function the same unless we have reason to doubt it. My contention is that we have no reason to doubt that baptism should be also applied to covenant children as circumcision was. This is then my second argument for infant baptism, so with that in mind let us move to my third argument for infant baptism.<br /><br />Argument 3: Children in the Covenant<br /><br />My third argument for Infant baptism is that 1) if children are in the covenant community we ought to give them the sign of the covenant which is baptism. 2) Children are in the covenant community, 3) therefore, we should baptize them. The text I am going to be using to justify this argument is Matthew 19:13-14 which reads 13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." There are a few things I want to point out before I give my support for the infant baptism argument from this text. My contention in this text is that kingdom of heaven means the new covenant. Now you might ask: How do you know this text is referring to the new covenant? Well by eliminating all the other plausible meanings of the phrase “kingdom of heaven” and this process of elimination shows that in this specific text the most plausible meaning of the phrase kingdom of heaven is the new covenant. There are three plausible meanings of the phrase kingdom of heaven: 1) The entire world, 2) the regenerate, or 3) the new covenant (Matt. 16:19) It cannot be the entire world because that would make the words of Jesus trivial and insignificant. If this were the meaning why would Jesus even need to mention it? Jesus would be in effect saying, “hey you have the same status as every person in the world so that justifies you coming to me” The reason I put it like this is because if all people are in the kingdom of heaven why would this justify Jesus' actions of blessing them and allowing others to bring children to Jesus? This would make Jesus' reasoning absurd because even his unbelieving enemies like the Pharisees were in the kingdom of heaven on this understanding. This understanding of the kingdom of heaven is inappropriate in immediate context and it makes Jesus' reasoning trivial therefore this cannot be plausibly the meaning of “kingdom of heaven” in this text. The second meaning of kingdom of heaven is that it refers to those who are regenerate. This is even more absurd because this would suggest that all of the children of believers are regenerate, but we know that children of believers can later become unbelievers. So in order to hold to this meaning of kingdom of heaven one would have to reject the doctrine that once someone is truly justified they cannot lose their justification (perseverance of the saints), but the bible clearly teaches perseverance of the saints or that once one is truly justified they cannot lose their justification. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven cannot refer to those who are regenerate in this context. The only plausible option that remains is that kingdom of God is referring to the New Covenant and that according to Jesus children are in the New covenant. Therefore, it follows that children are in the new covenant, the kingdom of heaven, and it is plausible that we should baptized those who kingdom/covenant members. <br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />I have established that there is good reason to believe that children are to be given the sign of the New Covenant which is baptism. There are many baptist objections to infant baptism and in the next week I shall argue that all objections are insufficient to defeat the arguments that I have given. When we give covenant children the sign of baptism we are doing what Abraham did with his sons and this shows God's consistency in working with his church throughout the ages.<br /> </span>Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-91504564700791201012010-06-29T00:10:00.000-07:002010-06-29T00:15:56.607-07:00A Refutation of PaedocommunionIntroduction (This is the manuscript for a sermon I preached @ Grace URC on June 29th)
<br />
<br />In this post will be demonstrating that the Bible does not teach paedocommunion, rather the Bible clearly teaches credocommunion. Before we go into the arguments that refute the paedocommunionists position we need to first know what it is. Paedocommunion is the view that very young children can partake of the Lord's supper by virtue of the child being baptized and in the covenant. This view says that a young child at three of years need not examine himself or make a profession of faith before he takes communion, but that a child's covenantal status is a sufficient condition for the children of believers to partake of the Lord's Supper. Conversely, the credocommunionists position is that in order to partake of the Lord's supper a child or any person must be a believer who can 1) understand the significance of the supper, and 2) examine themselves in order to see if they are eating the supper in a worthy manner. This is the opposite of the paedocommunion position because on the credocommunion position just being in the covenant can never be a sufficient condition or qualification to partake of the Lord's supper. Because the church has been given elders who are supposed to enforce biblical doctrine with authority it us up to their biblical wisdom to ensure that both these qualifications are satisfied in any particular individual on the credocommunionists position (Titus 1:9;2:1,7, 15). The structure of this refutation of paedocommunion is that I will first present the strongest proof for the credocommunionists position and then after that I will demonstrate that all other arguments and objections from paedocommunionists position are unsuccessful. <span id="fullpost">
<br />
<br />1 Corinthians 11:27-29
<br />
<br />My argument for credocommunion is from 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. In these verses we find qualifications for partaking in the Lord's supper. However, these qualifications arise out of a problem in the church of Corinth. The problem in the church of Corinth is that there are people who are eating all the food and getting drunk off of drinking to much wine while partaking in the Lord's supper. They were eating and drinking so much that there was not enough food and drink for other poor believers who wanted to participate in the Lord's Supper. So these are the circumstances in which Paul gives qualifications for partaking in the Lord's supper. These qualifications function in such a way as to prevent these unique historical circumstances that were occurring in the church of Corinth. Yet, these qualifications function to give a general guide for the church to practice communion in a proper way. I will go into this more after I have given my exegesis of verses 27-29 which I believe conclusively establishes credocommunion.
