In this comical clip Christian apologist William Lane Craig is debating the atheist Wolpert who ends up claiming that a computer caused the universe into being at the big bang. This seems like such a desperate attempt from the atheist that it practically screams what Saint Paul says in Romans the first chapter:
Romans 1:18-21 8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Here is the Video Clip:
You really have to ask yourself after watching this video: What will they say next Robot-Spirits?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Why I am a Protestant: Justification by Faith Alone
The reason why I am a Protestant and not an Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic is because of the Gospel. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches rejects the Gospel of Justification by faith alone. I have given many reasons in this blog why all Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics arguments are unsuccessful, but this blog post will be a positive reason for rejecting the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective and for embracing the Protestant perspective. In this post I will argue that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of justification is incorrect according to our earliest Christian Testimony: The Bible. Thus, we should have a strong reason to doubt these two Churches and embrace the Protestant position.
The fundamental difference between the Protestant understanding of justification and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective is the role of works in justification. The Protestant position is that no type of work can contribute to ones justification, only faith can, whereas in the Eastern and Roman view it affirms that certain works can contribute to your justification. Here are my four arguments for the Protestant position:
1) The Bible teaches that Grace is only compatible with faith and not works:
In order to have a clear understanding of justification we have to have a biblical conception of Grace. This is Grace as Paul defines it:
Romans 11:6 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Works here are generalized and there is no reason in the context at all to limit these works to types of works rather than all works in general. Thus, we see that grace is such that it is incompatible with works. Another reason for thinking that grace excludes all works is Romans 6:1-2 because Paul could not ask this rhetorical question if the concept of grace were such that works could be mixed in with it:
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?
Romans 4:16 tells us that the promise has to rest on faith because that is the only thing that is compatible with Grace. All this is really interesting, but how does it relate to the doctrine of justification? Well Paul makes it clear that we are justified by grace, which means not by works, but only faith:
Romans 3:23-24 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his *grace* as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Thus, justification is by grace and by the definition of grace: by faith alone.
2) Justification by faith apart from works:
The Bible out rightly claims that justification is by faith apart from works of law:
Romans 3:27-31 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Now many objectors to justification by faith alone are quick to point out that they do not see the phrase “works of law” as all works in general and thus this cannot be an argument for sola fide so they say. But the problem is that Paul connects his thoughts in this context from the exclusion of boasting and if any works could contribute to our justification then we would have grounds for boasting, but clearly Paul here would rule out types of boasting and therefore we have good reason to think this is referring to all types of works.
An even stronger argument for “works of law” meaning all works in general is that it fits Paul's argument and context better than any non-Protestant interpretation. The part of Paul's argument that I am referring here to is 3:31 where Paul asks the rhetorical question about whether we even need to follow the law in the first place if Paul's understanding of justification were to be correct. Paul’s view of justification is such that it leads one to ask this rhetorical question: If we really are justified by faith alone then do we need to follow the law? Paul answers that just because we are justified by faith alone we still need to follow the law, but that the following the law does not justify us. The Sola Fide understanding of this text is the most preferable than the alternative for this reason. For if the Roman or Eastern understanding were being taught here then Paul would have no reason to anticipate this question because Paul could have always said “well you need to follow other works and other laws for justification”. And clearly this is lacking from his teaching on works and justification.
3) The Justification of the ungodly:
The Bible clearly teaches that God justifies the ungodly:
Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Obviously someone who is ungodly is not actually righteous and has not done a sufficient amount of works to be right before God. But God legally counts him as righteous when he has faith. Now the East and Rome will be quick to point out that what justify here means is that God spiritually transforms the believer to make him pleasing to God, but the problem is that the Greek word for justify or “dikaioo” never means that. It either can mean to declare righteous someone that is actual righteous or not actually righteous, but legally so. It seems that given this passage that this is a declaration of righteousness on the ungodly thereby suggesting that the latter meaning (legal) is being used here rather than the former (actual). Thus, this word is being used here as a legal declaration in the context of a court room before God (Rom. 4:2).
4) Salvation is by Grace through Faith:
One of those most popular passages for proving sola fide has been Ephesians 2:8-9, it reads:
Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Christians have been saved, a past reality, by grace through faith and not by works. It could not be any clearer than this. The East and Rome have a hard time arguing that this is referring to only certain works here because salvation as a whole is by faith and grace which is not your own doing, but if we could achieve salvation by any works then it would be our own doing and therefore any works ought to be excluded. Paul in the end seals his argument with saying that because of all this no one can boast, but if this did not rule out all works then someone could boast, but Paul clearly would never intend for us to think that.
Concluding thoughts:
Therefore, since the earliest Christian testimony is clear that justification is by faith alone we should reject any works based systems like Mormonism, the Watch Tower, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, and Roman Catholicism. All of these views reject the Gospel of justification by faith alone. We have to remember that all false religions and Gospels are man centered and are not centered on the person and perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the refutation of all the positive arguments that the East and Rome gives for believing their positions see the following blog posts:
Canon Argument:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-canon-argument.html
Perspicuity:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-roman-catholic-and.html
Infallible Interpretations:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/do-we-need-infallible-interpretation-of.html
Scripture Alone:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/sola-scriptura.html
The fundamental difference between the Protestant understanding of justification and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective is the role of works in justification. The Protestant position is that no type of work can contribute to ones justification, only faith can, whereas in the Eastern and Roman view it affirms that certain works can contribute to your justification. Here are my four arguments for the Protestant position:
1) The Bible teaches that Grace is only compatible with faith and not works:
In order to have a clear understanding of justification we have to have a biblical conception of Grace. This is Grace as Paul defines it:
Romans 11:6 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Works here are generalized and there is no reason in the context at all to limit these works to types of works rather than all works in general. Thus, we see that grace is such that it is incompatible with works. Another reason for thinking that grace excludes all works is Romans 6:1-2 because Paul could not ask this rhetorical question if the concept of grace were such that works could be mixed in with it:
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?
Romans 4:16 tells us that the promise has to rest on faith because that is the only thing that is compatible with Grace. All this is really interesting, but how does it relate to the doctrine of justification? Well Paul makes it clear that we are justified by grace, which means not by works, but only faith:
Romans 3:23-24 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his *grace* as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Thus, justification is by grace and by the definition of grace: by faith alone.
2) Justification by faith apart from works:
The Bible out rightly claims that justification is by faith apart from works of law:
Romans 3:27-31 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Now many objectors to justification by faith alone are quick to point out that they do not see the phrase “works of law” as all works in general and thus this cannot be an argument for sola fide so they say. But the problem is that Paul connects his thoughts in this context from the exclusion of boasting and if any works could contribute to our justification then we would have grounds for boasting, but clearly Paul here would rule out types of boasting and therefore we have good reason to think this is referring to all types of works.
An even stronger argument for “works of law” meaning all works in general is that it fits Paul's argument and context better than any non-Protestant interpretation. The part of Paul's argument that I am referring here to is 3:31 where Paul asks the rhetorical question about whether we even need to follow the law in the first place if Paul's understanding of justification were to be correct. Paul’s view of justification is such that it leads one to ask this rhetorical question: If we really are justified by faith alone then do we need to follow the law? Paul answers that just because we are justified by faith alone we still need to follow the law, but that the following the law does not justify us. The Sola Fide understanding of this text is the most preferable than the alternative for this reason. For if the Roman or Eastern understanding were being taught here then Paul would have no reason to anticipate this question because Paul could have always said “well you need to follow other works and other laws for justification”. And clearly this is lacking from his teaching on works and justification.
3) The Justification of the ungodly:
The Bible clearly teaches that God justifies the ungodly:
Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Obviously someone who is ungodly is not actually righteous and has not done a sufficient amount of works to be right before God. But God legally counts him as righteous when he has faith. Now the East and Rome will be quick to point out that what justify here means is that God spiritually transforms the believer to make him pleasing to God, but the problem is that the Greek word for justify or “dikaioo” never means that. It either can mean to declare righteous someone that is actual righteous or not actually righteous, but legally so. It seems that given this passage that this is a declaration of righteousness on the ungodly thereby suggesting that the latter meaning (legal) is being used here rather than the former (actual). Thus, this word is being used here as a legal declaration in the context of a court room before God (Rom. 4:2).
4) Salvation is by Grace through Faith:
One of those most popular passages for proving sola fide has been Ephesians 2:8-9, it reads:
Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Christians have been saved, a past reality, by grace through faith and not by works. It could not be any clearer than this. The East and Rome have a hard time arguing that this is referring to only certain works here because salvation as a whole is by faith and grace which is not your own doing, but if we could achieve salvation by any works then it would be our own doing and therefore any works ought to be excluded. Paul in the end seals his argument with saying that because of all this no one can boast, but if this did not rule out all works then someone could boast, but Paul clearly would never intend for us to think that.
Concluding thoughts:
Therefore, since the earliest Christian testimony is clear that justification is by faith alone we should reject any works based systems like Mormonism, the Watch Tower, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, and Roman Catholicism. All of these views reject the Gospel of justification by faith alone. We have to remember that all false religions and Gospels are man centered and are not centered on the person and perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the refutation of all the positive arguments that the East and Rome gives for believing their positions see the following blog posts:
Canon Argument:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-canon-argument.html
Perspicuity:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/refutation-of-roman-catholic-and.html
Infallible Interpretations:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/08/do-we-need-infallible-interpretation-of.html
Scripture Alone:
http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com/2009/02/sola-scriptura.html
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
A Refutation of the Canon Argument
Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox use the Canon argument against the Protestant position to show the necessity of an Infallible and Authoritative Church to epistemologically justify what books belong in the Canon (the books of the Bible).
