Change usually happens slowly in the Church. But a review of the past year's research conducted by the Barna Group provides a time-lapse portrayal of how the religious environment in the U.S. is morphing into something new.
Analyzing insights drawn from more than 5,000 non-proprietary interviews conducted over the past 11 months, George Barna indicated that the following patterns were evident in the survey findings.
1. The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate.
What used to be basic, universally-known truths about Christianity are now unknown mysteries to a large and growing share of Americans--especially young adults. For instance, Barna Group studies in 2010 showed that while most people regard Easter as a religious holiday, only a minority of adults associate Easter with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Other examples include the finding that few adults believe that their faith is meant to be the focal point of their life or to be integrated into every aspect of their existence. Further, a growing majority believe the Holy Spirit is a symbol of God's presence or power, but not a living entity. As the two younger generations (Busters and Mosaics) ascend to numerical and positional supremacy in churches across the nation, the data suggest that biblical literacy is likely to decline significantly. The theological free-for-all that is encroaching in Protestant churches nationwide suggests the coming decade will be a time of unparalleled theological diversity and inconsistency.
Read more here…
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Is Genesis 3:15 really the “Protevangelium”?
AN INTRODUCTION AND EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, “YES”
That Gen 3:15 is the Protevangelium has traditionally been the understanding of the text since the earliest days of the church. The writings of Justin Martyr provide an early example of the traditional interpretation.
For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should ... overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, "Be it done to me according to Thy word.”
It was Irenaeus, however, that galvanized the concept of Gen 3:15 as the Protevangelium, that is, as the first announcement of the gospel.
Christ has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou can perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, 'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for thy head, and thou on the watch for his heel.' For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, namely from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Letter to the Galatians, 'that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made (Gal 3:19).' This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle where he thus speaks: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman (Gal 4:4).' For indeed, the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man born of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man's opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm of victory against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.
It could be argued that the singularity of the woman’s seed—over against the collective interpretation of the noun—actually antedates the church fathers, and is likely influenced by their reading of Gen 3:15 in the LXX, which has “seed” (sperma) in 3:15 in the singular (spermatos).
AN EXAMPLE FROM THE REFORMATION PERIOD: JOHN CALVIN, “NO; BUT, YES”
Reading the woman’s seed as singular and Christological has suffered under the scrutiny of scholarship during the modern period. Calvin, for instance, initially takes the pronouncement on the serpent and the subsequent enmity between the respective seeds etiologically, and so explaining the dread of snakes in man. Calvin states, “I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be hostile strife between the human race and serpents; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man abhors them.” Although Calvin goes on to rightly read that Satan in back of the serpent and consequently the threatening curse is directed at him, he still dissents from the Christological interpretation, and thus from the traditional Protevangelium. He says, “There is, indeed, no ambiguity in the words here used by Moses; but I do not agree with others respecting their meaning; for other interpreters take the seed for Christ, without controversy; as if it were said, that some one would arise from the seed of the woman who should wound the serpent’s head.”
Calvin’s primary objection to the traditional view of the text is that it requires one to severely distort the noun “seed” (Heb. zera‛); they take it as singular when, for Calvin, it is transparently collective. “I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of the woman generally.” From the painful experience that not all the woman’s seed, “in general,” overcome the serpent, Calvin moves toward a theological conclusion on the basis of NT passages that are less than carefully handled in the text of the Genesis commentary. This conclusion rests on Calvin’s Federalism, with Christ as the Federal Head. Calvin’s position on the text and the doctrine was succinctly replicated by the even abler exegesis of Geerhardus Vos in the middle of the last century.
It appears, therefore, that for Calvin the Protevangelium cannot be the result of a careful interpretation of Gen 3:15; the Protevangelium is, however, a theological doctrine, which may be deduced by the science of dogmatics.
A CONTEMPROARY SAMPLING: JOHN WALTON, “NO; AND, NO”
Walton, like Calvin (and many others), understands the noun “seed” as collective in Gen 3:15. Walton admits that the evidence for either view is ambiguous, but believes that “If we explore the text in light of the author’s intention and the initial audience’s understanding, it is difficult to see how they would conclude that the text foretells the coming of a single person (seed) who would bring victory.” Furthermore, Walton does not believe that the text offers any hope of either side of the respective seed gaining an advantage or victory in the struggle, but that “the verse is depicting a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the forces of evil.” So, Walton not only departs from the traditional interpretation of the singular sense of the “Seed,” but strides further from the traditional understanding in arguing that Gen 3:15 does not even contain a germ of hope for the seed’s eventual victory; the text presents only trouble for humanity, continual and unresolved trouble.
