Green Baggins

Continuing on in the first article of Norman Shepherd in A Faith That Is Never Alone (and finishing that article), we come to this question: when Paul is talking about faith versus works, is Paul excluding all works from justification, or only some works? From Norman Shepherd’s own pen, we can see that his definition of faith does not exclude faith itself as being a work. He approves of Godfrey’s translation of Romans 1:5 of the phrase “the obedience of faith,” but then completely misunderstands the direction in which Godfrey takes that translation. This is what Godfrey understands it to say: “Paul was not suggesting that believing is the one work God rewards, but rather was ironically teaching that faith looks away from itself and rests in the obedience of another” (emphasis added, pg. 279 of CJPM). Shepherd says this: “This interpretation (the correct translation of Romans 1:5) has the advantage of rightly defining faith as itself an act of obedience, and therefore as a work” (pg. 65). This is clearly not Godfrey’s interpretation of the phrase “the obedience of faith.” So, whatever “this interpretation” is, it certainly was not Godfrey’s. It is entirely misleading for Shepherd to suggest that it is.

Shepherd clearly confuses justification and sanctification on page 66, when he says this:

We are not justified by dead faith (faith without works) and we are not justified by dead works (works without faith). We are justified by living and active faith. This is the kind of faith Paul calls for in chapter 6 when he tells us not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies, and not to offer the parts of our bodies to sin.

In other words, Shepherd is saying that we are justified by a living and active faith that works. Works is therefore a constituent member of justifying faith. They have to be Spirit-filled works, of course. My question is this: how is this one iota different from Trent? Trent would be more than happy with this formulation. I go with Calvin, who resolutely adheres to the exclusive particle in the phrase “justification by faith alone.” By the way, it is clear that Shepherd does not agree with Luther and Calvin in their interpretation of Romans 3:28 (pg. 65). He sets up the traditional straw man that Godfrey and others are advocating a dead faith justifying.

To return to our original question: what works does Paul exclude from justification? They are any and all works. But Shepherd does not think so. He outright denies this position on page 67, when he says,

Now we have to ask, what are these “works of the law?” They are not simply any and all good works, as Godfrey and many others thing, nor are they simply the ceremonial aspects of the law without the moral aspects…By ”works of the law” Paul is referring to the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant delivered to Israel on Mount Sinai, summarizing the promises and obligations under which Israel lived from the time of the Exodus to the advent of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant.

In other words, not all works are excluded from justification itself! Calvin says this (commentary on Romans 3:21): “But that the Apostle includes all works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is evident from the context. For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the Spirit of God at the time when he denies that he was justified by works. Hence he excluded from man’s justification not only works morally good, as they commonly call them, and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all those which even the faithful can perform” (pp. 134-135). It is to this passage in the commentary that Calvin refers, when he says later on 3:28 “Why he names the works of the law, I have already explained; and I have also proved that it is quite absurd to confine them to ceremonies. Frigid also is the gloss, that works are to be taken for those which are outward, and done without the Spirit of Christ. On the contrary, the word law that is added, means the same as though he called them meritorious; for what is referred to is the reward promised in the law” (pp. 148-149).

Furthermore, in reconciling James and Paul, Shepherd advocates the very position that Calvin calls a ”gross sophistry.” Calvin says that the term “justify” is used differently in James than in Paul (pg. 149 of the Romans commentary). Calvin says that the term “justify” and the term “faith” is used in two different senses. It is useless for Shepherd to appeal to Machen on this score, since Machen did not address the question of whether “to justify” means something different in James versus Paul. Shepherd says that the position that “justify” is used differently is “exegetically untenable” (pg. 64). This is bare assertion without any proof or argumentation.

Richard D. Phillips, Turning Back the Darkness: The Biblical Pattern for Reformation, Wheaton: Crossway, 2002, paper, 192 pages including index, and Terry L. Johnson, The Case for Traditional Protestantism, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004, paper, 182 pages including appendix and index. Reviewed by Barry Waugh.

The word “reformation” brings different ideas to mind for the many churches of Western Christianity. For Roman Catholics it is a reminder of rebellion, wars, anti-clericalism, persecution, iconoclasm, and disturbing the uneasy though secure peace of papal hegemony, while for the historically Protestant churches born via the Reformation, it is a reminder of bravery, persistence, persecution, the Bible in the vernacular, and justification by faith. The two books that are the subject of this review look at reformation from two different angles, though both authors see the basis for reforming established upon the same foundation; Pastor Johnson includes more historical information in his appeal for historical Protestantism, while Pastor Phillips concentrates his efforts on the exposition of several passages of the Bible and their continuing pattern for reform.

Pastor Phillips’s purpose is to “examine the theme of reformation” not only as it pertained to sixteenth century Protestantism but with respect to a definite “biblical pattern of reformation” and its application today (15). The pattern of reformation “comes from the Bible” and not only “Luther or Calvin,” though the work of these two depended upon the exposition of the Word and its instruction for reform (16). For Pastor Phillips the Reformation of the sixteenth century is an example of the confrontation of the truth of the Bible with theological error. He accomplishes his purpose by presenting several biblical passages that he interprets by means of a common three-fold pattern of reform—formation by the Word of God, then deformation through sin, and finally reformation. Some of the Bible examples presented include Solomon, Ahaz, and the word of the prophets against him, Jeremiah’s prophecies pertaining to Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and Manasseh’s failed reform in contrast with Josiah’s successful reform. Pastor Phillips comments that in “so many ways the tale of deformation and reformation is that of the false prophets against the true” (156). This can be seen particularly in the books of the prophets as the word of the Lord was brought to bear against the people’s sin as they followed the false prophets, but it also provides a picture of the Reformation confrontation with error and the continued use of the Word to change unbiblical thought and behavior. The Bible is a book that calls for reform as it is read and preached and Pastor Phillips several examples of the reforming work of the Word remind us that the theological emphases of the Reformation bring reformation today.