The Argument is as follows:
P1: If one does not have infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon then one cannot know what books belong in the canon
P2: Protestants do not have an infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon
C: Hence, Protestants cannot know what books belong in the canon
A Rejection of the Argument:
The Protestant ought to reject P1 because one who holds to the Protestant position can say that the Bible self-authenticating and self-verifying thereby suggesting that when one reads it they just know it is God speaking to them. To use philosophical jargon: It is a properly basic belief what books are divinely inspired and belong in the Canon of scripture. A basic belief is a sort of belief that is reasonable to hold without inference and arguments, but yet these reasonable beliefs are basic or foundational for inference and arguments to start. Here are a few basic beliefs that are reasonable to hold without inference or argumentation: The existence of the external world, the fact that you have existed longer than five minutes, that you have reliable faculties, that we are not in a matrix and that we are not brains in vats. Therefore, it is a properly basic belief that God speaks to me through the 66 books of the Bible when I read them.
A Biblical Basis:
But is this idea of us being reasonable in believing that the Bible is divinely inspired independent of argument and inference itself a Biblical Idea?
It certainly seems that it is. Jesus says of himself to believers that they will know his voice:
John 10:3-6 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Jesus does not say that they will know the Shepard’s voice on the basis of arguments and inference, but merely that when they encounter it they will know it is the voice of God. This is how the Protestant knows that the 66 books in the Bible are divinely inspired by God.
Do we really need a Divinely Inspired Table of Contents?
At this point the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox might say “well you may know the 66 books of the Bible belong in the canon but you do not have a divinely inspired and authoritative table of contents to the Bible.” In short, they are objecting that in the Bible it never says what books belong and do not belong in the Bible.
How should we respond to this?
The Bible does give a criterion for what books belong as scripture in the Canon (John 10:3-6). However, Non-Protestants will be quick to point out that it does not give the content of which books fulfill that criterion. But why think that we need that? I really can think of no good reason for why that is necessary. Admittedly, it may be subjectively preferable to some, but it is hard to see why this is necessary. They might argue that it makes things clear and that thereby entails that the Non-Protestant position is more reasonable, but I have demonstrated in the last post that just because a position is clearer than another does not constitute a good reason for choosing one position over another.
Concluding Thoughts:
Thus, we have seen that the most popular Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox argument is a complete failure and cannot be used to show that Non- Protestant positions are more reasonable than the Protestant position.
The Argument is as follows:
P1: If one does not have infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon then one cannot know what books belong in the canon
P2: Protestants do not have an infallible and authoritative church to determine the canon
C: Hence, Protestants cannot know what books belong in the canon
A Rejection of the Argument:
The Protestant ought to reject P1 because one who holds to the Protestant position can say that the Bible self-authenticating and self-verifying thereby suggesting that when one reads it they just know it is God speaking to them. To use philosophical jargon: It is a properly basic belief what books are divinely inspired and belong in the Canon of scripture. A basic belief is a sort of belief that is reasonable to hold without inference and arguments, but yet these reasonable beliefs are basic or foundational for inference and arguments to start. Here are a few basic beliefs that are reasonable to hold without inference or argumentation: The existence of the external world, the fact that you have existed longer than five minutes, that you have reliable faculties, that we are not in a matrix and that we are not brains in vats. Therefore, it is a properly basic belief that God speaks to me through the 66 books of the Bible when I read them.
A Biblical Basis:
But is this idea of us being reasonable in believing that the Bible is divinely inspired independent of argument and inference itself a Biblical Idea?
It certainly seems that it is. Jesus says of himself to believers that they will know his voice:
John 10:3-6 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Jesus does not say that they will know the Shepard’s voice on the basis of arguments and inference, but merely that when they encounter it they will know it is the voice of God. This is how the Protestant knows that the 66 books in the Bible are divinely inspired by God.
Do we really need a Divinely Inspired Table of Contents?
At this point the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox might say “well you may know the 66 books of the Bible belong in the canon but you do not have a divinely inspired and authoritative table of contents to the Bible.” In short, they are objecting that in the Bible it never says what books belong and do not belong in the Bible.
How should we respond to this?
The Bible does give a criterion for what books belong as scripture in the Canon (John 10:3-6). However, Non-Protestants will be quick to point out that it does not give the content of which books fulfill that criterion. But why think that we need that? I really can think of no good reason for why that is necessary. Admittedly, it may be subjectively preferable to some, but it is hard to see why this is necessary. They might argue that it makes things clear and that thereby entails that the Non-Protestant position is more reasonable, but I have demonstrated in the last post that just because a position is clearer than another does not constitute a good reason for choosing one position over another.
Concluding Thoughts:
Thus, we have seen that the most popular Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox argument is a complete failure and cannot be used to show that Non- Protestant positions are more reasonable than the Protestant position.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
A Refutation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Argument from Perspicuity
It is argued that the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EO) ought to be preferred over the Protestant (P) position because these churches provide the individual believer with more certainty and clarity concerning claims of Faith and Practice. These institutions, it is argued, can infallibly and authoritatively elaborate and explain doctrine in a way that gives more epistemological certainty and clarity about theological propositions. Thus, from this the RC and EO argue that there positions are more reasonable to believe because they can provide one with more theological certainty than P.
This is how the argument might run:
P1: If r provides more theological certainty than p then r is more reasonable to believe than p
P2: RC and EO provide more theological certainty than P
C: Hence, RC and EO are more reasonable to believe than P
It seems to me that P1 is clearly false. We can think of a counter example to P1 that renders it entirely unreasonable to believe. Let us suppose there was a Christian position where God implanted in our minds *all* infallible and authoritative revelation that could not be doubted in the same way that 1+1=2 cannot be doubted. According to this rationalistic position all theological propositions that are essential for faith and practice were revealed to us in this infallible a priori fashion. Now surely this way of God revealing himself would be far clearer than using our fallible senses that can be possibly mistaken to read or hear infallible propositions. But surely no one believes this position or thinks that because it offers more epistemological clarity and certainty that it ought to be preferred over P, EO, and RC.
Another Problem is that I can find no good reason for even affirming P1, so even if the previous argument were to fail it still seems we have no positive reason for affirming P1. Thus, at best we ought to be agnostic with respect to P1.
Therefore, it seems that this argument is unsound and ought to be rejected when it is used for positive support for RC and EO against P. If one were to accept RC and EO they would have to offer independent reasons for doing so rather than pointing out that if one where to accept it they would have more epistemological certainty concerning doctrine.
This is how the argument might run:
P1: If r provides more theological certainty than p then r is more reasonable to believe than p
P2: RC and EO provide more theological certainty than P
C: Hence, RC and EO are more reasonable to believe than P
It seems to me that P1 is clearly false. We can think of a counter example to P1 that renders it entirely unreasonable to believe. Let us suppose there was a Christian position where God implanted in our minds *all* infallible and authoritative revelation that could not be doubted in the same way that 1+1=2 cannot be doubted. According to this rationalistic position all theological propositions that are essential for faith and practice were revealed to us in this infallible a priori fashion. Now surely this way of God revealing himself would be far clearer than using our fallible senses that can be possibly mistaken to read or hear infallible propositions. But surely no one believes this position or thinks that because it offers more epistemological clarity and certainty that it ought to be preferred over P, EO, and RC.
Another Problem is that I can find no good reason for even affirming P1, so even if the previous argument were to fail it still seems we have no positive reason for affirming P1. Thus, at best we ought to be agnostic with respect to P1.
Therefore, it seems that this argument is unsound and ought to be rejected when it is used for positive support for RC and EO against P. If one were to accept RC and EO they would have to offer independent reasons for doing so rather than pointing out that if one where to accept it they would have more epistemological certainty concerning doctrine.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Defending The Law/Gospel Distinction: Revelation 14:6-7
In this post I will be addressing an argument against the Law/Gospel distinction from Eastern Orthodox blogger MG's post “Breaking down the Law-Gospel dialectic”. His argument tries to show that the Law and the Gospel are not distinct theological categories. I will distinguish the two in the following way: Gospel is believing in the promises of God especially as it relates to our salvation in Christ alone and the is Law the commandments of God. In short what distinguishes these two: the Gospel is “believing” and the Law is “doing”. In Pauline thought believing is never doing and doing is never believing. Now that we understand the distinction let us take a look at MG's supposed counter example to this distinction:
Revelation 14:6-7 6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal *gospel* to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his *judgment* has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water."
MG writes, after quoting this verse:
“If law is observance of commandments (fear, give glory, worship), and the everlasting gospel teaches us to obey God’s commandments, then are the two really in opposition?”
The first theological mistake that MG makes is by pointing out that people who hold to the Law/Gospel distinction think that there is actually opposition between the Law and the Gospel. This is far from the truth because most Reformed/Lutheran accounts of the Law and The Gospel never say that they are opposed to each other but rather they are distinct from one another. The Law and the Gospel work together to bring about God’s redemptive historical plan and thus there is no opposition here, but only a distinction here.
Secondly, why does MG assume that when it speaks of the Gospel it has to be referring to all the imperatives mentioned (fear, give glory, worship)? My contention is that John is only referring to God’s judgment or justice being displayed to believers and non-believers. The Gospel does contain, after all, God’s justice and righteousness (Rom. 1:17) and surely John is talking about God’s justice which is the Greek word “krisis” used in this passage (in the ESV translation above it is translated as judgment). It seems that this is all John is trying to say: that the eternal gospel is God’s coming justice. This is something that Protestants who hold to the law/gospel distinction agree with. This is a statement of fact about God’s righteous purposes and not an imperative for us to follow.