<br />
<br />Verse 27
<br />
<br />Paul starts out in verse 27 by showing the importance of eating the supper properly Paul puts it like this in verse 27 1 Corinthians 11:27 “27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” Paul is saying here that if we partake of the Lord's supper in a sinful way then we are guilty of sinning against the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now this does not mean that one has to be perfect or that one should not partake of the supper if they are struggling with sin, rather this text is teaching us not to partake of the supper in a sinful fashion. However, I would say that this text excludes unbelievers from taking the supper because a unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness and he will certainly not take the supper in a worthy fashion if he has that mindset. This therefore, establishes the principle that only believers are to partake in the Lord's supper. Furthermore, if one holds to the principle “better safe than sorry” then this also implicitly teaches against paedocommunion because we are not certain if children are regenerate until they profess faith. So if a child ends up not professing faith and they were partaking of the Lord's supper the whole time then they would have been guilty of profaning and sinning against the body and blood of the Lord and the church would be permitting this. The costs here are much too high so therefore it is reasonable that we adopt the principle that it is better to be cautious about very important spiritual matters rather than not be. These assumptions are wise for carefully applying God's word, however, they also rule out paedocommunion.
<br />
<br />Verse 28
<br />
<br />Verse 28 makes the case for paedocommunion even more difficult because Paul gives explicit qualifications that would rule out very young children just baptized in the covenant, verse 28 reads: 1 Corinthians 11:28 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. Paul is saying that a person in the singular should examine himself before he partakes of the supper. If a person does not examine themselves then they are not following this scripture verse. The reason why people examine themselves is to see if they are going to partake of the supper in a worthy manner. This means they are to see if they are Christians and if they are not going to partake of the supper in a sinful fashion. Clearly, many very young children either do not have the mental capacity or have not shown that they have the mental capacity to fulfill this qualification. Therefore, if a young child cannot meet this criteria then they ought to be excluded from the table and this entails that paedocommunion is false.
<br />
<br />Verse 29
<br />
<br />But Paul does not just stop there, he goes on to give a further qualification to the supper in verse 29 which reads: “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Paul's point here is that if anyone does not recognizing the significance of the body of the Lord then he reaps judgment on himself. What Paul means by body in this verse is the body of the Lord because this Greek “soma” word is used in this way in the immediate preceding context two times in verses 24 and 27 of 1 Corinthians 11. Many paedocommunionist out of desperation argue that this means the church, however, this goes against Paul's use of the word “soma” in the immediate context. What Paul means by recognizing the body of the Lord is probably acknowledging the proper understanding of the Lord's supper and to what the supper points to which is the shed blood and broken body of Jesus for our justification. Clearly, this falsifies paedocommunion because paedocommunion teaches that we should allow children to the table only because they are in the covenant, but this verse gives more qualifications than just covenant membership. Not only does this verse disprove paedocommunion but it shows the danger of paedocommunion position because parents that do not make sure that their children follow these qualifications put their children at risk of the judgment of almighty God. Therefore, this is all the more encouragement to the church that we should carefully to observe these qualifications and this is why I think that biblical wisdom suggests that a closed table is very beneficial to have.