Pastor Johnson also turns to the source for theology, the Bible, as he considers Protestantism to be “Biblical Christianity” (ix). The solas—sola Scriptura, solo Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, and soli Deo gloria (fills two chapters)—constitute the titles for chapters two through six, while chapter one is titled, “The Evangelical Faith.” Pastor Johnson presents his appeal for Protestantism via these Latin terms because the “solas uncover the heart of the gospel” (3). The words “contemporary” and “traditional” are sometimes the subject of conversation among Christians when it comes to worship, so Pastor Johnson presents his perspective on the place of tradition for contemporary Protestants. He comments that, “we honour tradition. We consult the past. We are not like the cults which claim that they have been the first to discover the truth. We are slow to depart from our ancestors’ thoughts and ways. We rely heavily upon their insights” (33). He adds that tradition should be for the church today “a guide, a check, a safeguard” (33-34). Pastor Johnson provides a concise and capable historical perspective on Protestantism while centering his appeal on sola Scriptura and its continued importance for Protestants today.

Each of these books would have been helped by a conclusion; they both just end with the final chapter, leaving resolution to the individual readers. Questions such as, did the author prove his points, how should I use this information, or what other issues might need thought due to the issues raised in the texts go unresolved. Since both books began with introductions explaining the authors’ intentions, it would have been appropriate to have tied-up their fine packages of arguments with concluding ribbons.

Both of these books are concerned to keep the words “reform,” “Reformation,” and “Protestant” active vocabulary and not let them fall into disuse due to their being out of fashion. For many contemporary Protestants, the Reformation of the sixteenth century was an embarrassing event that is better forgotten than remembered. We have been influenced by the bill-of-goods delivered by some historians that discredits the Protestant movement by defaming its most significant leaders. Luther was a deluded, anti-Semite, woman hater, who may have been insane, while Calvin, also a member of the misogynists’ club, was a hardheaded dictator of Geneva that delighted in executing heretics and waxing eloquent about esoteric theological minutiae. It is thought that some Protestant churches have hybridized beyond the Reformation by engrafting such perspectives as post-modernism, diversity for diversity’s sake, rationalism, and existentialism resulting in a broader and more inclusive body that suppresses doctrinal distinctives and pushes for an open-ended self-serving inclusivism. What is more, there is a concerted and continued push to discredit “revealed religion” by questioning the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the Word; it is believed by many that “revealed religion” is arrogant and it is asserted, “God cannot be like he is described in the Bible.” When you come right down to it, many contemporary Bible believing and confessional Christians are embarrassed by the Reformation instead of being proud in its accomplishments and emphasis on the Word.

Now for an excursus by way of this reviewer’s soapbox. It is amazing that when Reformation Day comes around each year it generally goes by unnoticed as children dress-up in some kind of goofy or evil-esque costumes and walk from door-to-door chanting, “Trick or Treat.” This blackmail for candy is viewed as something cute and adorable, but would it not make more sense for Protestants to remember the founding years of their denominations instead of remembering Halloween, the eve before the Roman Catholic Church’s All Saints Day? A Reformation celebration would be more productive than celebrating darkness, spookiness, and the mystique of evil; the chants should be, “sola ,” “sola,” and “sola” again, rather than “trick or treat.” The Reformation should encourage us to follow, as Pastor Phillips encourages his readers, the biblical pattern of reform that he described and see the benefits of lives and churches changed by the reforming power of the Bible. Would it be so bad to celebrate the Reformation and remember Luther, Calvin, and Knox? This reviewer was shocked one day when talking to the elementary and middle school aged children in his congregation about “Martin Luther” only to discover that the only Martin Luther they knew about had a “King” following “Luther.” Without depreciating the importance of Dr. King, it would be appropriate for Protestants to know something about the reforming Augustinian monk who preceded him. It is enjoyable to experience dressing-up in sixteenth century garb and eating sixteenth century cuisine as you hear a Luther interpreter read the monk’s famous theses or a Calvin aficionado recite excerpts from Calvin’s Institutes. A worship service following the order of one of the early Protestant churches might also transport the congregation into the sixteenth century. With the five-hundredth anniversary of Calvin’s birth occurring in 2009, it might be especially appropriate to dedicate the Reformation Day of that year to the French Genevan.

Those interested in additional reading might want to consider Robert Godfrey’s, Reformation Sketches: Insights into Luther, Calvin and the Confessions, P&R, 2003, and another P&R title, Stephen Nichols, Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of his Life and Thought, 2002. Roland H. Bainton’s, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, which has been reprinted several times since its 1952 first edition, as well as his Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, which also has been put through the press repeatedly since its first edition in 1950. Titles relevant to John Calvin include, Calvin: Origin and Development of his Religious Thought, which was translated from Francois Wendel’s French original by Philip Mairet, and T. H. L. Parker’s Calvin: An Introduction to his Thought, 1995. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of the day-to-day events of the Reformation, then a reading of the three volumes of Luther’s letters in his works and likewise the letters of Calvin show that he was not only a writing machine but a pastor, friend and counselor.