The reason why MG took the verse in this way is because as an Eastern Orthodox person he rejects the follow Protestant positions: 1) The clearer passages of Scripture ought to interpret the unclear; 2) the Gospel is that of believing and not doing.
Paul states clearly that an aspect of the Gospel is justification by Faith alone (Rom. 1:16-17). Also, that those who reject the Gospel and try to add any works to it, as Paul's Jewish opponents did, are condemned to hell (Gal. 1:8-9). If we would let the clear scriptures define what is the Gospel rather than some difficult apocalyptic imagery in Revelation then one would clearly see that what John was talking about was God’s righteousness and justice as an aspect of the eternal gospel rather than bundle of imperatives. But MG did not do this because his church rejects the Gospel and rejects the reasonable interpretive principles that lay at the heart of the Reformation.
Revelation 14:6-7 6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal *gospel* to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his *judgment* has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water."
MG writes, after quoting this verse:
“If law is observance of commandments (fear, give glory, worship), and the everlasting gospel teaches us to obey God’s commandments, then are the two really in opposition?”
The first theological mistake that MG makes is by pointing out that people who hold to the Law/Gospel distinction think that there is actually opposition between the Law and the Gospel. This is far from the truth because most Reformed/Lutheran accounts of the Law and The Gospel never say that they are opposed to each other but rather they are distinct from one another. The Law and the Gospel work together to bring about God’s redemptive historical plan and thus there is no opposition here, but only a distinction here.
Secondly, why does MG assume that when it speaks of the Gospel it has to be referring to all the imperatives mentioned (fear, give glory, worship)? My contention is that John is only referring to God’s judgment or justice being displayed to believers and non-believers. The Gospel does contain, after all, God’s justice and righteousness (Rom. 1:17) and surely John is talking about God’s justice which is the Greek word “krisis” used in this passage (in the ESV translation above it is translated as judgment). It seems that this is all John is trying to say: that the eternal gospel is God’s coming justice. This is something that Protestants who hold to the law/gospel distinction agree with. This is a statement of fact about God’s righteous purposes and not an imperative for us to follow.
The reason why MG took the verse in this way is because as an Eastern Orthodox person he rejects the follow Protestant positions: 1) The clearer passages of Scripture ought to interpret the unclear; 2) the Gospel is that of believing and not doing.
Paul states clearly that an aspect of the Gospel is justification by Faith alone (Rom. 1:16-17). Also, that those who reject the Gospel and try to add any works to it, as Paul's Jewish opponents did, are condemned to hell (Gal. 1:8-9). If we would let the clear scriptures define what is the Gospel rather than some difficult apocalyptic imagery in Revelation then one would clearly see that what John was talking about was God’s righteousness and justice as an aspect of the eternal gospel rather than bundle of imperatives. But MG did not do this because his church rejects the Gospel and rejects the reasonable interpretive principles that lay at the heart of the Reformation.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Do we need a Infallible Interpretation of the Bible?
Roman Catholics claim that Protestant theology is deficient because one cannot have infallible certainty about doctrine from scripture because they do not have a infallible church to interpret the Bible infallibly. All they have, according to the Roman Catholic, is the fallible opinions of men. In this post I hope to show that given this line of reasoning that Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants and that if there reasoning were consistent then this would require a infinite regress of infallible interpreters.
Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants:
If the infallible church infallibly interprets a statement x then the infallible interpretation is going to be interpreted by you, a mere fallible person. In short, the Roman Catholic has to fallibly interpret the infallible church, just like the Protestant has to fallibly interpret the infallible Bible.
A Infinite Regress of Infallible Interpreters:
The Problem is that if the Roman Catholics were consistent with their claims then they would end up having a infinite regress of infallible interpreters. Here is how:
If one lays out a condition for theology that for any statement of faith and practice, that statement ought to be infallibly interpreted.
Here is how such a condition would lead to a infinite regress: For every statement x that is interpreted that interpretation becomes a statement y about a statement x. Furthermore, since that infallible interpretation is a statement y then it needs to be infallibly interpreted by another statement w and once it is infallibly interpreted then w has to be infallibly interpreted and on and on.
The Roman Catholics might object and say that "well there comes a point were you just have to interpret the statement x". But if this is true then it becomes a fallible human opinion and no longer a infallible interpretation of the Church.
The problem with this infallible interpretation principle is that it leads to a unnecessary infinite regress and thus a violation of Ockham's Razor.
Conclusion:
In conclusion we do not need a infallible interpretation of the Bible because the principles behind it lead to a unnecessary infinite regress. There is no reason to think that we cannot know the meaning of scripture without a church infallibly interpreting it. This is why I think it most reasonable to think that we interpret the Bible as fallible creatures before God, we know what it says but we know it as creatures and not as God.
Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants:
If the infallible church infallibly interprets a statement x then the infallible interpretation is going to be interpreted by you, a mere fallible person. In short, the Roman Catholic has to fallibly interpret the infallible church, just like the Protestant has to fallibly interpret the infallible Bible.
A Infinite Regress of Infallible Interpreters:
The Problem is that if the Roman Catholics were consistent with their claims then they would end up having a infinite regress of infallible interpreters. Here is how:
If one lays out a condition for theology that for any statement of faith and practice, that statement ought to be infallibly interpreted.
Here is how such a condition would lead to a infinite regress: For every statement x that is interpreted that interpretation becomes a statement y about a statement x. Furthermore, since that infallible interpretation is a statement y then it needs to be infallibly interpreted by another statement w and once it is infallibly interpreted then w has to be infallibly interpreted and on and on.
The Roman Catholics might object and say that "well there comes a point were you just have to interpret the statement x". But if this is true then it becomes a fallible human opinion and no longer a infallible interpretation of the Church.
The problem with this infallible interpretation principle is that it leads to a unnecessary infinite regress and thus a violation of Ockham's Razor.
Conclusion:
In conclusion we do not need a infallible interpretation of the Bible because the principles behind it lead to a unnecessary infinite regress. There is no reason to think that we cannot know the meaning of scripture without a church infallibly interpreting it. This is why I think it most reasonable to think that we interpret the Bible as fallible creatures before God, we know what it says but we know it as creatures and not as God.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Legal Exchange of Redemption
The Traditional Protestant position teaches that Christ was legally imputed our sins and that we are legally imputed his righteousness. But is there any basis for this teaching in the Bible? I believe that there is a strong basis for this in 2 Corinthians 5:21, it reads:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
How should we understand this passage? Did Jesus actually sin or was it merely legal?
From this scripture verse we can develop the following argument
P1: Jesus becoming sin is either actual or legal
P2: It is not actual
C: Hence, it is legal
There are two reasons for supposing the truth of Premise 2. The first reason is biblical: the bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Christ did not actually sin (Heb. 4:15). The second reason is philosophical: God being the greatest possible being it is rather impossible that such a being would be united with a sinful human nature. For if God could be united to such a sinful nature then we could think of a greater being, a being that was not united to a sinful nature. And then God would no longer be God, a clear contradiction. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the transaction is legal.
There is further Biblical evidence that the redemption event was legal in Colossians 2:13-14:
"13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."
Given that the sin that Christ recieved was only legal in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and not actual then it is only reasonable to suppose that the righteousness spoken of in this context is legal as well. Thus, what we have here is a glorious transaction between sinner and a righteous man. A transaction that is only compatible with Protestant theology and not with Rome and Orthodoxy. We as sinners are as piles of dung covered in the snow of the glorious righteousness of Christ.
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
How should we understand this passage? Did Jesus actually sin or was it merely legal?
From this scripture verse we can develop the following argument
P1: Jesus becoming sin is either actual or legal
P2: It is not actual
C: Hence, it is legal
There are two reasons for supposing the truth of Premise 2. The first reason is biblical: the bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Christ did not actually sin (Heb. 4:15). The second reason is philosophical: God being the greatest possible being it is rather impossible that such a being would be united with a sinful human nature. For if God could be united to such a sinful nature then we could think of a greater being, a being that was not united to a sinful nature. And then God would no longer be God, a clear contradiction. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the transaction is legal.
There is further Biblical evidence that the redemption event was legal in Colossians 2:13-14:
"13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."
Given that the sin that Christ recieved was only legal in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and not actual then it is only reasonable to suppose that the righteousness spoken of in this context is legal as well. Thus, what we have here is a glorious transaction between sinner and a righteous man. A transaction that is only compatible with Protestant theology and not with Rome and Orthodoxy. We as sinners are as piles of dung covered in the snow of the glorious righteousness of Christ.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
My Lap Top is being Repaired!
My lap top is broken and it will be in the shop for about three weeks. As a result of this I will not be able to respond to your comments or e-mails as quickly as I used to. The worst thing is my lap top had all my papers and Bible works on it. So as soon as I get it back I will make sure to respond to all the comments as soon as I can. Sorry about this.
In Christ Jesus,
Nathanael P. Taylor
In Christ Jesus,
Nathanael P. Taylor
Friday, July 10, 2009
An Argument For Original Guilt
Original Guilt is the doctrine that all of humanity is legally imputed the sin of Adam in the garden, even infants. But is there any good reason to believe in this doctrine? Some have objected that it simply is not fair because an agent s has no control over sin x, but yet agent s is held morally responsible for sin x. But perhaps there are good biblical reasons for thinking it is true. Here is two such scriptures that might suggest this:
Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
and
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
This is how Romans 5:12 and 8:10 might entail original sin:
P1: When people die it is only because of their sin (original or actual)
P2: Infants die
C3: Hence, infants have sin
P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original
P5: The sin is not actual.