Walton observes that grammatically the noun “seed” can have a singular pronoun attached to it, e.g., “he will crush,” while still referring to a collective or corporate posterity. “Therefore, when the text says that he will crush your head, grammar cannot determine whether this is a reference to the corporate seed or one representative from among the descendants.”
Regarding the nature of the conflict, Walton argues from the root verb, šwp; and, since the action of the respective parties share this root, nothing indicates that one side or the other will gain the upper hand in the struggle. The KJV, NAS, and ESV respectably translate the verb as “bruise” in both instances, thus maintaining the Hebrew sense in the English text. The NIV, however, appears to allow the traditional interpretation to color its translation by ascribing to the serpent a “crush” to the head, and the woman’s seed a “strike” to the heel; crush clearly reflects more finality than does strike in the context. Even granting that the offensive blows are to be taken as similar or even as the same does not settle the matter. The anatomical parts mentioned, which receive the blows, must also be considered. Surely, a bruised head will fall to a bruised heel, or will it?
Walton says, No; both attacks are potentially mortal, so neither the head-strike nor the heel-strike tells us anything about the final outcome of the struggle. Rather, “both sides are exchanging potentially mortal blows of equal threat to the part of the body most vulnerable to their attack.”
Walton, therefore, directly denies the traditional interpretation that Gen 3:15 provides us with the Protevangelium. Actually, Walton’s conclusions imply that Gen 3:15 does not contain any hint of good news, only continual trouble.
ANOTHER CONTEMPORARY SAMPLING: JACK COLLINS, “YES”
A 1997 article by Jack Collins has shed some light on our question, and has ‘bruised the head’ of the collective interpretation of “seed” in Gen 3:15. Collins’ observations have obvious implications for the doctrine of the Protevangelium (Collins does recognize that these implications are beyond the purview of his note, and thus does not flesh them out).
Most who find the Messianic promise in Gen 3:15 do not deny that the grammar is ambiguous; Collins is no exception. Collins takes serious the LXX translation of the Hebrew. He believes that the use of the neuter singular sperma (“seed”), and the masculine singular pronoun autos (“he”), translating hû' is significant. The mismatch between the gender of the noun and the antecedent pronoun indicates a meaningful intention on the part of the LXX translators, one that is clearly messianic, and one that is looking forward to a singular figure. For Collins, it represents an “interpretation” of the Hebrew that is reflected in the doctrine, Protevangelium.
Collins surveys every (personal) use of zera‛ in the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, with an eye on the syntactical patterns that surround both the collective uses of zera‛ and the instances that have a strictly singular use. He tabulates the behavior of the verb inflections, pronouns and adjectives associated with the noun. The results are that “when zera‛ denotes ‘posterity’ the pronouns (independent pronouns, object pronouns, and suffixes) are always plural.”
Contrariwise, “when zera‛ denotes a specific descendant, it appears with singular verb inflections, adjectives, and pronouns.” Collins also observes that “The pattern for the Greek translations of these passages is identical (at least in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, where the translation is generally of higher quality, and to the extent it is possible to see a distinction).” He concludes, “from these data it becomes clear that, on the syntactical level, the singular pronoun hû' in Genesis 3:15 is quite consistent with the pattern where a single individual is in view…The evidence of the Greek translator of Genesis 3:15 meant to convey that an individual was promised; this study indicates that his interpretation is consistent with Hebrew syntax elsewhere in the Bible.”