I know that Doug and I had another interesting conversation about baptism where Doug said that I was outside the bounds of the confession. It seems to be happening again. Here is my response.

I think that Doug is still assuming that I am holding to some kind of strict merit schema in the Covenant of Works. To issue a counter example, in our present situation, has not God promised rewards for what we do over and above salvation? One thinks of the parable of the talents, as well as 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. How can we call that a reward either, if God’s predestination eliminates man’s responsibility? (Obviously, Doug is not explicitly doing this. I’m just throwing it out there.) If God crowns His own works there, then how can it be called a reward? And yet it is a reward. God’s predestination and man’s responsibility operate on different levels. That’s why we use the very terms “first cause” and “second cause.” God rewards the second cause. That’s what would have happened in Adam’s case, as well. And just because Adam’s second cause of his obedience is not the first cause, does not make it worthless with regard to reward. Doug is implicitly holding that because Adam is not the primary cause, that therefore it cannot be rewarded. Of course, we both agree that ultimately speaking, from the point of view of God’s decree, Adam could not have done anything other than what he did do. God decreed that. However, on Adam’s level he did face the choice. And his character was innocent. Therefore, on Adam’s secondary causation level, he could have chosen to obey God. Therein lies the difference between my predestinarian schema that allows for man’s will to choose whatever is in his character to choose (and since Adam was innocent, he had it in his character to choose the right), versus the Arminian scheme, which says that man always has the power of contrary choice.

I am still wondering if Frame’s analogy holds, but in the Doctrine of God book, he uses the analogy of Shakespeare and his plays. Obviously, on the level of the author, the characters in Shakespeare’s plays cannot do anything other than what Shakespeare directs them to do. However, on the level of the play, the characters are faced with tough decisions that often could go either way. So far, I have found the analogy to be helpful. I’m sure that there is some place where the analogy falls, though I am not aware of it yet. By Doug’s argument, however, nothing could ever be called a reward for anything that we do, since God is the cause of it. Is there not the reward “Well done, good and faithful servant?” Do we have any right to expect such rewards? Or is God going to say to us, “I know that you were expecting a reward. However, since I’m the real cause of what you did, I’m not going to give you anything.” I’m sure that Doug would recoil from this way of thinking. Nevertheless, I think it is the logical outcome of his system. I hope this clears up the “accusation” that I am inadvertently abandoning Calvinism.

Doug continues our discussion, which I think is getting very interesting. It may be a while before I get to the next section in Credenda. Let me interact with his post in some detail.

But if all Reformed theologians agree that obedience was necessary in the Garden, and a lot of them (as Lane concedes) believe that the covenant of works there was actually a gracious covenant, it follows from this that the required obedience, had it been rendered by Adam, would have been a gracious gift from God.

This does not follow, in my opinion, since there is equivocation present here in the term “gracious covenant.” In what sense is it gracious? If all that is meant is that condescension was necessary on God’s part for there to be a covenant of works at all, I agree. But this does not mean that, in an immediate sense, the required obedience would have been a gracious gift from God, since it is the nature of the immediate context of Adam’s obedience that is the question. Yes, God gave Adam the necessary moral qualifications to obey the covenant. However, it was up to Adam to obey. The terms of the covenant itself were not gracious. Not that they were harsh. Adam was expected to obey perfectly in the CoW. We are not, in the CoG. There was no leeway in the CoW, no forgiveness, no atonement, no redemption. Adam was in an unfallen state. Where would the impetus have come from, then, for Adam to obey God? It would have come immediately from Adam, even though such ability to choose the good had been given him by God. It was still up to Adam to use that gift properly. God bound Himself by the terms of the covenant, then, to reward Adam’s obedience. If Adam had obeyed, he could have come to God and said, “Father, you promised that if I obeyed, you would give me eternal life. I have obeyed. Please give me eternal life.” But to call the Covenant of Works a gracious covenant is misleading in that it obscures the ground of Adam’s inheritance, which would have been his obedience. Ultimately, we can ask the question this way: by the terms of the CoW, would Adam have deserved eternal life had he obeyed? (Notice the importance of the first clause of the question, which puts us in the realm of pactum merit.) The answer is yes. This can be inferred from the fact that disobedience most definitely deserved eternal death. By the law of opposites then, obedience (by the terms of the covenant) would have deserved eternal life, which Adam did not already possess. Eternal life, by its very definition, is not temporary, conditional, or losable, contrary to Adam’s situation.  

When Paul talks about grace and works driving one another out, he is talking about grace on the one hand and autonomous works on the other. In the Pauline vocabulary, grace and works displace one another. But Paul doesn’t think the same way about grace and obedience.

I have a proposal here, Doug. Let’s talk about some individual passages where you believe Paul is distinguishing between autonomous works, on the one hand, and obedience on the other hand, with regard to justification. This is a very important point, and one that has not really been discussed much in the literature of the Federal Vision to my knowledge (though the point has certainly been brought up in the Reformation literature). And it is an exegetical claim. Let’s get our exegetical hands dirty.