C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.
Most People tend to think that infants in the womb and one day old infants do not have the mental capacity to actually sin, but it seems clear that one day old infants and infants in the womb do die. The sin they die for is therefore, original rather than actual. This argument seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?
Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
and
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
This is how Romans 5:12 and 8:10 might entail original sin:
P1: When people die it is only because of their sin (original or actual)
P2: Infants die
C3: Hence, infants have sin
P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original
P5: The sin is not actual.
C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.
Most People tend to think that infants in the womb and one day old infants do not have the mental capacity to actually sin, but it seems clear that one day old infants and infants in the womb do die. The sin they die for is therefore, original rather than actual. This argument seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?
In this blog post I want to explore the topic of whether Roman Catholics are committed to the belief that they worship the same God as the Muslims worship. It seems that the Roman Catholic Catechism teaches this and if this is the case then one could devise a compelling argument against the Catholic position.
The Qur’an clearly states:
“[4:171] O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.”
What is clearly being taught in Sura 4:171 is that there is not a Trinity in the Divine Essence. That is to say: God is only a unity and has no tri-diversity as the Christian Doctrine of Trinity states. Well why might this be a problem for Roman Catholics? The reason why this seems to be a serious problem is because the Official Roman Catholic Catechism states in paragraph 841:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
The Catholic Catechism is suggesting that Muslims and Catholics worship together the same object, namely the one, merciful, God. Catholics adore a God who is One but also three with respect to persons, but Muslims reject that God is three persons and just says he is one. So how could they have the same object of worship? To make it more evident I will lay out three propositions that draw out this contradiction further:
P1: Catholics believe and worship God as a Trinity
P2: Muslims believe and worship God as a Unity
P3: Catholics and Muslims together worship the same object
If the propositions are granted and laid out in this manner there is a clear contradiction between P3 in conjunction with P1 and P2. From this one could come up with this argument against the Catholic position:
P1: The Official Catholic Church teachings on Faith and Practice are true in total
P2: The Roman Catholic Catechism is a part of these true official teachings
P3: The Roman Catholic Catechism contains a falsehood on the object of worship in Islamic theology
C: Hence, the Official Catholic Church teachings on Faith and Practice are not true in total
This seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?
To see the official Catholic Teaching on this from The Roman Catholic Catechism on the Official Vatican site click here.
The Qur’an clearly states:
“[4:171] O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.”
What is clearly being taught in Sura 4:171 is that there is not a Trinity in the Divine Essence. That is to say: God is only a unity and has no tri-diversity as the Christian Doctrine of Trinity states. Well why might this be a problem for Roman Catholics? The reason why this seems to be a serious problem is because the Official Roman Catholic Catechism states in paragraph 841:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
The Catholic Catechism is suggesting that Muslims and Catholics worship together the same object, namely the one, merciful, God. Catholics adore a God who is One but also three with respect to persons, but Muslims reject that God is three persons and just says he is one. So how could they have the same object of worship? To make it more evident I will lay out three propositions that draw out this contradiction further:
P1: Catholics believe and worship God as a Trinity
P2: Muslims believe and worship God as a Unity
P3: Catholics and Muslims together worship the same object
If the propositions are granted and laid out in this manner there is a clear contradiction between P3 in conjunction with P1 and P2. From this one could come up with this argument against the Catholic position:
P1: The Official Catholic Church teachings on Faith and Practice are true in total
P2: The Roman Catholic Catechism is a part of these true official teachings
P3: The Roman Catholic Catechism contains a falsehood on the object of worship in Islamic theology
C: Hence, the Official Catholic Church teachings on Faith and Practice are not true in total
This seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?
To see the official Catholic Teaching on this from The Roman Catholic Catechism on the Official Vatican site click here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A Question To My Arminian/Molinist Friends
This question is generated by genuine curiosity and is aimed at provoking a bit of light discussion. It's not meant to be a trap or a clever argument for Calvinism.
When listening to some of Dr. William Lane Craig's webcasts about Calvinism and Molinism recently, I noticed that he said again and again that he believed that God's plan for the cosmos was to allow the maximum number of people to freely come to salvation in Christ. This was also part of his response to the problem of evil. If men are free to accept or reject salvation and God needs to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the greatest possible number of people choose to accept salvation, then it isn't that unreasonable to assume that God uses evil to bring about that state of affairs. Many people who would not otherwise to turn Christ will do so in the face of pain.
Fair enough. But I'm curious: If God's plan is to get the maximum number of people saved, then why would He ever return? After all, if He had returned 50 years ago, I and other Christians of my generation would not be saved. Likewise, if He were to return tomorrow, countless millions of potential Christians will never be born. In other words, if God truly desires the maximum number of people to be saved, doesn't he have to let things go on like this for eternity?
When listening to some of Dr. William Lane Craig's webcasts about Calvinism and Molinism recently, I noticed that he said again and again that he believed that God's plan for the cosmos was to allow the maximum number of people to freely come to salvation in Christ. This was also part of his response to the problem of evil. If men are free to accept or reject salvation and God needs to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the greatest possible number of people choose to accept salvation, then it isn't that unreasonable to assume that God uses evil to bring about that state of affairs. Many people who would not otherwise to turn Christ will do so in the face of pain.
Fair enough. But I'm curious: If God's plan is to get the maximum number of people saved, then why would He ever return? After all, if He had returned 50 years ago, I and other Christians of my generation would not be saved. Likewise, if He were to return tomorrow, countless millions of potential Christians will never be born. In other words, if God truly desires the maximum number of people to be saved, doesn't he have to let things go on like this for eternity?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Evangelism & Mercy
It is a fascinating question to the Christian mind in what manner Evangelism and Mercy are to be interlinked. In the New Testament they are worked out in Jesus’ and the apostles’ ministry in close conjunction with one another and are clearly commissioned for the abiding church of Christ.
The point on which reformed churches and elders across the spectrum of variant views on this subject agree is that Jesus the Messiah came and worked, and established His Church through which He continues to abide and work, in order to gather the elect and reverse absolutely all that humanity’s debacle entails – that is, ultimately to make all things new, spiritually, socially, naturally etc. Differences arise over how and when this gathering and ultimate renovation is to come about.
Often one of two notions is favored. Either – ecclesiastical mercy and world renewal vision is identified very closely with spiritual gospel proclamation to unbelievers to the point where the growth and advance of the kingdom of God will be expected to be accompanied by augmentation of the holistic wellness of the world at large – or – ecclesiastical mercy and renewal vision is focused inside the of church for those who have been evangelized, and the growth and advance of the kingdom of God is understood as a drawing of men and women into an oasis of holistic wellness in the midst of a world that is perishing. At this point in my consideration of the matter I might propose somewhat of a middle way between these two options.
Jesus evangelized, inaugurating and propagating the kingdom of God through preaching of spiritual grace accompanied by miraculous acts of mercy. Though Jesus’ and the apostles’ ministry featured unique supernatural demonstrations of power attending the great work of redemption and the foundational inspired revelation, I fondly accept the thought of holding forth our Lord’s initial practice of evangelism through word and deed as normative for our own as He continues to work through us.
Jesus employed miraculous acts of mercy in the form of physical healings, food provision, etc. in order to authorize His message of spiritual grace.
“Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home.”
These symbolic, renovative acts had the intent and (in some cases) the effect of opening the eyes of people’s hearts to the spiritual millennial reign that had at last arrived already and unto hope of the resurrection and consummation which would not yet unfold. It seems, however that in their symbolic, temporary nature these miraculous acts of mercy were not meant to really improve or fix the physical, external state of the world. All the people whom Jesus physically healed became physically sick again and eventually died. Those whom He physically fed became physically hungry again within a matter of hours. However, these acts of external mercy were not in vain since through them the Word and Sacrament were legitimated and authenticated which would effect permanent and imperishable spiritual healing and spiritual fullness which guaranteed eventual holistic impeccability.
Likewise we, in preaching the grace of God in the Lord Jesus, must authenticate our message through sincere symbolic renovative acts of external mercy. The Spirit through James bids us everywhere to authenticate our spiritual charity in works of mercy. Indeed, vain “faith,” without its necessarily concomitant deeds of mercy and kindness is a lifeless caricature of its counterfeited namesake. Yet we cannot expect that our temporary improvements of people’s and things’ estates will have lasting effect in a world which we know goes from bad to worse, in which Sheol swallows all until it is commanded to vomit out along with the risen Lord those whom the Father has given to Him from before the foundation of the world who like Him it cannot hold. Though, as our works of mercy authenticate and make effective our message of grace which engrafts lost sinners into that true Vine, they are eternally far from being done in vain. Our evangelistic proclamation must be accompanied by merciful acts of great proportions. Our diaconal funds must be directed toward renovative repairs for those inside the church and out, so long as through these investments the Word of grace will take hold and through our material helps, though transient and unimaginably insignificant in the grad scheme, hearts are guaranteed eternal Spiritual inheritance.