Collins’ study does not in itself provide apodictic certainty that Gen 3:15 is the Protevangelium, but it does go a long way towards an exegetical case for the doctrine from the text of Genesis. The “seed” in Gen 3:15 is singular; and if that is the case, the text points to a particular descendant who will decisively defeat the work of the serpent, while suffering greatly in the struggle for victory.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROTEVANGELIUM
If, as Collins’ note demonstrates, we are not compelled to understand the “seed” of Gen 3:15 as a collective term denoting general posterity, then we may legitimately conclude that Moses had a singular figure in mind. Although historical theology is not the determining factor in ambiguous texts, it is, nevertheless, somewhat authoritative and something we should be in humble conversation with. The early fathers, encouraged by the LXX interpretation of the Hebrew text of Gen 3:15, as well as significant NT allusions, almost unanimously understood Genesis to be teaching the Protevangelium. Their historical and spatial proximity to the authority of the apostolic ministry cannot be overlooked, neither should it be underestimated. Therefore, as heirs of the fathers, we are to see Jesus Messiah in the promised head-stomping “Seed” of Gen 3:15.
With respect to Calvin’s commentary on the subject, we may be confident yet cautious. If Collins’ analysis is correct, then Calvin and others who take a collective sense of the noun in Gen 3:15 were overlooking significant data. Therefore, we may decline Calvin’s view that the noun is collective; rather, it is singular. We may, however, embrace the theological genius of Calvin and his careful handling and calculation of the doctrine of federal headship.
We can surely appreciate Walton’s desire for discovering the author’s and the audience’s original understanding of the meaning of Gen 3:15. Walton, however, seems to overlook the fact that Moses was writing and the original audience was reading Gen 3:15 as a post-exodus and post-Sinai people. In other words, in order to discover the original meaning of Gen 3:15 one must read it as it was written—read it in terms of the rest of the context of Genesis and the Torah. The micro-grammatical, hair-splitting exegesis that makes viable the precision analysis represented by Collins’ note is itself something foreign to the literary context of Moses; our methodology itself is largely anachronistic. While words and language were radically treasured by ancient Hebrews (that is, after all, a very important way in which Yahweh reveals himself to his people—our God speaks), their understanding of them is nuanced quite differently than ours is.
For instance, Paul, whose masterful interpretation of Torah must shape our own, understood zera‛ in Genesis as singular and meaning Christ (cf. Gal 3:16). Whose hermeneutical method has greater authority? Should we follow Paul’s typological reading or the modern-critical, post-Enlightenment methodology?
Did other ancients read a singular figure in Gen 3:15? It seems quite likely. For Stephen, and doubtless many others, understood Moses himself to be a proto-typal deliverer like the one promised in Gen 3:15, saying of him, “that God was giving them salvation (sōtēria) by his hand” (Acts 7:25). Additionally, we can get a sense of hope in the words of Eve when Cain is born (Gen 4:1). However, Cain’s murder of Abel occasioned Seth’s replacement of the “seed.” Again, Eve’s words are telling, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him” (v 25). In this verse, we find a word-play on the name of the new son, Seth. “Seth” (shêth) sounds very similar to “appointed” (shı̂yth), and Seth’s “appointment” as the replacement “offspring” (zera‛) provides the ground for his name. Finally, we should note that “appointed” in 4:25 translates the same word in the Hebrew that is behind the “put” in 3:15. “Put” is in reference to the divinely established “enmity” that Yahweh “put” (shı̂yth) between the woman’s seed and that of the serpent’s. Seth, therefore, represents a singular figure of hope in reference to the “offspring” of the woman in the earliest chapters of Genesis.
All this to say, the Bible—the whole of all the parts—is a covenantal and confessional document; it all points to Jesus Messiah as its ultimate subject and object. One committed to Jesus, therefore, cannot read Genesis (or any other book in Scripture) as though he, the Messiah, has not come at all. There is a sense in which text’s meanings morph after subsequent texts and/or events develop in their stream. This is especially true with messianic promise-fulfillment motifs. Hosea originally recounted Yahweh’s faithfulness in the then-past exodus event with the words, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 2:15). Jesus’ advent changed those words forever (cf. Matt 2:15)! So, as Paul said of the “seed” elsewhere in Genesis, in 3:15 also, the Seed…”who is Christ.” Genesis 3:15 is the Protevangelium.
That Gen 3:15 is the Protevangelium has traditionally been the understanding of the text since the earliest days of the church. The writings of Justin Martyr provide an early example of the traditional interpretation.
For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should ... overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, "Be it done to me according to Thy word.”
It was Irenaeus, however, that galvanized the concept of Gen 3:15 as the Protevangelium, that is, as the first announcement of the gospel.