My exegetical claim is that when it comes to justification, Paul makes no such distinction between autonomous works and obedience. He excludes works and obedience from justification. Now, let’s be clear. I would think we both agree that there is a distinction between works done before faith and works done after faith. The former are not good works at all, since they are not done to the glory of God. The latter are those works which we were created to do, and which we should therefore do. So, the question is this: are the latter works, the works of obedience, the works that spring from faith (which are truly good works) part of justification, or not? I would say no. No works of ours of any kind, and no obedience of ours of any kind, factor into justification in any way whatsoever. In other words, in the Pauline sense of the word “justification,” works and obedience play no part. The only exception in the entire Bible is when James is talking about evidential justification. Is our justification true or not? The evidence brought forth to prove the point is our works. But this is not our justification before God. It is rather proof to the world and to Satan that their false accusations against the saints were not well-founded. It is not that declarative act of God by which He pronounces us not guilty and instead heirs of eternal life. Instead, what James is talking about is the genuineness of our justification. A genuine justification produces good works.  

If Adam had stood the test, it would have been through the instrumentality of faith-animated obedience, graciously given by God.

I would not put it this way. I would say that if Adam had stood the test, it would have through the instrumentality of faith-animated obedience (understanding faith here to be different than what we have, in that Adam could see God), the ability of which was condescendingly given by God. The obedience itself, in other words, was not given by God. The ability to obey was, since it was part of Adam being created morally innocent.

One other very important question to raise here is the nature of grace. Is grace defined as God giving something simply undeserved to someone? Or does it mean that God gives something to someone who has deserved the opposite? This is, of course, a Klinean question to raise. However, the WS do not use the term “grace” of the pre-Fall situation. Instead, they use the term “condescension.” I have a hard time believing that it is mere coincidence. At the very least, if we are going to use the term of both situations, we have to recognize the difference in meaning. Adam did not need grace in the same way that we need grace.

It has taken me awhile to figure out what Doug is saying about Romans 2:13. Let me try to summarize what he is saying. In effect, Doug is saying that justifying faith is never alone, even though it is alone in justification itself. The “doers” then are those who have already been justified, and are now doing the law. The only difficulty with this view of the passage is the future tense “will be.” Would not Doug’s view require Paul to have written “The doers of the law have been justified?” It is the future tense which, in my opinion, makes the two options I mentioned exclusive of other possibilities. Either it is saying that there is a hypothetical way of self-justification, namely, by doing the law perfectly (which cannot happen, since all have sinned), or it is saying that future justification depends in some manner on our works (which does not have to be taken in a legalistic direction: it could be taken in the Jamesian sense mentioned above, in which case we would have an evidential use of the verb in Paul). I see no other way to account for the future tense.

The title of this blog post is also the title of Danny Hyde’s brand-new commentary on the Belgic Confession. I would like to review and recommend this book to our readers. Commentaries on the Belgic Confession are few, as Hyde notes (pp. 2-3, where Hyde calls the BC ”the neglected member of the Three Forms of Unity”). The other parts of the 3FU are the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt. The former is not neglected, since many preach on it, and there are many excellent commentaries on it. The latter are not neglected, since they set forth the so-called Five Points of Calvinism (although, it could be argued that people do not actually read the CD, they merely summarize it. In fact, I would argue, that in terms of commentaries, there is practically nothing on the Canons of Dordt. Maybe Danny would consider doing the CD next?).

In new members classes, I actually gravitate more towards the Belgic Confession, since the information I need is laid out in a much more systematic form there than in the Heidelberg Catechism. So, I usually take our new members most of the way through the BC, explaining it as I go in typical systematic theological form (though obviously on the clearest, simplest level possible). So I was delighted when Danny Hyde published this work, as it will help me in new members classes. The book is pitched at a level for new members and for new officers, and would work well for either as a primer in theology. Hence, its usefulness extends far beyond a mere explanation of the BC. This is one of those few books that you could put into the hands of a brand-new believer and say, “Here. This is what we believe on all the important points of doctrine.” And let not Westminster folk feel left out. There is nothing which I read in the book which is incompatible with the Westminster Standards. We have long been in need of books which give us a solid, systematic overview of Christian doctrine, upon which new believers can cut their teeth. The reason for this is the appalling lack of doctrinal preaching in Christianity today, and an equally appalling lack of discernment on the part of believers, largely due to the abandonment of doctrinal teaching in our churches. All of these reasons make Hyde’s book even more important.

Here are some gems that I found in the book: (commenting on the simplicity of God)

You may be asking, “Why would we confess such a seemingly meaningless doctrine?: The answer is that throughout church history, and especially today, there are errors concerning the doctrine of God. Just ask many people the question, “What is God like?” You will surely get the response, “God is love.” the love of God in our day is pitted against all his other attributes, so that when it comes down to the essence of the question, God’s love is most important (pg. 41).