The lost of the elect must be won through broad and active love. In love the light of the church should shine before men that they may see good works and give glory to the Father in heaven. Yet evangelistically speaking we must consider what sort of love this is. The church’s love for the unbelieving world will always imply antithesis. We can be inclined to understand this love by which we are to adorn the gospel to be merely a coming alongside unbelievers in humanitarian initiatives which they will applaud and be thereby drawn by attraction into our midst. Loving the lost, however, is always loving one’s enemies in a real sense as it necessarily (if it is love at all) involves calling them to repent and be won through Jesus to the Lord, the true and only source of love whom they despise. Secular humanitarianism can be blasphemous as it seeks (in futility) to remedy the divinely imposed curse on human sin through human means and achieve glory and shalom apart from the God who promises Sabbath and whose central presence and dwelling is absolutely constitutive of what shalom denotes. While outward ecclesiastical acts of mercy may exactly mirror secular humanitarian works, the proclamation of the Word of the gospel of God and the offer of the sacrament, both of which must accompany the ecclesiastical acts of mercy, bring home the antithesis. Ecclesiastical acts of mercy are ancillary means to the end of conscionable hearing and effective appropriation of Word and sacrament calling the world back to the triune God it tries to avoid. Secular humanitarian efforts are an end in themselves. Thus, our acts of mercy clash head on with the humanitarian agenda and the loving works by which we adorn the gospel overcome the self-serving works of fleshly humanitarianism rather than assimilating them. (Yet as we are to seek the general well-being of all humanity, and seek to preserve as far as we can the common grace stage of God’s outworking of redemption, we should affirm secular humanitarian efforts since the external form and effect preserves God’s image in man and is advantageous to the gospel)
So ecclesiastical acts of mercy toward unbelievers are means to the end of gospel proclamation and spiritual salvation and deliverance. Yet they are necessarily concomitant means to this end. We cannot perform meaningful acts of mercy toward the lost without the explicit proclamation of the gospel of Jesus. Yet we cannot give meaningful proclamation of the gospel Jesus without acts of mercy toward the lost. We must pursue a middle way between the social gospel and the sectarian withdrawal gospel. Evangelism: Doing justice and preaching grace! (Harvie Conn’s title)
The point on which reformed churches and elders across the spectrum of variant views on this subject agree is that Jesus the Messiah came and worked, and established His Church through which He continues to abide and work, in order to gather the elect and reverse absolutely all that humanity’s debacle entails – that is, ultimately to make all things new, spiritually, socially, naturally etc. Differences arise over how and when this gathering and ultimate renovation is to come about.
Often one of two notions is favored. Either – ecclesiastical mercy and world renewal vision is identified very closely with spiritual gospel proclamation to unbelievers to the point where the growth and advance of the kingdom of God will be expected to be accompanied by augmentation of the holistic wellness of the world at large – or – ecclesiastical mercy and renewal vision is focused inside the of church for those who have been evangelized, and the growth and advance of the kingdom of God is understood as a drawing of men and women into an oasis of holistic wellness in the midst of a world that is perishing. At this point in my consideration of the matter I might propose somewhat of a middle way between these two options.
Jesus evangelized, inaugurating and propagating the kingdom of God through preaching of spiritual grace accompanied by miraculous acts of mercy. Though Jesus’ and the apostles’ ministry featured unique supernatural demonstrations of power attending the great work of redemption and the foundational inspired revelation, I fondly accept the thought of holding forth our Lord’s initial practice of evangelism through word and deed as normative for our own as He continues to work through us.
Jesus employed miraculous acts of mercy in the form of physical healings, food provision, etc. in order to authorize His message of spiritual grace.
“Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home.”
These symbolic, renovative acts had the intent and (in some cases) the effect of opening the eyes of people’s hearts to the spiritual millennial reign that had at last arrived already and unto hope of the resurrection and consummation which would not yet unfold. It seems, however that in their symbolic, temporary nature these miraculous acts of mercy were not meant to really improve or fix the physical, external state of the world. All the people whom Jesus physically healed became physically sick again and eventually died. Those whom He physically fed became physically hungry again within a matter of hours. However, these acts of external mercy were not in vain since through them the Word and Sacrament were legitimated and authenticated which would effect permanent and imperishable spiritual healing and spiritual fullness which guaranteed eventual holistic impeccability.
Likewise we, in preaching the grace of God in the Lord Jesus, must authenticate our message through sincere symbolic renovative acts of external mercy. The Spirit through James bids us everywhere to authenticate our spiritual charity in works of mercy. Indeed, vain “faith,” without its necessarily concomitant deeds of mercy and kindness is a lifeless caricature of its counterfeited namesake. Yet we cannot expect that our temporary improvements of people’s and things’ estates will have lasting effect in a world which we know goes from bad to worse, in which Sheol swallows all until it is commanded to vomit out along with the risen Lord those whom the Father has given to Him from before the foundation of the world who like Him it cannot hold. Though, as our works of mercy authenticate and make effective our message of grace which engrafts lost sinners into that true Vine, they are eternally far from being done in vain. Our evangelistic proclamation must be accompanied by merciful acts of great proportions. Our diaconal funds must be directed toward renovative repairs for those inside the church and out, so long as through these investments the Word of grace will take hold and through our material helps, though transient and unimaginably insignificant in the grad scheme, hearts are guaranteed eternal Spiritual inheritance.
The lost of the elect must be won through broad and active love. In love the light of the church should shine before men that they may see good works and give glory to the Father in heaven. Yet evangelistically speaking we must consider what sort of love this is. The church’s love for the unbelieving world will always imply antithesis. We can be inclined to understand this love by which we are to adorn the gospel to be merely a coming alongside unbelievers in humanitarian initiatives which they will applaud and be thereby drawn by attraction into our midst. Loving the lost, however, is always loving one’s enemies in a real sense as it necessarily (if it is love at all) involves calling them to repent and be won through Jesus to the Lord, the true and only source of love whom they despise. Secular humanitarianism can be blasphemous as it seeks (in futility) to remedy the divinely imposed curse on human sin through human means and achieve glory and shalom apart from the God who promises Sabbath and whose central presence and dwelling is absolutely constitutive of what shalom denotes. While outward ecclesiastical acts of mercy may exactly mirror secular humanitarian works, the proclamation of the Word of the gospel of God and the offer of the sacrament, both of which must accompany the ecclesiastical acts of mercy, bring home the antithesis. Ecclesiastical acts of mercy are ancillary means to the end of conscionable hearing and effective appropriation of Word and sacrament calling the world back to the triune God it tries to avoid. Secular humanitarian efforts are an end in themselves. Thus, our acts of mercy clash head on with the humanitarian agenda and the loving works by which we adorn the gospel overcome the self-serving works of fleshly humanitarianism rather than assimilating them. (Yet as we are to seek the general well-being of all humanity, and seek to preserve as far as we can the common grace stage of God’s outworking of redemption, we should affirm secular humanitarian efforts since the external form and effect preserves God’s image in man and is advantageous to the gospel)
So ecclesiastical acts of mercy toward unbelievers are means to the end of gospel proclamation and spiritual salvation and deliverance. Yet they are necessarily concomitant means to this end. We cannot perform meaningful acts of mercy toward the lost without the explicit proclamation of the gospel of Jesus. Yet we cannot give meaningful proclamation of the gospel Jesus without acts of mercy toward the lost. We must pursue a middle way between the social gospel and the sectarian withdrawal gospel. Evangelism: Doing justice and preaching grace! (Harvie Conn’s title)
Monday, June 8, 2009
A Refutation of Theonomy Part 3
A Refutation of the Theological Arguments used to support Theonomy
This is my third post on refuting theonomy. In this post I plan to take a look at one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theonomic position. This argument is more of a systematic/philosophical argument than a textual argument. I believe if this line of argumentation were valid and sound then we would have good reason for accepting theonomy. However, I will argue that this line of argumentation is not sound and thus we have no good reason for accepting it.
The argument goes something like this:
P1: If theonomic principle were false then we could not know that an action x is ethically wrong.
P2: Action x is ethically wrong
C: Hence, the theonomic principle is true
The theonomic principle used in this argument is this: We ought to assume that all of the laws in the Mosaic covenant carry over into the New Covenant of Grace unless it is abrogated or done away with in the New Covenant. The essence of the argumentation here is that the new covenant laws alone are insufficient given a reasonable Christian conception of ethics. The example that Greg L. Bahnsen, the champion of theonomy, famously gave was this: If theonomy were false then you could not ethically condemn bestiality (inappropriate sexual relations with a animal), but Christians seem to know that bestiality is wrong, therefore, theonomy is the way we know bestiality is ethically wrong attesting to the fact that theonomy is true.
In response to this argument: I would suggest that the person who does not embrace theonomy ought to reject premise 1. We can know that actions are wrong apart from the written moral law and the Bible attests to this fact (Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15). In Christian theology, the view point that we can know moral truths apart from the written word is called natural law. In natural law we can simply see which actions are morally right and which actions are morally wrong. We may at times suppress this intuition, but we know it nonetheless.
The Biblical support for this view point as I have mentioned previously is Romans 2:14-15:
Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."
The Gentiles who do not have the Law of Moses like the Jews still know what actions are right or wrong, as this passage teaches clearly.
Therefore, the new covenant Christian can say that he knows that bestiality is wrong on the basis of the natural law and this need not be affirmed explicitly in the New Testament but rather implicitly through the new testaments teaching on natural law. The inference pattern would look like this:
P1: I can only know a moral action x is wrong by what the Bible teaches either explicitly or implicitly through necessary inference
P2: The Bible teaches that we can know moral truths apart from the Bible through the revealed law given to the conscious of men
P3: It has been revealed to my conscious that an action x is wrong
C: Hence, I know that an action x is ethically wrong.