<br />
<br />Objections to 1 Corinthians 11
<br />
<br />However, before I move on there are two prominent paedocommunionists objections to the traditional Reformed reading of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 that I will deal with. The first objection is that to apply verses 27-29 to paedocommunion is to take it out of context because 1 Corinthians 11 is about unifying the differing factions in the church rather than excluding people from the Lord's table. The first problem with this objection is that the main theme in the immediate context is not so much about unity in general so much as it is about those who were not eating the supper properly because they are not including believers who legitimately have a right to eat the supper. Paul's point to them is that the reason why this sinful event was happening to begin with is because they were not following the proper qualifications for partaking in the supper. As we can see this is perfectly compatible with the context because Paul's general principle does not allow for the Corinthians behavior and as well as other behaviors that we have previously discussed. The paedocommunionists usually means by “it is out of context” is that we should only apply these qualifications to cases when believers eat the supper in a way that does not include all of the church. The problem with this response is that the qualifications themselves do not actually say this, so the paedocommunionists is simply putting something in the text that is not there. Furthermore, to try to limit the application of this text is inconsistent with how we read the Bible and how we apply it to our own unique circumstances. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5 when Paul commands the church to discipline a person for sexual immorality we do not limit the application of this text to only disciplining people who are sexually immoral but to all individual's who are living in unrepentant sin. Therefore, to only limit the qualifications in 1 Corinthians 11 to the situations involving people taking the supper sinfully by not including believers is inconsistent to how we apply the Bible to all areas of life. The second paedocommunionists objection to this passage is that we do not apply other commandments and qualifications to very small children so it is inconsistent to apply these qualifications to very small children. For instance, Tim Gallant uses 2 Thessalonians 3:10 which says that “those who do not work do not eat”, Gallant argues surely we do not apply this to very small children so therefore we do not apply 1 Corinthians 11 to very small children. My response to Gallant is threefold 1) if we were to be consistent with this line of reasoning then we could exclude very small children from the commandments of God and hence very small children could not really sin (which Tim himself rejects). 2) If we were to exclude very small from all sorts of qualification then very small children could function as elders in our churches because the qualifications do not apply to them. 3) Because Tim's principle leads absurdities like 1 and 2 then we should adopt the following principle: a child is only excluded from a commandment and requirement only if it leads to something that is clearly immoral like in the case of Tim's example of starving your children because they are not working. Therefore, we can consistently say on basis of 1 Corinthians 11 that small children that have not professed faith cannot come to the table and that objections offered to the contrary are unsound. In the time remaining I will refute the two most popular positive arguments offered for paedocommunion.
<br />
<br />Argument 1: The Passover
<br />
<br />One of the most popular arguments in favor of paedocommunion is that the passover celebration included small covenant children without qualification and the passover celebration is connected to the Lord's supper, hence, the Lord's supper should include small covenant children without qualification. The reason why this argument is a failure is because of the fact the Old Testament data never clearly says that small covenant children participated in the passover, this is rather a foggy inference that the paedocommunist's draws. So in order to make this argument work the paedocommunist's makes way too much out of the Old Testaments unclear evidence. And in doing this the paedocommunist's violates two solid hermetical principles that have been around since the Reformation, they are, as follows: 1) Let the clear scripture interpret the unclear scripture, and 2) let the New Testament interpret the Old Testament. The paedocommunist's reasoning violates both these principles at the same time when he lets the unclear Old Testament evidences interpret the clear New Testament evidence of 1 Corinthians 11. The actual passover event was said to include households in Exodus 12 and it does not really say explicitly whether or not covenant children who had not professed faith had participated in it. The passover was a unique event, but what was a repeated event was remembering and celebrating the passover which better fits with the Lord's supper which we repeatedly celebrate to remember the death of Christ. This puts the paedocommunists in a very difficult position because the celebration of the passover was only commanded to individual's and it involved a pilgrimage to Jerusalem which was a command that a very small child could not have even followed. Deuteronomy 16:1-7 is the text that commands how the passover is to be followed: “Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover of the LORD your God, because in the month of Abib he brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Sacrifice as the Passover to the LORD your God an animal from your flock or herd at the place the LORD will choose as a dwelling for his Name. 3 Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste-- so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt. 4 Let no yeast be found in your possession in all your land for seven days. Do not let any of the meat you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain until morning. 5 You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you 6 except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary of your departure from Egypt. 7 Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose. Then in the morning return to your tents.” Not only is doubtful that very small covenant children could even follow this, but it is not even commanded to family units it is commanded to individual's because every single Hebrew verb is in the masculine singular. Therefore, it is not clear that small covenant children that did not profess faith took part in the passover celebration. So the best option for us is to follow the reasonable hermetical principles of the Reformation and let the clear interpret the unclear, let the New Testament interpret Old Testament and when we follow these principles the paedocommunists passover argument is unsuccessful.