This is a great example of how Hyde makes clear the relevance of doctrine to today’s world. This is imperative for pastors today, and Hyde is constantly aware of this issue. Furthermore, Hyde is also constantly tying in doctrine to practice.  He agrees that doctrine is practical, and all true practice is doctrinal (pg. 43). We cannot ever divorce the two, as modern Christianity seems literally hell-bent on doing. Another great quotation (on article 4, which is a seemingly boring simple listing of the canonical books):

Some might say that we should not argue over where God speaks, because we have more important and practical things to deal with, such as evangelism and living the practical Christian life. However, this question must be answered before we can deal with more “practical” matters, because we need to be assured of what God is saying to us, and where we can hear his voice (pg. 74).

And lastly, to hit on an issue near and dear to my heart, Hyde talks about merit (in relation to justification):

We should not cringe or be afraid of the word merit, as if it somehow teaches a Roman Catholic view of salvation. In fact, both our Confession and the Reformers reformed the Roman concept of merit by using the term to extol the virtues of Christ’s work on our behalf (pg. 295, emphasis added).

I would add that those who wish to reject the term merit from out vocabulary (it is found in both the 3FU and the WS) make the word-concept fallacy when they accuse anyone who uses the term of being too much indebted to Roman Catholicism. Furthermore, everyone knows that there are points of continuity and discontinuity between Rome and the Reformation. Continuity in the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance. Profound discontinuity on the doctrine of the Sacraments.

A highly recommended resource for all Christians, but especially for those belonging to a church that subscribes to the BC. This is certainly the best introduction to the BC for non-scholars (and scholars will benefit from it as well).

I have been at Presbytery for most of last week, which was why I was almost entirely absent from the blogging world. But I am back now, and ready to hit the saddle again. To start off with, I owe Doug a response. In the continuing debate about covenant theology, he has responded in this way (his words in block quotations, and my response underneath). This is from his blog post Obedience and Life, one of the comments.

Lane, it was apparent that we were not rejecting obedience because we insisted on it just a few sentences before the passage you quoted.

I don’t believe that I was saying that you were rejecting obedience (what FV’er does?). I was saying that you were rejecting any overlap between obedience and works, such that you could say that the CoW was based on grace, and that obedience was required, but works were not. I am challenging that assertion. More below under the discussion of Paul.   

We distinguish between obedience and works because Paul does. In the Pauline vocabulary, deeds without faith is works. Deeds done in faith is obedience.

So, when Paul talks about justification being not by the works of the law, is he excluding all works done by faith or without faith, or is he only excluding some works? Is he excluding obedience from that? If so, then your distinction (I would say divorce) of works and obedience falls to the ground. It does not sound to me as if you are rejecting all works as being part of justification. What does the phrase “works of the law” mean? I argue that it means any and all works, whether done from faith or not. As such, it would certainly include everything under the label of obedience. Now, of course, Paul is talking about the CoG here, not the CoW. In the CoW, Adam would have been justified by works. Out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of Romans 2:13? Is this a statement that says that people will actually be justified on the final day by works, or does it mean “do this and live,” a hypothetical but realistically impossible schema (impossible because of sin)?

We are bi-covenantal if we believe there are two covenants. This we believe, holding the covenants have with different terms and different promises, but with the same gracious God as the other party to the covenant. You are saying that we cannot be bi-covenantal unless we believe that the two covenants are radically different in nature. But you can’t find that in the Confession, which is why numerous Reformed theologians agree with us that the “covenant of works” was gracious.

The confession says that the principle of Adam’s obtaining eternal life was obedience, and in no way is that true of the CoG. That is a radical difference, if you ask me.

When I opened up the package to find this book inside, I wondered if the release of this book and the documentary Expelled at roughly the same was a coincidence or not. Having asked the press agent at Kregel this question, I was assured that it was coincidence, and not intentional. Still, a very interesting coincidence. If people would like a one-stop resource to understand what the ID movement is all about, this is the book. The major players are here (including Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, and a forward by William Dembski), and the major issues are addressed. Phillip Johnson (author of Darwin on Trial) argues that the main issue here is whether God had a role in the origin of the universe (pp. 28-29), in his article entitled “Bringing Balance to a Fiery Debate.”

J.P. Moreland, in his article entitled “Intelligent Design and the Nature of Science,” Moreland argues that anti-intelligent design arguments suffer from extremely bad philosophy (pg. 43). Darwinists nowadays cannot tell a philosophical claim without basis in observable fact from scientifically viable theses. In order to defend ID, therefore, ID proponents must be better philosophers than their opponents (quite aside from the obvious need for more scientific study).

Casey Luskin finds evidence of intelligent design in nature, in his article entitled “Finding Intelligent Design in Nature.” This is probably the most technical of the articles, and of the most interest to scientists looking for such evidence.

Michael Behe gives a summary of his arguments put forth in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, in his article of the same name.

Jay Richards asks the question “Why Are We Here?” which answers many philosophical questions concerning the implications of ID versus a naturalistic interpretation. Eddie Colanter furthers this line of reasoning, with special attention to bioethics. Wayne House burrows into the legal ramifications of the Scopes Trial, among other cases, and Luskin and Logan Gage round out the book with a detailed response to Francis Collins’s arguments on the common ancestry of apes and humans.   

Matthew 11:12

4/20/2008

Audio Version

Polycarp of Smyrna was one of the very earliest Church Fathers. He was a bishop of Smyrna, which is in Asia Minor, now called Turkey. He was a disciple of the Apostle John. So he was only one generation younger than the apostles. Polycarp lived into his 80’s. However, at the very end of his life, he was taken by the Romans. They asked him not only to bow down to the emperor, but also to renounce Jesus. Polycarp said that he had served His Lord for 86 years, and His Lord had never done him any harm. Why would he renounce his Lord now? So, at the age of 86, he was martyred for his faith.