Natural Law gets us out of this theonomic argument. However, it seems to me that natural law itself can also give us an argument against theonomy. This argument in a sense turns the tables on the argument used to support theonomy. The thing that motivates the first argument is the rejection of natural law, but I will argue this theonomic rejection of natural law leads the theonomist to the position that they cannot know certain ethically wrong actions. The argument goes like this:
P1: A rejection of natural law entails that one cannot know that an action x is ethically wrong
P2: We know that an action x is ethically wrong
P3: A position that entails a rejection of natural law is false (from 2)
P4: The Theonomic position rejects natural law
C: Hence, the Theonomic position is false (from 2, 3, and 4)
One of the essential tenets of theonomic position is a rejection of natural law and so this argument proves that natural law has to be true in order for us to know certain moral truths. This entails that the theonomic position is then false because of it’s rejection of natural law. The sort of moral truths that we know through natural law but do not appear on the pages of scripture are things like inappropriate sexual relations with inanimate objects and having impure sexual thoughts about cartoon pornography. These things are obvious moral abominations, but we do not find them referenced as ethically wrong in the Bible. You could say that we know them through the Bible through a necessary inference from natural law (which is taught in the Bible). But you cannot find them referenced as morally wrong actions in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, on the theonomic principle you could not know that it is wrong to look at cartoon pornography or having inappropriate sexual relations with inanimate objects. And clearly this is absurd because these sorts of actions are clearly wrong in the eyes of God.
Conclusion
I will conclude that the main theological argument that theonomy offers is not sound given a robust understanding of natural law as revealed in God’s word and if this theological argument was consistently pursued by the theonomy it would also disprove theonomy.
This is my third post on refuting theonomy. In this post I plan to take a look at one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theonomic position. This argument is more of a systematic/philosophical argument than a textual argument. I believe if this line of argumentation were valid and sound then we would have good reason for accepting theonomy. However, I will argue that this line of argumentation is not sound and thus we have no good reason for accepting it.
The argument goes something like this:
P1: If theonomic principle were false then we could not know that an action x is ethically wrong.
P2: Action x is ethically wrong
C: Hence, the theonomic principle is true
The theonomic principle used in this argument is this: We ought to assume that all of the laws in the Mosaic covenant carry over into the New Covenant of Grace unless it is abrogated or done away with in the New Covenant. The essence of the argumentation here is that the new covenant laws alone are insufficient given a reasonable Christian conception of ethics. The example that Greg L. Bahnsen, the champion of theonomy, famously gave was this: If theonomy were false then you could not ethically condemn bestiality (inappropriate sexual relations with a animal), but Christians seem to know that bestiality is wrong, therefore, theonomy is the way we know bestiality is ethically wrong attesting to the fact that theonomy is true.
In response to this argument: I would suggest that the person who does not embrace theonomy ought to reject premise 1. We can know that actions are wrong apart from the written moral law and the Bible attests to this fact (Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15). In Christian theology, the view point that we can know moral truths apart from the written word is called natural law. In natural law we can simply see which actions are morally right and which actions are morally wrong. We may at times suppress this intuition, but we know it nonetheless.
The Biblical support for this view point as I have mentioned previously is Romans 2:14-15:
Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."
The Gentiles who do not have the Law of Moses like the Jews still know what actions are right or wrong, as this passage teaches clearly.
Therefore, the new covenant Christian can say that he knows that bestiality is wrong on the basis of the natural law and this need not be affirmed explicitly in the New Testament but rather implicitly through the new testaments teaching on natural law. The inference pattern would look like this:
P1: I can only know a moral action x is wrong by what the Bible teaches either explicitly or implicitly through necessary inference
P2: The Bible teaches that we can know moral truths apart from the Bible through the revealed law given to the conscious of men
P3: It has been revealed to my conscious that an action x is wrong
C: Hence, I know that an action x is ethically wrong.
Natural Law gets us out of this theonomic argument. However, it seems to me that natural law itself can also give us an argument against theonomy. This argument in a sense turns the tables on the argument used to support theonomy. The thing that motivates the first argument is the rejection of natural law, but I will argue this theonomic rejection of natural law leads the theonomist to the position that they cannot know certain ethically wrong actions. The argument goes like this:
P1: A rejection of natural law entails that one cannot know that an action x is ethically wrong
P2: We know that an action x is ethically wrong
P3: A position that entails a rejection of natural law is false (from 2)
P4: The Theonomic position rejects natural law
C: Hence, the Theonomic position is false (from 2, 3, and 4)
One of the essential tenets of theonomic position is a rejection of natural law and so this argument proves that natural law has to be true in order for us to know certain moral truths. This entails that the theonomic position is then false because of it’s rejection of natural law. The sort of moral truths that we know through natural law but do not appear on the pages of scripture are things like inappropriate sexual relations with inanimate objects and having impure sexual thoughts about cartoon pornography. These things are obvious moral abominations, but we do not find them referenced as ethically wrong in the Bible. You could say that we know them through the Bible through a necessary inference from natural law (which is taught in the Bible). But you cannot find them referenced as morally wrong actions in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, on the theonomic principle you could not know that it is wrong to look at cartoon pornography or having inappropriate sexual relations with inanimate objects. And clearly this is absurd because these sorts of actions are clearly wrong in the eyes of God.
Conclusion
I will conclude that the main theological argument that theonomy offers is not sound given a robust understanding of natural law as revealed in God’s word and if this theological argument was consistently pursued by the theonomy it would also disprove theonomy.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Refutation of Theonomy Part 2
Part 2: A Refutation of the arguments in favor of Theonomy
In my last post I offered positive biblical reasons for doubting Theonomy, so I thought it would be only fair to look at the biblical reasons that theonomist use to support their position and then to refute the theonomic view of those biblical texts.
In the next post I will deal with some theological arguments that theonomists give.
I will start with the most popular argument given by theonomists from Matthew 5:17, it reads:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them.
Explanation: The theonomists wants to translated the Greek word *pleroo* as uphold or establish. Thus, the reading of this text would look something like this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to uphold (pleroo) them. Thus, from this text the theonomists establishes the principle that we are to bring over the Mosaic laws unless they are abrogated in the New Covenant. The problem with this is that this Greek word throughout Matthews Gospel is not used in this way. In fact throughout Matthews Gospel "pleroo" consistently means brought to true meaning in the redemptive historical sense or prophetic fulfillment of some kind (Matt. 1:22;2:15;3:15;5:17;13:35;21:4;21:22). The theonomists has one good response to this sort of objection, they say that the word abolish followed by a "but" suggests a antithesis or a definite contrast and thus the only contrast to abolish is uphold or establish. The problem with this is that Jesus could not necessarily be saying something the opposite but merely something different. For example, If I say I did not come to eat dinner with you but I came to tell you a quick joke. Here we see that a "but" does not mean necessarily complete opposites, but rather indicating that you are simply doing something different (Thanks to Professor Steven M. Baugh for this Point). Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is doing something different than abolishing the law rather Jesus is bringing the law to eschatological completion, or to put it more simply: Jesus is fulfilling the law by bringing out it's true purpose and meaning. Thus, given the context of Matthews Gospel and a few other clarifications we see that there is no reason why we should take this passage the way the theonomists takes it especially when it contradicts clearer scripture (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3).
Hebrews 2:2-3 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,
Explanation: Theonomists try to say that the argument being made here is that the Mosaic Law gave just punishments to the people under it then how much worse is the just punishment going to be if we disobey the New Covenant. The theonomists believes that if the non-theonomic view point were true then it would have to make nonsense out of the text in this specific fashion: The Mosaic covenant was only just for a little while and then it became abolished and failed to be just so then the punishment we will receive from the new covenant for disobeying it will also be abolished and fail to be just. The reason they think this is because they believe that the author is making an argument from the lesser to the greater. A argument like this looks something like this: If a lesser x is true then how much more is the greater y true. I want to start off saying that I agree with the theonomists that this verse is arguing from the lesser from the greater like Hebrews 10:26-30. However, I do believe that a non-theonomists can affirm this argument that the author of Hebrews is making without believing in theonomy. In the situation of the Mosaic covenant it was just to execute people for committing adultery and I think given those circumstances it will always be just. However, since we are in a different ethical circumstances of the new covenant our moral obligations are different. But that is fundamentally different from saying that the Mosaic covenant that God established in those circumstances were unjust. Rather what the non-theonomists ought to affirm is that they will always be just in those circumstances, but those circumstances will never obtain again because we are now under a new covenant and the old is faded away (Heb. 8:13).
Matthew 15:4-6: For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Explanation: The theonomists wants to say that Jesus here is affirming the death penalty from a part of the Mosaic law. Even if this were true this would not prove the entire thesis of theonomy; which is that there is a presumed continuity between the new covenant and the Mosaic covenant. But suppose we were to forget about those two points, does this passage teach that Jesus is bringing over a part of the Mosaic law, specifically a law that says we ought to execute our children if they disobey us? All Jesus seems to be doing here is showing how the religious leaders are hypocritical and inconsistent with the Mosaic law they say they follow. Far from this being an endorsement of executing disobedient children this is more a condemnation on the religious leadership in Jesus' day.
Romans 3:31 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Explanation: Theonomists see this as support for Matthew 5:17 as being another reference to the idea that there is a presumed continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. However, the Greek word nomos does not mean the Mosaic law here since that is clearly abolished elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 6:14;2 Cor. 3). Rather, this verse in context is talking about how we as Christians should not just forget about following the law of God revealed in the New covenant because we have been justified by faith so now we should obey the law. This obedience to the law of God is a rule for sanctification that is produced by gratitude for what Christ has done for us. In Reformed theology this use of the law is called the third use. Paul is teaching the third use of the law rather than bringing the covenant of Moses into the covenant earned by Christ.