Christ has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou can perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, 'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for thy head, and thou on the watch for his heel.' For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, namely from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Letter to the Galatians, 'that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made (Gal 3:19).' This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle where he thus speaks: 'But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman (Gal 4:4).' For indeed, the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man born of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man's opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm of victory against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.
It could be argued that the singularity of the woman’s seed—over against the collective interpretation of the noun—actually antedates the church fathers, and is likely influenced by their reading of Gen 3:15 in the LXX, which has “seed” (sperma) in 3:15 in the singular (spermatos).
AN EXAMPLE FROM THE REFORMATION PERIOD: JOHN CALVIN, “NO; BUT, YES”
Reading the woman’s seed as singular and Christological has suffered under the scrutiny of scholarship during the modern period. Calvin, for instance, initially takes the pronouncement on the serpent and the subsequent enmity between the respective seeds etiologically, and so explaining the dread of snakes in man. Calvin states, “I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be hostile strife between the human race and serpents; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man abhors them.” Although Calvin goes on to rightly read that Satan in back of the serpent and consequently the threatening curse is directed at him, he still dissents from the Christological interpretation, and thus from the traditional Protevangelium. He says, “There is, indeed, no ambiguity in the words here used by Moses; but I do not agree with others respecting their meaning; for other interpreters take the seed for Christ, without controversy; as if it were said, that some one would arise from the seed of the woman who should wound the serpent’s head.”
Calvin’s primary objection to the traditional view of the text is that it requires one to severely distort the noun “seed” (Heb. zera‛); they take it as singular when, for Calvin, it is transparently collective. “I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of the woman generally.” From the painful experience that not all the woman’s seed, “in general,” overcome the serpent, Calvin moves toward a theological conclusion on the basis of NT passages that are less than carefully handled in the text of the Genesis commentary. This conclusion rests on Calvin’s Federalism, with Christ as the Federal Head. Calvin’s position on the text and the doctrine was succinctly replicated by the even abler exegesis of Geerhardus Vos in the middle of the last century.
It appears, therefore, that for Calvin the Protevangelium cannot be the result of a careful interpretation of Gen 3:15; the Protevangelium is, however, a theological doctrine, which may be deduced by the science of dogmatics.
A CONTEMPROARY SAMPLING: JOHN WALTON, “NO; AND, NO”
Walton, like Calvin (and many others), understands the noun “seed” as collective in Gen 3:15. Walton admits that the evidence for either view is ambiguous, but believes that “If we explore the text in light of the author’s intention and the initial audience’s understanding, it is difficult to see how they would conclude that the text foretells the coming of a single person (seed) who would bring victory.” Furthermore, Walton does not believe that the text offers any hope of either side of the respective seed gaining an advantage or victory in the struggle, but that “the verse is depicting a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the forces of evil.” So, Walton not only departs from the traditional interpretation of the singular sense of the “Seed,” but strides further from the traditional understanding in arguing that Gen 3:15 does not even contain a germ of hope for the seed’s eventual victory; the text presents only trouble for humanity, continual and unresolved trouble.
Walton observes that grammatically the noun “seed” can have a singular pronoun attached to it, e.g., “he will crush,” while still referring to a collective or corporate posterity. “Therefore, when the text says that he will crush your head, grammar cannot determine whether this is a reference to the corporate seed or one representative from among the descendants.”
Regarding the nature of the conflict, Walton argues from the root verb, šwp; and, since the action of the respective parties share this root, nothing indicates that one side or the other will gain the upper hand in the struggle. The KJV, NAS, and ESV respectably translate the verb as “bruise” in both instances, thus maintaining the Hebrew sense in the English text. The NIV, however, appears to allow the traditional interpretation to color its translation by ascribing to the serpent a “crush” to the head, and the woman’s seed a “strike” to the heel; crush clearly reflects more finality than does strike in the context. Even granting that the offensive blows are to be taken as similar or even as the same does not settle the matter. The anatomical parts mentioned, which receive the blows, must also be considered. Surely, a bruised head will fall to a bruised heel, or will it?
Walton says, No; both attacks are potentially mortal, so neither the head-strike nor the heel-strike tells us anything about the final outcome of the struggle. Rather, “both sides are exchanging potentially mortal blows of equal threat to the part of the body most vulnerable to their attack.”