<br />
<br />Argument 2: 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
<br />
<br />The last argument we will be dealing with comes from 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 which reads: 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” The argument made by the paedocommunionist is that Paul says that the one Body of Christ partakes in the Lord's Supper and children are a part of the body of Christ, therefore, children ought to partake of the Lord's supper. The problem with this argument is this: if the paedocommunionists were consistent with this line of reasoning then this would mean that even infants who are too young to have hard foods would be obligated to partake in the supper, but paedocommunionists state that only when a child is old enough to eat solid foods then they can partake in the supper. So even the paedocommunionists see 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 as not the entire body of Christ, but only those who are old enough to eat of it. But then if this true then it is inconsistent with the claim that body of Christ means every single person because it excludes infants that cannot eat solid food, therefore, there is no problem with the credocommunionists adding other biblical qualifications to partake in the Lord's supper that are found in 1 Corinthians 11. As we have seen there are simply no good reasons to think that paedocommunion is true, rather 1 Corinthians 11 gives us sufficient reason to doubt the truth of paedocommunion. Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-73551309371009599122010-06-19T18:18:00.000-07:002010-06-19T23:11:07.483-07:00Why Would God Permit Scribal Errors in Biblical Manuscripts?An argument that has been advanced by Bart Ehrman is that if the God of the Bible does exist then we can think of no good reason for why He would allow scribes to make slight errors in copying the original manuscripts of the Bible. The implicit inference that is made from this is that because we can think of no good reason for why God would allow this then there is probably is no good reason. And of course if there is no good reason then this proposition is probably logically incompatible with the goodness of the God of the Bible. The Conclusion would be from this argument is that therefore the God of the Bible probably does not exist. <br /><br />The natural response by most Christians is "well we can construct the Bible today to 99% accuracy to the originals so surely there has not been that much copying errors." While this is true this does answer the principle in the argument: Why would God permit any sort of copying errors in the Bible at all?<br /><br />Well the way I would approach this argument is by attacking two of the key premises for our purposes we will call these two premises: P1 and P2<br /><br />P1: If we can think of no morally sufficient reason for why God would permit scribal errors then we have good reason for thinking that there is none.<br /><br />P2: We can think of no morally sufficient reason for why God would permit scribal errors. <br /><br />P1 seems to be false to me because Christian theism theologically admits at least a light form of skeptical theism. That is simply to say: God is incomprehensible so God's reasons for doing this may beyond our cognitive grasp. Surely it would not be completely absurd if God only allows man to damage his word a little bit for some incomprehensible morally sufficient reason. Now with all things being equal then it seems to me that we ought to be say that P1 is neither justified nor unjustified so it cannot function as a defeater against Christian theism.<br /><br />However, I believe we can do better and actually provide a possible reason for why God would permit man to slightly make copying errors in his Word. In other words we can actually show this entire argument to be less reasonable to believe rather than to affirm. We can show this argument to be more than inscrutable because we can plausibly show it to be false. We can do this by giving reasons for rejecting P2 and if we give sufficient reason for rejecting P2 then this argument really does not even get off the ground. With that being said here are a few possible reasons one could give:<br /><br />Reason 1: God allowed errors in his word to show his Glory by showing how his goodness and perfection far surpasses ours and this would encourage us to depend on him more. The reason why allow errors would do this is because God has given us his perfect word that does not have any error and the moment God gives this to humanity they mess it up by their fallibility. In the end the greater good is accomplished. God shows his glory and perfection and we experience his glory. But in all of this our imperfection and fallibility is exposed and this highlights our need for God and the greatness of God. This is all done at a very small cost: small non-essential errors that do not even effect our Christian life in a negative fashion. <br /><br />Reason 2: There is another possible reason that is strange, but it still remains a possible morally sufficient reason. God permitted demons to do slight damage to His Word so that He can punish them and show His justice. Now the demons could have caused the human scribes to make small accidental errors and so on. So God gets to display His justice towards absolute evil at the cost of the smallest errors that do not effect the Bible's essential message to humanity. This seems like a morally sufficient reason. <br /><br />Conclusion:<br /><br />As we can see, Bart Ehrman's argument is to be regarded as a failure so when you hear him give this reason for leaving Christianity you can be assured that this is a bad reason for abandoning one's Christian faith.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-78271925345190052912010-06-15T16:48:00.000-07:002010-06-15T16:54:22.404-07:00Richard Dawkins Excuse For Not Debating William Lane Craig<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JFamS4RGE_A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><pa ram name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JFamS4RGE_A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />It's Ironic here that Dawkins says he will only debate a Bishop, Archbishop, Pope, or Cardinal and will not debate a creationist. The reason why it is Ironic is because Dawkins debated John Lennox who Dawkins considers to be a creationist and yet fits none of Dawkins above criteria. Furthermore, Dawkins also debated Alister Mcgrath who also does not fit into Dawkins criteria of a high ranking church man. It seems that Dawkins excuse for not debating William Lane Craig does not hold water.Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-22108577917460767272010-06-14T17:09:00.000-07:002010-06-14T17:16:29.366-07:00The Five Points of Calvinism 101<meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Introduction</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="LEFT" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;"> I am going to give a brief overview of Calvinism in this post. This means that I am going to provide a explanation of each of the five points of Calvinism and then provide the strongest arguments in favor of each point. This was a Sermon I present at Grace URC for the second Service and so the content is very simple at the cost of not being overly precise. But this is a very good general introduction and defense to Calvinism. </span></span> </p><span id="fullpost">