Violence against the kingdom of God has been part of human history since the very beginning. As Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote, in his book the City of God, all of humanity is divided into two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. This conflict started with Satan tempting Eve. The conflict was given verbal form when the Lord said that He would put enmity (or strife) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Cain, the seed of the serpent, killed Abel, the seed of the woman. The conflict continued in Egypt when the kingdom of man started killing the little boys of the kingdom of God. Then, when the Israelites went to the land that was promised to them, they had to fight with the people of the land. The wickedness of the people of the land had risen to such a height that the Lord judged them by having the kingdom of God fight against the kingdom of man, and wipe out the inhabitants of the land.

The problem, of course, is that even within the people of Israel, there were always members of the kingdom of man. That is why the people of Israel persecuted all the prophets who came to tell them that they were misbehaving. So, even within the so-called people of God, there have been members of the kingdom of man. The relationship of the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God has always been an adversarial relationship. They are adversaries. But that relationship came to head, a climax, when Jesus Christ was born. When Christ was born, John the Baptist was also alive, a few months older than Jesus. John was a forerunner. We have seen that in the last couple of weeks. He was one who came before Jesus in order to pave the way for Jesus. But that way is not an easy way, as we will see from this verse.

This verse is probably the most difficult verse in all of Matthew to understand. There are several ways it could be translated. One is the NIV, which reads, “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.” This translation implies that it is the kingdom of God that is exercising force. However, other translations say it this way: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” This translation means that kingdom of heaven has been suffering violence, rather than forcefully advancing. I believe that the second translation is more accurate. In other words, people have been attacking the kingdom of heaven ever since John the Baptist started his ministry. The reasons why I believe this are several: firstly, Jesus is talking about John the Baptist, who is currently in prison, having been persecuted for speaking the truth. Jesus knows that John is just about to pay the final price for his devotion to God. Secondly, Jesus hasn’t really been talking about the kingdom of God expanding. He has been talking about how great the kingdom of God is. But not really about how the kingdom is expanding. Thirdly, the last part of the verse makes much better sense as explaining the first half of the verse. And the last part of the verse is plainly saying that the violent are trying to take the kingdom of God by force. So, Jesus is saying here that the battle between the two kingdoms has escalated since John began his ministry.

Of course, Jesus does not mean that the OT battle is meaningless. But the battle has escalated since John the Baptist started his ministry. The reason, of course, is that Satan did not want Jesus to enter into the kingdom. That’s why Satan tempted Jesus three times. Satan knew that if he could only get Jesus to disobey God just once, then Jesus would not have been able to bring the kingdom in its fullness, because that kingdom was to be a kingdom of righteousness, perfect righteousness.

So what does this phrase mean, “violent men take it by force?” It refers to the fact that the kingdom of men is always trying to reduce the number of people that belong to the kingdom of God. Any way they can do that, they will. Satan has many ways of luring people, but there are two broad categories that encompass all of his ways. The first category is that of temptation. This is the soft way. If he can get people to sin, and keep them buried in sin, then that is more people for his kingdom. The other way is persecution. This is the hard way. If he can scare people enough, then they will not want to be part of a kingdom where the going is so rough. People often want to have a comfortable life. In fact, they will often make that an idol in their lives. They want comfort so much that they are willing to sacrifice anything and everything else to get it. This is a major problem today in a culture that is comfort-crazed. We are too comfortable. Was John the Baptist praised for being comfortable? No, he lived very simply in order to have his message be clear, and so that his message would not be compromised. We need to be wary of making an idol out of comfort. There is nothing inherently wrong with comfort. However, we must never let comfort get in the way of sharing the truth. And by comfort, I am including both physical and emotional comfort. After all, it is much more comfortable simply to stay at home, never bothering anyone else, and never letting anyone else bother us. Live and let live, we like to say. The difficulty with thinking that way is that we will fail to be prophetic voices in our culture today. We will fail to speak out against injustice and oppression. Furthermore, and more seriously, we will fail to share the Gospel with people. I think comfort often gets in our way. We need to pray to the Lord that He would remove this idol from our lives, so that we would be willing to take risks in order to love people and share the words of life.

So, we need both to resist temptation, and stand firm in the time of persecution. Persecution is coming, you know. There are many groups of people out there who would like nothing better than to beat up on Christians. Certainly this is true in government. However, it is rapidly becoming true in the private sector as well. Even here in North Dakota, there are people who cannot stand “those religious people.” The would just as soon shut up those religious people so that there could be no more evangelism. Persecution is coming. Will we stand fast, holding to our confession? People have now been martyred for the Christian faith even in America. Think of Columbine High School. If someone were to come up to you with a gun and ask if you were a Christian, and he told you that if you are a Christian, he will kill you, what would you say? I have often asked myself this question. What I always have to do is to pray to the Lord that the Lord would keep me steadfast, and that He would strengthen me to seal my testimony with my own blood. You never know when something might come to that, as unlikely as it looks sitting here in a country that still has religious freedom. Those freedoms are eroding as surely as North Dakota wind erodes the land.