Walton, therefore, directly denies the traditional interpretation that Gen 3:15 provides us with the Protevangelium. Actually, Walton’s conclusions imply that Gen 3:15 does not contain any hint of good news, only continual trouble.
ANOTHER CONTEMPORARY SAMPLING: JACK COLLINS, “YES”
A 1997 article by Jack Collins has shed some light on our question, and has ‘bruised the head’ of the collective interpretation of “seed” in Gen 3:15. Collins’ observations have obvious implications for the doctrine of the Protevangelium (Collins does recognize that these implications are beyond the purview of his note, and thus does not flesh them out).
Most who find the Messianic promise in Gen 3:15 do not deny that the grammar is ambiguous; Collins is no exception. Collins takes serious the LXX translation of the Hebrew. He believes that the use of the neuter singular sperma (“seed”), and the masculine singular pronoun autos (“he”), translating hû' is significant. The mismatch between the gender of the noun and the antecedent pronoun indicates a meaningful intention on the part of the LXX translators, one that is clearly messianic, and one that is looking forward to a singular figure. For Collins, it represents an “interpretation” of the Hebrew that is reflected in the doctrine, Protevangelium.
Collins surveys every (personal) use of zera‛ in the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, with an eye on the syntactical patterns that surround both the collective uses of zera‛ and the instances that have a strictly singular use. He tabulates the behavior of the verb inflections, pronouns and adjectives associated with the noun. The results are that “when zera‛ denotes ‘posterity’ the pronouns (independent pronouns, object pronouns, and suffixes) are always plural.”
Contrariwise, “when zera‛ denotes a specific descendant, it appears with singular verb inflections, adjectives, and pronouns.” Collins also observes that “The pattern for the Greek translations of these passages is identical (at least in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets, where the translation is generally of higher quality, and to the extent it is possible to see a distinction).” He concludes, “from these data it becomes clear that, on the syntactical level, the singular pronoun hû' in Genesis 3:15 is quite consistent with the pattern where a single individual is in view…The evidence of the Greek translator of Genesis 3:15 meant to convey that an individual was promised; this study indicates that his interpretation is consistent with Hebrew syntax elsewhere in the Bible.”
Collins’ study does not in itself provide apodictic certainty that Gen 3:15 is the Protevangelium, but it does go a long way towards an exegetical case for the doctrine from the text of Genesis. The “seed” in Gen 3:15 is singular; and if that is the case, the text points to a particular descendant who will decisively defeat the work of the serpent, while suffering greatly in the struggle for victory.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROTEVANGELIUM
If, as Collins’ note demonstrates, we are not compelled to understand the “seed” of Gen 3:15 as a collective term denoting general posterity, then we may legitimately conclude that Moses had a singular figure in mind. Although historical theology is not the determining factor in ambiguous texts, it is, nevertheless, somewhat authoritative and something we should be in humble conversation with. The early fathers, encouraged by the LXX interpretation of the Hebrew text of Gen 3:15, as well as significant NT allusions, almost unanimously understood Genesis to be teaching the Protevangelium. Their historical and spatial proximity to the authority of the apostolic ministry cannot be overlooked, neither should it be underestimated. Therefore, as heirs of the fathers, we are to see Jesus Messiah in the promised head-stomping “Seed” of Gen 3:15.
With respect to Calvin’s commentary on the subject, we may be confident yet cautious. If Collins’ analysis is correct, then Calvin and others who take a collective sense of the noun in Gen 3:15 were overlooking significant data. Therefore, we may decline Calvin’s view that the noun is collective; rather, it is singular. We may, however, embrace the theological genius of Calvin and his careful handling and calculation of the doctrine of federal headship.
We can surely appreciate Walton’s desire for discovering the author’s and the audience’s original understanding of the meaning of Gen 3:15. Walton, however, seems to overlook the fact that Moses was writing and the original audience was reading Gen 3:15 as a post-exodus and post-Sinai people. In other words, in order to discover the original meaning of Gen 3:15 one must read it as it was written—read it in terms of the rest of the context of Genesis and the Torah. The micro-grammatical, hair-splitting exegesis that makes viable the precision analysis represented by Collins’ note is itself something foreign to the literary context of Moses; our methodology itself is largely anachronistic. While words and language were radically treasured by ancient Hebrews (that is, after all, a very important way in which Yahweh reveals himself to his people—our God speaks), their understanding of them is nuanced quite differently than ours is.