Romans 13:1-4 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Explanation: Theonomists see this passage as suggesting that there ought to be state laws that are right and wrong in order for the secular authorities to have been instituted by God and able to justly punish guilty individuals. They argue that the non-theonomists cannot offer a objective standard of right or wrong in the realm of the state so we therefore have to go to the law of Moses as our standard for how a state ought to function. The problem with this argument is that the non-theonomists do have a standard by which they can determine wrong or right state laws, this law is called natural law. Natural law is taught twice in the book of Romans (1:32;2:14). Natural law is the general law revealed to all humanity that enables them to know the difference between right or wrong. With this understanding of natural law we see that the theonomists has no argument to offer with this verse.
In Conclusion:
We have seen that the biblical arguments given for theonomy are altogether unconvincing and unreasonable. However, there are more theological arguments that theonomist offer that I will deal with in the next post.
In my last post I offered positive biblical reasons for doubting Theonomy, so I thought it would be only fair to look at the biblical reasons that theonomist use to support their position and then to refute the theonomic view of those biblical texts.
In the next post I will deal with some theological arguments that theonomists give.
I will start with the most popular argument given by theonomists from Matthew 5:17, it reads:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them.
Explanation: The theonomists wants to translated the Greek word *pleroo* as uphold or establish. Thus, the reading of this text would look something like this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to uphold (pleroo) them. Thus, from this text the theonomists establishes the principle that we are to bring over the Mosaic laws unless they are abrogated in the New Covenant. The problem with this is that this Greek word throughout Matthews Gospel is not used in this way. In fact throughout Matthews Gospel "pleroo" consistently means brought to true meaning in the redemptive historical sense or prophetic fulfillment of some kind (Matt. 1:22;2:15;3:15;5:17;13:35;21:4;21:22). The theonomists has one good response to this sort of objection, they say that the word abolish followed by a "but" suggests a antithesis or a definite contrast and thus the only contrast to abolish is uphold or establish. The problem with this is that Jesus could not necessarily be saying something the opposite but merely something different. For example, If I say I did not come to eat dinner with you but I came to tell you a quick joke. Here we see that a "but" does not mean necessarily complete opposites, but rather indicating that you are simply doing something different (Thanks to Professor Steven M. Baugh for this Point). Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is doing something different than abolishing the law rather Jesus is bringing the law to eschatological completion, or to put it more simply: Jesus is fulfilling the law by bringing out it's true purpose and meaning. Thus, given the context of Matthews Gospel and a few other clarifications we see that there is no reason why we should take this passage the way the theonomists takes it especially when it contradicts clearer scripture (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3).
Hebrews 2:2-3 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,
Explanation: Theonomists try to say that the argument being made here is that the Mosaic Law gave just punishments to the people under it then how much worse is the just punishment going to be if we disobey the New Covenant. The theonomists believes that if the non-theonomic view point were true then it would have to make nonsense out of the text in this specific fashion: The Mosaic covenant was only just for a little while and then it became abolished and failed to be just so then the punishment we will receive from the new covenant for disobeying it will also be abolished and fail to be just. The reason they think this is because they believe that the author is making an argument from the lesser to the greater. A argument like this looks something like this: If a lesser x is true then how much more is the greater y true. I want to start off saying that I agree with the theonomists that this verse is arguing from the lesser from the greater like Hebrews 10:26-30. However, I do believe that a non-theonomists can affirm this argument that the author of Hebrews is making without believing in theonomy. In the situation of the Mosaic covenant it was just to execute people for committing adultery and I think given those circumstances it will always be just. However, since we are in a different ethical circumstances of the new covenant our moral obligations are different. But that is fundamentally different from saying that the Mosaic covenant that God established in those circumstances were unjust. Rather what the non-theonomists ought to affirm is that they will always be just in those circumstances, but those circumstances will never obtain again because we are now under a new covenant and the old is faded away (Heb. 8:13).
Matthew 15:4-6: For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Explanation: The theonomists wants to say that Jesus here is affirming the death penalty from a part of the Mosaic law. Even if this were true this would not prove the entire thesis of theonomy; which is that there is a presumed continuity between the new covenant and the Mosaic covenant. But suppose we were to forget about those two points, does this passage teach that Jesus is bringing over a part of the Mosaic law, specifically a law that says we ought to execute our children if they disobey us? All Jesus seems to be doing here is showing how the religious leaders are hypocritical and inconsistent with the Mosaic law they say they follow. Far from this being an endorsement of executing disobedient children this is more a condemnation on the religious leadership in Jesus' day.
Romans 3:31 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Explanation: Theonomists see this as support for Matthew 5:17 as being another reference to the idea that there is a presumed continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. However, the Greek word nomos does not mean the Mosaic law here since that is clearly abolished elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 6:14;2 Cor. 3). Rather, this verse in context is talking about how we as Christians should not just forget about following the law of God revealed in the New covenant because we have been justified by faith so now we should obey the law. This obedience to the law of God is a rule for sanctification that is produced by gratitude for what Christ has done for us. In Reformed theology this use of the law is called the third use. Paul is teaching the third use of the law rather than bringing the covenant of Moses into the covenant earned by Christ.
Romans 13:1-4 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Explanation: Theonomists see this passage as suggesting that there ought to be state laws that are right and wrong in order for the secular authorities to have been instituted by God and able to justly punish guilty individuals. They argue that the non-theonomists cannot offer a objective standard of right or wrong in the realm of the state so we therefore have to go to the law of Moses as our standard for how a state ought to function. The problem with this argument is that the non-theonomists do have a standard by which they can determine wrong or right state laws, this law is called natural law. Natural law is taught twice in the book of Romans (1:32;2:14). Natural law is the general law revealed to all humanity that enables them to know the difference between right or wrong. With this understanding of natural law we see that the theonomists has no argument to offer with this verse.
In Conclusion:
We have seen that the biblical arguments given for theonomy are altogether unconvincing and unreasonable. However, there are more theological arguments that theonomist offer that I will deal with in the next post.
Friday, June 5, 2009
A Refutation of Theonomy Part 1
Theonomy is the position that there is a presumed continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant of Grace. This presumed continuity entails that all Mosaic laws that are not abrogated in the New Covenant ought to be carried over. The theonomists would of course see the ceremonial laws as completely abolished in Jesus Christ because this is what the New Testament teaches according to orthodox Christianity. The intended result of theonomy is to allow for a great deal of judicial laws and some other laws to be carried into the New Covenant. A judicial law is a law that ought to be carried out by the magistrate or the state. This would be like economic laws and laws concerning the death penalty. Basically, these laws govern what the state ought to do. Here is an example of one such law in the Mosaic covenant:
Exodus 22:18 "You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
In the Mosaic economy one of the judicial laws was that all Sorceresses were to be executed and so now, says the theonomists, the law should be to execute all sorceresses.
I will argue that theonomy is taught against in Bible and I will refute all of the verses that theonomists uses to establish his/her position. This a rather large task so this will take me about three posts to flush out.
My position, to be clear, is that there is a presumed discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new covenant of Grace. My principle: A Law is to be carried over to the New Covenant if and only if it is repeated in the New Testament which is the entire context of the new covenant inauguration. To put it more simply: If the Law from the Mosaic covenant is not repeated in the New Testament then it is abrogated or abolished.
In This post I will seek to establish my position which entails the denial of the theonomic position and then in the next post I will refute all of the verse that the theonomists uses to positively support his/her position.
Argument 1:
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Explanation:
Here in Hebrews 8 the author is commenting on the New Covenant spoken by the prophet Jeremiah and he is saying that when Jeremiah even spoke of the New Covenant the Mosaic covenant was obsolete and growing old which is going vanish away. Theonomists try to say that this is only referring to the ceremonial law. However, Jeremiah or the author of Hebrews never makes this distinction in the text and he is speaking of the Mosaic covenant as a whole (Heb. 8:7-10).
Argument 2:
2 Corinthians 3:9-13 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
Explanation:
Here Paul is saying that both the glory and the Mosaic covenant was being brought to an end once the permanent surpassing glory of the New Covenant comes. Notice again, the text does not bring up distinguishable elements of Mosaic economy such as the ceremonial laws and sacrifices and so we ought to assume that this is referring to the entire Mosaic covenant as a whole.
Argument 3:
Romans 6:14 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Explanation: When the word law or nomos in the Greek is used here it cannot be in reference to the believer following God’s moral laws or the third use of the law because Paul elsewhere in the book of Romans tells us that we ought to follow God’s moral commands as a guide for sanctification (Rom. 3:31). This also cannot be referring to the covenant of works made with Adam because there was no sin prior to the fall in which the first covenant of works was made prior to the fall. It seems then that nomos or law here can only be referring to the Mosaic covenant. This suggests that we are no longer under the Mosaic covenant as a whole or in part, but only under the New and if we are under the New then there is no reason to follow the laws of the old mosaic covenant unless of course they are repeated in the New.
Conclusion:
I have shown that given these three biblical texts that theonomy is not biblical. Because it is taught against in God’s word the church should teach against it. We should strongly teach against the theonomists notion that the abolished Mosaic covenant laws are binding on the New Covenant believer.
Exodus 22:18 "You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
In the Mosaic economy one of the judicial laws was that all Sorceresses were to be executed and so now, says the theonomists, the law should be to execute all sorceresses.