<br /></span><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Total depravity</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">With that being said let us move right into the first point of Calvinism which is Total depravity. There are a few misunderstandings about this point so I will start with what this point is not saying: This point is not saying that human beings are so evil that they cannot do any civil or public good. Furthermore, this is not saying that we ought to expect human beings to be so evil that we should expect every unbeliever to have actually committed murder and adultery. Why if that were true that would make the T.V. Show Law and Order only 30 minutes instead of hour because the cops would know right away that the prime suspects to all the crimes would be unbelievers. Well this is not what Total depravity is teaching rather what it is teaching is that Human beings in their fallen state cannot do any spiritual good and cannot choose God (unless of course God chooses to give them grace sufficient to save them). The three best verses in support of this doctrine are John 6:44, Romans 3:10-12, and Romans 8:8, I am telling you them ahead of time so that you can turn to them in your bibles. So let us first look at </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>John 6:44 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">44</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. The verse just says you cannot come to God unless he draws you and that person who is drawn is raised in glory on the last day. Now let us turn to </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 3:10-12 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">10</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">11</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">12</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." The funny thing is that some of these are so clear that they require little exposition. But the point of this passage is that unbelievers cannot do spiritual good and they cannot seek God. And obviously if one were believing in Christ they would be seeking God, so this verse clearly teaches total depravity. But perhaps the clearest and concise verse of all is </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 8:8 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">8</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. If you are a unbeliever you cannot please God and clearly by believing in Christ and doing a good work is pleasing to God, therefore, according to Romans 8:8 unbelievers cannot do this. </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Unconditional Election</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">All of these verses clearly establish total depravity, so let us move on to the next point which is unconditional election. The point of unconditional election teaches that before the foundation of the word and before we were born God choose us and predestined us in Christ Jesus. This choosing of God is based on anything about us like our foreseen faith or works but rather it is based on the free will and good pleasure of God. God chooses many for eternal life and others for eternal distress and this is not based on the creature, but based on God and bringing about his greater glory. This is clearly taught in two places in God's word: Romans 9:11-23 and Ephesians 1:4-12, Let us read </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 9:11-23 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">11</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">12</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> not by works but by him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">13</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">14</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">15</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">16</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">17</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">18</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">19</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">20</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">21</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">22</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">23</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--” This verse really could not be any clearer. God freely chooses many for eternal life and eternal death not based on anything about them, but based on his greater glory. If anyone ever objects that this verse is not really teaching Calvinism then all you really have to do is point out all of the objections that Paul anticipates like </span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US">14</span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"> What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! And "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" These are precisely the sort of objections you get when you teach Calvinism, so clearly Paul is teaching Calvinism otherwise he would not anticipate these objections. Well Ephesians </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">1:4-12 is just as strong so let us turn there </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Ephesians 1:4-12 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">4</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">5</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">6</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">7</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">8</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">9</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">10</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment-- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">11</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">12</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.” This