For instance, Paul, whose masterful interpretation of Torah must shape our own, understood zera‛ in Genesis as singular and meaning Christ (cf. Gal 3:16). Whose hermeneutical method has greater authority? Should we follow Paul’s typological reading or the modern-critical, post-Enlightenment methodology?
Did other ancients read a singular figure in Gen 3:15? It seems quite likely. For Stephen, and doubtless many others, understood Moses himself to be a proto-typal deliverer like the one promised in Gen 3:15, saying of him, “that God was giving them salvation (sōtēria) by his hand” (Acts 7:25). Additionally, we can get a sense of hope in the words of Eve when Cain is born (Gen 4:1). However, Cain’s murder of Abel occasioned Seth’s replacement of the “seed.” Again, Eve’s words are telling, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him” (v 25). In this verse, we find a word-play on the name of the new son, Seth. “Seth” (shêth) sounds very similar to “appointed” (shı̂yth), and Seth’s “appointment” as the replacement “offspring” (zera‛) provides the ground for his name. Finally, we should note that “appointed” in 4:25 translates the same word in the Hebrew that is behind the “put” in 3:15. “Put” is in reference to the divinely established “enmity” that Yahweh “put” (shı̂yth) between the woman’s seed and that of the serpent’s. Seth, therefore, represents a singular figure of hope in reference to the “offspring” of the woman in the earliest chapters of Genesis.
All this to say, the Bible—the whole of all the parts—is a covenantal and confessional document; it all points to Jesus Messiah as its ultimate subject and object. One committed to Jesus, therefore, cannot read Genesis (or any other book in Scripture) as though he, the Messiah, has not come at all. There is a sense in which text’s meanings morph after subsequent texts and/or events develop in their stream. This is especially true with messianic promise-fulfillment motifs. Hosea originally recounted Yahweh’s faithfulness in the then-past exodus event with the words, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos 2:15). Jesus’ advent changed those words forever (cf. Matt 2:15)! So, as Paul said of the “seed” elsewhere in Genesis, in 3:15 also, the Seed…”who is Christ.” Genesis 3:15 is the Protevangelium.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
What is the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for Christians?
Apart from the physical resurrection of Jesus, Christians would be the most pathetic lot of folks, whose lives would be no more significant than if Jesus never came (1 Cor 15:18—19). This question has a three-fold positive answer: (1) eschatological considerations, (2) missional impetus, and (3) soteriological consequence.
Eschatologically, and for the people of God collectively, Jesus’ resurrection is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises (Acts 13:32—33). His resurrection was, in part, the terminus of hope for salvation history past, as anticipated in “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk 24:44; cf. vv 25—27; i.e., the traditional tripartite division of the entire OT). Jesus’ resurrection is the dawning of the long yearned-for new age (or “age to come,” not to be confused with the eastern mystical aspirations, much less those of the western New Age Movements). The new creation (e.g., Rev 21 – 22) was inaugurated in Jesus’ resurrection, thus making him the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45). It is the veritable proof that the Day is coming when God will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). Jesus’ resurrection also has cosmic implications, pointing to the “regeneration” of all things (Matt 19:28), something the whole cosmos eagerly awaits—the time when the curse is no more (Rom 8:18—25; cf. Rev 22:3), and when God is finally “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Therefore, all redemptive history past looked forward to Jesus’ resurrection for the confirmation of all the OT promises; and all redemptive history future flows from the resurrection of the Son of God.
Missionally, Jesus’ resurrection was the central feature of the apostolic preaching as recorded by Dr. Luke in the book of Acts (see 1:22; 2:24, 31, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 34, 37; 17:18, 32, Rom 1:3, etc.). This should stand as an indictment for the modern church. Proportionate to the record of Acts, the resurrection of Jesus is all but vanished from our preaching and evangelism today, yet it is the center of the redemption we are proclaiming.