I will argue that theonomy is taught against in Bible and I will refute all of the verses that theonomists uses to establish his/her position. This a rather large task so this will take me about three posts to flush out.
My position, to be clear, is that there is a presumed discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new covenant of Grace. My principle: A Law is to be carried over to the New Covenant if and only if it is repeated in the New Testament which is the entire context of the new covenant inauguration. To put it more simply: If the Law from the Mosaic covenant is not repeated in the New Testament then it is abrogated or abolished.
In This post I will seek to establish my position which entails the denial of the theonomic position and then in the next post I will refute all of the verse that the theonomists uses to positively support his/her position.
Argument 1:
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Explanation:
Here in Hebrews 8 the author is commenting on the New Covenant spoken by the prophet Jeremiah and he is saying that when Jeremiah even spoke of the New Covenant the Mosaic covenant was obsolete and growing old which is going vanish away. Theonomists try to say that this is only referring to the ceremonial law. However, Jeremiah or the author of Hebrews never makes this distinction in the text and he is speaking of the Mosaic covenant as a whole (Heb. 8:7-10).
Argument 2:
2 Corinthians 3:9-13 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
Explanation:
Here Paul is saying that both the glory and the Mosaic covenant was being brought to an end once the permanent surpassing glory of the New Covenant comes. Notice again, the text does not bring up distinguishable elements of Mosaic economy such as the ceremonial laws and sacrifices and so we ought to assume that this is referring to the entire Mosaic covenant as a whole.
Argument 3:
Romans 6:14 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Explanation: When the word law or nomos in the Greek is used here it cannot be in reference to the believer following God’s moral laws or the third use of the law because Paul elsewhere in the book of Romans tells us that we ought to follow God’s moral commands as a guide for sanctification (Rom. 3:31). This also cannot be referring to the covenant of works made with Adam because there was no sin prior to the fall in which the first covenant of works was made prior to the fall. It seems then that nomos or law here can only be referring to the Mosaic covenant. This suggests that we are no longer under the Mosaic covenant as a whole or in part, but only under the New and if we are under the New then there is no reason to follow the laws of the old mosaic covenant unless of course they are repeated in the New.
Conclusion:
I have shown that given these three biblical texts that theonomy is not biblical. Because it is taught against in God’s word the church should teach against it. We should strongly teach against the theonomists notion that the abolished Mosaic covenant laws are binding on the New Covenant believer.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Can you Lose your Salvation?
I believe the Bible clearly teaches the Reformed Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, which means that those who are saved will by no means lose their salvation, rather they will preserver until the end. In this post I will provide biblical reasons for thinking this is the case and I will provide a defense against reasons for not thinking that this is the case.
The Bible clearly teaches in many places that you cannot lose your salvation:
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
All those who are drawn and come to God will be raised up on the last day. The term last day in the context of John 6 refers to the resurrection of glory (John 6:40). Which leads me to the next verse:
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
John 10:28-29 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
No one can snatch those who have salvation out of the Father's and the Son's hand.
Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Paul, the inspired apostle, here says that the believers who God has begun a good work in will in fact make it on the last day.
1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul is saying that God will sustain believers until the end. Notice the word guiltless here. This is quite a stab at christian denominations and groups that say a believer can have guilt before God at any point.
Romans 8:28-30 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All those who are justified are glorified. Justification in the context of Romans refers to a event in the when one first receives righteousness and hence salvation (Rom. 3:20-25; 4:1-13). Paul is saying here that those who receive justification will in fact be glorified on the last day and given the context we have no reason to think that this glorious chain of redemption can be broken. This is even more evident when one reads the proceeding context which stresses that nothing can seperate the elect or saved from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:31-39), which is another clear proof of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
Now what about the objections to this biblical doctrine?
Well the most common objection to this doctrine is surprisingly philosophical in orientation, it goes something like this:
P1: If I have experienced S who went to x:church, y:professed faith, and z:had works for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x, y, and z then S has lost his salvation.
P2: I have experienced S who did x,y, and z for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x,y, and z.
C: Therefore, S has lost his salvation
The problem with this argument is premise 1. Someone can cease from doing x, y, and z and could of never been saved to begin with. The presence of x, y, and z does not necessitate the presence of salvation because someone could have man made reasons and intentions for doing x,y, and z and people could not be aware of those intentions and reasons. But this in no way defeats perseverance of the saints because it states that one cannot lose their salvation which is wrought by God alone, but surely someone can for other reasons stop performing x,y, and z.
Now lets take a look at the biblical arguments against this position:
I will respond to each of these arguments by what is called the Reformed covenantal view point, which is to say: People can loose their membership within the covenant community, but that the covenant community is not synonymous with ones salvation. For surely one can be in the covenant community and not have salvation (Romans (9:6).
Lets take this approach from a few of the supposed falling away passages:
Hebrews 10:29-31 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This verse is teaching that if one falls away from the covenant community permanently that they will obtain more guilt than had they not been in the covenant community.
This verse would be teaching the same:
Hebrews 6:4-9 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. 9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things- things that belong to salvation.
John 15 would also be teaching this as well:
John 15:1-2 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
This verse teaches that those who do not produce fruit in the covenant community will eventually be cut off and this is made evident by them not producing x, y, and z.
Romans 11:17-22 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
This verse teaches that the Jews were cut off from the covenant community and that if the gentiles do not continue in the faith then there will be some day in which they are cut off from the covenant community. But you might say "well if one being in the covenant community is dependent on faith then how can you avoid the fact that this passages is referring to ones loss of individual salvation". My response to this is that a gentile parent could baptize their child in the covenant community and then their child could have never believed in the first place but stayed in the covenant community and then that unbelieving parent had children and baptized them out of tradition and then the children of that parent has no Godly influence and thus remains a non-believer and this could continue on until the entire cooperate unit would be cut off covenantally. In this way you can have a sort of cooperate breaking off of the covenant community without it effecting one's individual salvation.
Conclusion:
Thus, given the covenantal understanding of these verses and the strong passages we have in support of perseverance of the saint we have to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not one can lose their salvation has to be a confident No.
The Bible clearly teaches in many places that you cannot lose your salvation:
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
All those who are drawn and come to God will be raised up on the last day. The term last day in the context of John 6 refers to the resurrection of glory (John 6:40). Which leads me to the next verse:
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
John 10:28-29 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
No one can snatch those who have salvation out of the Father's and the Son's hand.
Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Paul, the inspired apostle, here says that the believers who God has begun a good work in will in fact make it on the last day.
1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul is saying that God will sustain believers until the end. Notice the word guiltless here. This is quite a stab at christian denominations and groups that say a believer can have guilt before God at any point.
Romans 8:28-30 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All those who are justified are glorified. Justification in the context of Romans refers to a event in the when one first receives righteousness and hence salvation (Rom. 3:20-25; 4:1-13). Paul is saying here that those who receive justification will in fact be glorified on the last day and given the context we have no reason to think that this glorious chain of redemption can be broken. This is even more evident when one reads the proceeding context which stresses that nothing can seperate the elect or saved from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:31-39), which is another clear proof of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
Now what about the objections to this biblical doctrine?
Well the most common objection to this doctrine is surprisingly philosophical in orientation, it goes something like this:
P1: If I have experienced S who went to x:church, y:professed faith, and z:had works for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x, y, and z then S has lost his salvation.
P2: I have experienced S who did x,y, and z for a long time T and at a future time T1 ceased from doing x,y, and z.
C: Therefore, S has lost his salvation
The problem with this argument is premise 1. Someone can cease from doing x, y, and z and could of never been saved to begin with. The presence of x, y, and z does not necessitate the presence of salvation because someone could have man made reasons and intentions for doing x,y, and z and people could not be aware of those intentions and reasons. But this in no way defeats perseverance of the saints because it states that one cannot lose their salvation which is wrought by God alone, but surely someone can for other reasons stop performing x,y, and z.
Now lets take a look at the biblical arguments against this position:
I will respond to each of these arguments by what is called the Reformed covenantal view point, which is to say: People can loose their membership within the covenant community, but that the covenant community is not synonymous with ones salvation. For surely one can be in the covenant community and not have salvation (Romans (9:6).
Lets take this approach from a few of the supposed falling away passages:
Hebrews 10:29-31 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
This verse is teaching that if one falls away from the covenant community permanently that they will obtain more guilt than had they not been in the covenant community.
This verse would be teaching the same:
Hebrews 6:4-9 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. 9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things- things that belong to salvation.
John 15 would also be teaching this as well:
John 15:1-2 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
This verse teaches that those who do not produce fruit in the covenant community will eventually be cut off and this is made evident by them not producing x, y, and z.
Romans 11:17-22 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
This verse teaches that the Jews were cut off from the covenant community and that if the gentiles do not continue in the faith then there will be some day in which they are cut off from the covenant community. But you might say "well if one being in the covenant community is dependent on faith then how can you avoid the fact that this passages is referring to ones loss of individual salvation". My response to this is that a gentile parent could baptize their child in the covenant community and then their child could have never believed in the first place but stayed in the covenant community and then that unbelieving parent had children and baptized them out of tradition and then the children of that parent has no Godly influence and thus remains a non-believer and this could continue on until the entire cooperate unit would be cut off covenantally. In this way you can have a sort of cooperate breaking off of the covenant community without it effecting one's individual salvation.
Conclusion:
Thus, given the covenantal understanding of these verses and the strong passages we have in support of perseverance of the saint we have to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not one can lose their salvation has to be a confident No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)