Furthermore, we need to be in prayer for the persecuted church. How often do we remember those Christians around the world who are being persecuted? And do we pray that the persecution would end? That is not necessarily what they need, even though that is usually the first thing that comes to our minds. A Chinese Christian once told fellow Christians in the US to stop praying that the persecution would cease, and instead pray that the persecuted Christians would stand fast, and hold on to their confession. Persecution is one of the best things that can happen to a church, because it purifies the church. Hypocrites will not stand up in the time of persecution. They will fall away, leaving those who truly are Christians. In fact, church discipline is hardly even needed in churches that are being persecuted. They love each other with an undying love, and help each other as much as they possibly can. As the early church father Tertullian put it, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” This is the main reason why God allows persecution of the church. Some estimates say that China will be 40% Christian in under 20 years, if the present rate is any indication. The Gospel is exploding over there, precisely because of the persecution that is happening. The same thing is happening in the Middle East. So, although violent men seek to take the kingdom by force, we know that the very gates of hell itself wil not prevail against the church.
 

I drove up in front of Van Til’s home in an old faded blue 1966 Peugeot that I had bought for $400 from a fellow WTS student, Greg Reynolds, who had graduated and moved to New York (as many of you may know, Greg is now the editor of the OPC magazine Ordained Servant). The floor board had rusted out and plywood now served to conceal the road from appearing under your feet. Van Til was sitting out on the porch waiting for my arrival. I jumped out of the car and shouted, “Are you ready?” He waved and got up and slowly made his way down the sidewalk to greet me. “You got a good Reformed automobile there!” he exclaimed. “Huh?” I puzzled out loud. “I’ll tell you all about on the way,” he said, as we climbed in to make the short trip over to Faith Theological Seminary in Elkins Park. Peugeot, as Van Til went on to explained , was founded by a Reformed Christian, Armand Peugeot, and Peugeot donated many a car to Reformed ministers in France. He had no more finished telling me this interesting tidbit then we arrived at our designation. Faith seminary occupied the old Widener estate at the time. The estate, built early in the twentieth century, looked like something out of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, “The Great Gatsby” – but it had seen better days. The once neatly trimmed hedges that surrounded the mansion had the disheveled appearance of having been tended to by one disinterested seminarian after another for many years. Weeds sprouted up through the cracks in the parking lot, and the grand fountains out front had long ceased to function. Still, it was an impressive place. Marble floors, Greek columns, flying arches, tall double doors, all served as reminders that this was once a magnificent palace. The chapel originally had been a majestic ballroom with fine walnut walls and mounted chandeliers. Around the top of the walls were moldings of little angelic cherubs peering down. But the most impressive thing were the paintings in the ceiling. The center one, the largest of them all, depicted in classical style a Greek scene involving Venus. Surrounding the huge center painting were four smaller paintings depicting the four classical elements of earth, water, air, and fire. But we had not come on a sight seeing tour. We had come to hear Gordon Clark lecture in that spectacular chapel on Empiricism, particularly its dangers.

Dr. Clark, like Van Til, was in his 80’s, but was in fine form that night. Van Til and I sat in the front and he nodded frequently in agreement, as Clark lectured. After the lecture was over, Clark came over and the two of them shook hands and posed for pictures – one with me in between the tall Dutchman and the diminutive Clark. We lingered for over an hour listening to Clark field questions and then said our goodbyes and climbed back into my Calvinistic chariot and drove to Van Til’s home. I was chattering like a magpie asking question after question. Then there was silence. I looked over at Van Til. He had nodded off to sleep!

Late that same week, Gordon Clark had dinner with my family. He was a delightful conversationalist and spent a good part of the time discussing mathematics, when he discovered that my wife had been a math major at San Diego State University. After dinner we retired to the living room for coffee and dessert. Clark spoke highly of Van Til and mentioned that he even used Van Til’s apologetics syllabus when he taught back in the late 30’s and early 40’s at Wheaton. Above all Clark said that CVT treated him kindly all through the now famous Clark case. Ned Stonehouse, he declared, was the guy in the black hat. I asked Dr. Clark if he would sign about a half-dozen or so books of his that I had in my library – which he did. I took the books back to my study and returned to the living room to find that Dr. Clark had nodded off to sleep in the wingback chair in which he was sitting!

Given the significance of the Clark/Van Til controversy, I am going to focus on this in Part II and Part III of my review. Chapter 4 in John Muether’s biography of Van Til is entitled “Reformed and Evangelical” and gives us a blow by blow account of the now famous Clark/Van Til controversy. But, as pointed out in Part I, this cannot be understood in isolation from Van Til’s identity as Reformed Apologist and Churchman. Muether’s provides us with this context in the first three chapters. He traces Van Til’s background as a child of the Afscheiding in the Netherlands and the influence of Abraham Kuyper. From here Muether details Van Til’s family migration to the United States and Van Til student days at Calvin College and the various theological controversies that embroiled the Christian Reformed Church during his formative years.

Van Til’s determination to pursue seminary training at Princeton stemmed, to a large degree, from the desire to leave the confines of Grand Rapids and broaden his horizons in the foremost Reformed seminary in the world. In this part of the chapter, the decisive influence of Geerhardus Vos and J. Gresham Machen on Van Til is delineated with the kind of attentiveness that Boswell bestowed on Samuel Johnson.