Soteriologically, in his resurrection, Jesus was the “firstfruits,” the anticipation of a full harvest of believers at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:40). And because of his resurrection, by faith we become and participate in the new creation (Rom 6:4—5; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17). Jesus’ resurrection resulted in the outpouring of Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8 – 2), who, dwelling in our hearts, is the guarantee of our own resurrection. Our rebirth is bound-up in his resurrection (1 Pet 1:3), and it is the grounds for our justification, our being put to rights before God’s holiness (Rom 4:25).
Eschatologically, and for the people of God collectively, Jesus’ resurrection is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises (Acts 13:32—33). His resurrection was, in part, the terminus of hope for salvation history past, as anticipated in “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk 24:44; cf. vv 25—27; i.e., the traditional tripartite division of the entire OT). Jesus’ resurrection is the dawning of the long yearned-for new age (or “age to come,” not to be confused with the eastern mystical aspirations, much less those of the western New Age Movements). The new creation (e.g., Rev 21 – 22) was inaugurated in Jesus’ resurrection, thus making him the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45). It is the veritable proof that the Day is coming when God will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31). Jesus’ resurrection also has cosmic implications, pointing to the “regeneration” of all things (Matt 19:28), something the whole cosmos eagerly awaits—the time when the curse is no more (Rom 8:18—25; cf. Rev 22:3), and when God is finally “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Therefore, all redemptive history past looked forward to Jesus’ resurrection for the confirmation of all the OT promises; and all redemptive history future flows from the resurrection of the Son of God.
Missionally, Jesus’ resurrection was the central feature of the apostolic preaching as recorded by Dr. Luke in the book of Acts (see 1:22; 2:24, 31, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 34, 37; 17:18, 32, Rom 1:3, etc.). This should stand as an indictment for the modern church. Proportionate to the record of Acts, the resurrection of Jesus is all but vanished from our preaching and evangelism today, yet it is the center of the redemption we are proclaiming.
Soteriologically, in his resurrection, Jesus was the “firstfruits,” the anticipation of a full harvest of believers at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:40). And because of his resurrection, by faith we become and participate in the new creation (Rom 6:4—5; 2 Cor 4:6; 5:17). Jesus’ resurrection resulted in the outpouring of Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8 – 2), who, dwelling in our hearts, is the guarantee of our own resurrection. Our rebirth is bound-up in his resurrection (1 Pet 1:3), and it is the grounds for our justification, our being put to rights before God’s holiness (Rom 4:25).
Friday, July 16, 2010
Modified Idealism as the best approach to the Apocalypse
I find a dogmatic precommitment to any of the four generalized interpretive approaches to the Apocalypse to be stifling. Not one of the four—“not-literal or allegorical, preterist, historical, or futuristic”—[1]is without its serious problems. Each perspective presents objections to the others, which seem to cancel out their viability. For instance, the historicist or preterist may charge that the futurist reduces the bulk of the book (chs. 4—22) to meaninglessness for the original readers and hearers, since all is future. How, then, it may be asked, can John offer his beatific pronouncement on his first generation readers; further, what practical and liturgical purpose would the book hold for them (see 1:3)?
The futurist may respond in like fashion, though. If the preterist is correct, then another reductionism follows: Revelation is now little more than an historical documentation of some horrid happenings before and during the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 (or the fall of Rome in the fifth century, depending on your tastes and historiography). This rally of objections and answers is nearly as abundant as the number of expositors and commentaries working through Revelation.
Therefore, I subscribe to what some have called “eclecticism”[2] or modified idealism. Such a view would deny any hard-line, static historical referents in the book,[3] save the final coming of the Lord Jesus in judgment, salvation and his consummating the new heavens and new earth at the end of the age. Concerning the literary structure of Revelation, I find the seven-fold progressive parallelism a helpful paradigm. Below are a few of the big-number reasons that I maintain this perspective.
First, any and all eschatological data I encounter in the Scriptures, I view through the lens of a two-age model.[4] Biblically speaking, human history, more specifically, redemptive history is divided into two ages, “this age...and the age to come.” Accordingly, Jesus’ First Advent inaugurated the age to come; the new creation has begun in his resurrection and exaltation. The new creation will be fully realized in the event of his Second Advent. We therefore live in the time of tension between these two ages or worlds. Thus, the time between Jesus’ first and second advents is the fulfillment of the OT’s “latter days.” This will become more relevant below. The modified idealism approach is most consonant with the two-age model of eschatology; and the two-age model has presuppositional priority in my overall approach to interpreting all of Scripture.