verse is a wonderful verse that shows us God's unconditional love for us in Christ Jesus. The point is that we were chosen in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world and this was not according to our agenda, but according to God's free will, pleasure, and glorification. I would say that these two places are by far the strongest places to go to support this doctrine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Limited Atonement</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But with that being said lets move to one of the most controversial points of Calvinism Limited Atonement. Limited atonement or perhaps more accurately called particular redemption teaches that Christ dies for the elect only, that is to say Christ death only atones for the sins of those who were chosen and saved by God. This view denies that Christ has died for every single person who has ever lived. So whats the biblical evidence for this controversial view? The nature of the atonement itself is perhaps the best evidence for this view. The atonement is a propitiation, that is to say, the atonement is a turning aside of the wrath and anger of God for sin because Jesus Christ took our place. For this let us look to Romans 3:25 which reads </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 3:25 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">25</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- Now the NIV translates the Greek word </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Bwgrkl;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">i`lasth,rion</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> to mean a sacrifice of atonement, but that is technically not precise enough. The Greek word </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Bwgrkl;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">i`lasth,rion</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> means propitiation and the definition of propitiation is turning aside the wrath of God. Therefore, the implication is that Christ's death turns asides and satisfied God's anger and wrath toward sin. So if this is what the atonement did and Christ satisfied God's just anger and wrath for our sins. Then what is the implication if one rejects limited atonement and says that Christ died for all people? Well this means that God is not justly angry or wrathful toward anyone which means everyone is going to heaven, but this is false because the Bible clearly teaches that there are people who are going to hell in </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Matthew 25:46 - 26:1 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">46</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Finally, another strong argument comes from </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 8:31-34 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and Romans 8 especially verses 31 and following is about how believers should not worry about losing their salvation because nothing can separate us from the saving love of Christ Jesus, so with that in mind lets read Romans 8:31-34 </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b> </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">31</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">32</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">33</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">34</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Here the fact that Christ died for us is suppose to comfort us and assure us that we are saved. Now if the arminian is right and Christ died for those who are suffering in hell forever and ever, then mentioning the fact that Christ died for you would not be a very comforting fact because Christ dies for those who are in hell and who do not have salvation. And lastly perhaps one of the most classic texts in support of the Reformed position is </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>John 10:11 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">which reads </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">11</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Now arminians are quick to point out that just because Jesus says he dies for his sheep (believers) it does not mean that Jesus did not die for other people. But the problem with this rationalization of this text is that Jesus mentions unbelievers and false teachers in the context, so it seems like Jesus is implicitly excluding them from the benefits of His death. So let me give you an example of what I mean: If I came to you today and I said well there are some churches in town like a baptist church, and there is a Lutheran church, but today I have gift for this church. Now I dare say that everyone would take what I am saying in a exclusive sense, that is to say you would all interpret it to mean that I have only given this church a gift and not the other churches in town. But this is what Jesus does in John 10 he mentions unbelievers in the context and in so doing he implicitly does not includes unbelievers from the benefits of his death and includes only believers. Those are the most powerful arguments for limited atonement so lets move on to the most powerful arguments for Irresistible grace. </span></span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Irresistible Grace</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><a name="fullpost"></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Irresistible grace is the doctrine that when God graciously wills to saved you and creates faith in your heart you cannot resist and you cannot do otherwise. There three verses that strongly support Irresistible grace John 6:44, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Romans 9:18-20. Let us turn to our first verse found in </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>John 6:44 it reads:</b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">44</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. This passage is teaching that anyone who is drawn is raised up on the last day. Raised up refers to being raised up in glory rather than damnation because Jesus consistently uses the phrase “on the last day” in this way throughout the entire discourse (John 6:39-40). Moreover, the Greek word </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Bwgrkl;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">e[lkw</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Bwgrkl;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US"><b> </b></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> (or "draws") suggests that it is Irresistible because John uses it with regards to Peter dragging fish that he has caught (John 21:11) and John seems to use it this way consistently throughout his Gospel. If the arminian wants to suggest that all persons are drawn then all people will go to heaven because those who are drawn are raised in glory in verse 44. And Suggesting that all people go to heaven as we have seen is demonstrably false from Matthew 25. As we will see John 6:44 also has implication for perseverance of the saints. So lets move on to our next verse Ephesians 2:8-9 which reads </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Ephesians 2:8-9 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">8</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">9</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> not by works, so that no one can boast. The reason why this verse teaches irresistible grace is because the faith and grace we have is not from us, but it originates with God which means if God wills to save us and our ability to have faith solely comes from God then we cannot resist it (because after all it is not of us). In the Greek “this not from yourselves” refers both to faith and grace. So faith is a creation of God and not of us which means it is not of our ability to resist it. So with that in mind let us move to our last verse which is </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 9:18-20 it reads </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">18</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">19</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b> </b></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">20</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?” Paul here is anticipating a common arminian objection to irresistible grace which is “well if God irresistibly causes you to be saved and to be damned then why would God hold you morally accountable for something you cannot resist?” If Paul were not teaching Calvinism here specifically irresistible grace then Paul would never anticipate these objections. In other words, if Paul was teaching the arminian view which is resistible grace then these questions and objections would never come up. But they do which shows conclusively that Paul was teaching Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace. So if we are getting the same objections that Paul got we are probably in pretty good shape. </span></span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal;" align="CENTER" lang="en-US"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Perseverance of the Saint</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Perseverance of the saints is the last point of Calvinism which teaches that once you are genuinely saved you cannot lose your salvation. This point has been subject to gross misrepresentation and mocking because people paint it like this: Once saved always saved no matter what you do, no matter what you do your always going to be saved. And people also say well if once saved always saved is true then you could just take out a gun and start shooting people at random and you still you will saved. Well this is not the way we as Reformed Christian view it. We view it like this: those who are genuinely saved will not lose their salvation and a sign that someone never had salvation to begin with is if they do not persevere in the faith which is manifested by rejecting Christ and living in unrepentant sin. Now although this view has been mocked by many it has ample biblical support, the verse we will be looking at is John 6:44, John 10:28-29, and Romans 8:34-39. Lets us turn in our Bibles to John 6:44: </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>John 6:44 </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Here John could not make it any clearer if you are drawn by God you will be raised in a glorious resurrection body, there is no thought or concern in John's mind that those who are drawn will fall away and be damned to hell. But John makes this even clearer in </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>John 10:28-29 which reads</b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">28</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">29</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. Again John is crystal clear: those who have eternal life and who are in the Fathers hand no one can snatch them out, in other words when they are in the Fathers hand they will always remain there. And finally we are going to end on this last verse which is perhaps one of the strongest verses in favor of perseverance of the saints and it is found in </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><b>Romans 8:34 – 8:39 and it reads </b></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">34</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">35</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">36</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">37</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">38</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, </span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">39</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. This verse teaches that nothing in all creation can separate us from the saving love of Jesus Christ and the logic here is inescapable: If nothing in all creation can separate us from Jesus Christ's saving love, then are you a part of creation? The answer is: Yes! So once you are genuinely saved you cannot even separate yourselves from the love of Christ Jesus which means you cannot lose your salvation. This is an amazing truth as are all the points of Calvinism. And this is why I wanted to spend our time on them today, for you see if one rejects Calvinism they are ultimately compromising the Love and Glory of God. And in all we do we should glorify God even in our Doctrine.</span></span></span></span></p>
<br />
<br />Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-80918504395685555982010-06-13T15:05:00.000-07:002010-06-13T15:06:59.377-07:00John Gerstner on the Compatibility of Christianity and Reason<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3330806644012999364&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>Nathanael P. Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com0