The decision to leave Princeton to help establish Westminster Theological Seminary is likewise dealt with by Muether with the meticulous care of someone who has combed through the archives at Westminster. Of particular interest was this juicy morsel: “As early as 1928, Machen saw Van Til’s potential when he observed that “Van Til is excellent material from which a professor might ultimately be made.” If some interpreters exaggerated the affinities between the two by suggesting that Van Til prompted Machen’s movement away from evidential apologetics, others have less ground in proposing that their differences were irreconcilably great. Allan MacRae, an early member of the faculty of Westminster, maintained that Machen privately told him in the ‘the strongest language’ that he ‘stood with Warfield and against Van Til.’” Machen, MacRae recalled, was too busy during Westminster’s early years to address the “harmful effects” of Van Til’s teaching. Had Machen devoted the time to studying the matter, he would certainly have asked Van Til to leave” (p. 68). Muether hints here and elsewhere that MacRae’s recollection is difficult to reconcile with Machen’s attitude towards Van Til as well as Machen’s own deep suspicions about Premillennialism – especially the dispensational kind that MacRae embraced. For instance, MacRae later served as one of the contributors to the Revised Scofield Reference Bible. Secondly, not only Van Til, but John Murray also had serious issues with premillennialism and MacRae’s disconnect with the Westminster Standards on this very point. A year after Machen’s death MacRae would side with Carl McIntire and Oliver Buswell and split off to form Faith Theological seminary and the Bible Presbyterian Church. Interestingly, the first thing this group did was to revise the Westminster Standards so that Premillennialism could be explicitly affirmed. Thirdly, Van Til was actually relieved that the MacRae/McIntire faction broke away. In light of this I am of the opinion that Machen would have preferred that MacRae and not Van Til leave Westminster. Like Machen, Van Til wanted very much a confessional Reformed seminary as opposed to one that was more broadly Evangelical and less distinctively Reformed. I well remember one Thursday night gathering at Van Til’s home when he became very animated and in a stentorian voice declared,” You are not Evangelicals! You are Reformed! There is a big difference. Do you understand?” There was some muttering and the like from some of the fellows who had come out of a Campus Crusade for Christ background, but Van Til pressed his point with even more forcefulness. One of the front burner issues at the time was the ‘Joining and Receiving’ overture between the PCA and the OPC. Van Til was very much opposed to it and let it be known whenever he was asked. He had some well-founded doubts about the makeup of the PCA and that denomination’s broad evangelical background, i.e. churches that had left the old Southern Presbyterian Church as well as the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (that had split earlier from McInTire and MacRae’s Bible Presbyterian Church).

This aspect of Van Til the churchman factors prominently into the developments that gave raise to the controversy with Gordon Clark’s ordination in the OPC as Muether writes, “The debate over the ordination of Gordon Clark, therefore, was part of a larger battle over the denomination’s Reformed character. Clark was an instrument in the agenda of a faction in the Church that was discontented with its Reformed identity. Ultimately, what was at stake for the likes of Robert Strong (a Clark supporter) was whether the church’s ecclesiology would be Reformed or evangelical.”(p.107). I will return to this in Part III of this review-which will extend beyond the scope I had intended.

Posted by Gary Johnson

I have gone through the entire Joint Federal Vision Profession (hereafter abbreviated JFVP). An index to the entirety of the discussion can be found here (second paragraph of links). For those who are incredibly lazy, the previous discussion of the Preface can be found here. And the JFVP itself can be found here. That should be enough preliminary, prefatory, introductory, forwardary links to get on with (and I even managed to end the sentence with two prepositions that time! Except for this parenthesis).

My thoughts on the matter have not changed much. I have not found the FV any more teachable than before. If anything, less so. I still have yet to see any major retractions of doctrinal error on the part of any one of the FV “conversation partners.” This is no doubt due to the massively non-existent evidence that no one in any of the major Reformed denominations (nor the denoms themselves) has amassed demonstrating the error of any single points of the FV. At least, to the FV thinking, anyway. We shall see.

There seemed to be a desire on the part of the signatories to say that they had no desire to present a “moving target.” I have found the FV to be an extremely moving target. The minute one has a logical argument against a position that has been written down, I am told that that isn’t their position. It was their position just a minute before, when what we had was written documentation. However, what always seems to happen is that I am told that I am a dolt, an irresponsible nincompoop, who cannot even understand plain English. Of course, not everyone in the FV camp has been doing this to me (Wilson being an example, though he doesn’t think I have proven one single aspect of any FV thinker’s theology to be out of bounds).

However, I will seek to prove one example where I believe that the FV statement is thoroughly non-confessional. As we all know, the PCA study committee report roundly reinforced a bi-covenantal structure to the WCF. The Covenant of Works, in chapter 7 of the WCF, plainly says that eternal life was promised to Adam upon condition of personal and perfect obedience. The JFVP says plainly that “the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements” (see under the section “The Covenant of Life.” Now, I am not sure what else Adam’s moral exertions or achievements could be other than his obedience to God’s law, or personal and perfect obedience. So the condition of obtaining eternal life was works, according to the WCF, and not works according to the JFVP. The PCA has decided that this is not going to be an allowable exception to the Standards. And this is only one example. Others will come later.