Secondly, another controlling presupposition for me is the hermeneutical maxim that Scripture interprets Scripture; and in that, the clear interprets the unclear. In short, this means that I will interpret Revelation in light of the rest of the NT. Revelation is the most symbol-laden book in Scripture and therefore must be considered in terms of the didactic sections of the gospels and epistles. I understand the latter as presenting God’s people/family as one; his plan to redeem these as one (not one for the Jews and one for the church); there will be one second return of Christ, one (physical) resurrection, one judgment, and these events are closely related in time; we are now in the “last days.” The symbolisms of Revelation will therefore be interpreted in light of these Matthew—Jude doctrines, not the other way around.
Finally, I take Rev 1:1 (w/ 1:19) to be the programmatic verse(s) for the interpretation of the book. This verse tells that the revelation of Jesus that John was given by the angel would be “signified.” Signified here is sēmainō, meaning signs, symbols, or tokens. Verse 1 is a clear allusion to Dan 2:28—29, 45. There are striking parallels in theme and phraseology between Rev 1:1, 19 and the Danielic counterpart. Furthermore, Rev 22 contains another allusion to Daniel 2, and so forming a likely inclusio that frames the entire book (see esp. vv 6, 10). Aside from the obvious discontinuities between Dan 2:28 and Rev 1:1, one is of special interest. Nebuchadnezzars’ dream was to symbolically reveal “what was to be in the latter days,” whereas John’s visions were to symbolically reveal “what must soon take place.” John, therefore, understood his and the church’s experience as the inception of the “latter days.” Something similar happens in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. In v 16 Peter offers a “this is that” (KJV) interpretation of Joel 2, which was a prophecy of what would God would do “in the last days” (v 17). Therefore, John tells us at the start that the book is largely symbolic and is concerned with the fulfillment of the “latter days,” which is the church age.
Therefore, from an eclectic perspective, solid historical references are both recognizable and acceptable without precluding escalated future fulfillments of like kind (e.g., arche- à antitypal fulfillments). The book is also ever-relevant, since it is a strategy book for the church militant living between the two ages, promising the final victory of the Lamb and his Bride over the Beast and his Whore. Stressing the doctrinal priority of the rest of the NT helps to bring clarity to the often opaque mixed metaphors and symbols of Revelation.
[1] To use the titles ascribed by Walvoord, Revelation, 16—22
[2] E.g., Hailey, Beale.
[3] It does, however, recognize analogical historical applications throughout the church age.
[4] There is one sense in which all the “data” in Scripture is eschatological in that each datum is a part of the larger whole of God progressive plan of redemption, which moves ‘eschatologically’ from the fall toward the consummation.
The futurist may respond in like fashion, though. If the preterist is correct, then another reductionism follows: Revelation is now little more than an historical documentation of some horrid happenings before and during the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 (or the fall of Rome in the fifth century, depending on your tastes and historiography). This rally of objections and answers is nearly as abundant as the number of expositors and commentaries working through Revelation.
Therefore, I subscribe to what some have called “eclecticism”[2] or modified idealism. Such a view would deny any hard-line, static historical referents in the book,[3] save the final coming of the Lord Jesus in judgment, salvation and his consummating the new heavens and new earth at the end of the age. Concerning the literary structure of Revelation, I find the seven-fold progressive parallelism a helpful paradigm. Below are a few of the big-number reasons that I maintain this perspective.
First, any and all eschatological data I encounter in the Scriptures, I view through the lens of a two-age model.[4] Biblically speaking, human history, more specifically, redemptive history is divided into two ages, “this age...and the age to come.” Accordingly, Jesus’ First Advent inaugurated the age to come; the new creation has begun in his resurrection and exaltation. The new creation will be fully realized in the event of his Second Advent. We therefore live in the time of tension between these two ages or worlds. Thus, the time between Jesus’ first and second advents is the fulfillment of the OT’s “latter days.” This will become more relevant below. The modified idealism approach is most consonant with the two-age model of eschatology; and the two-age model has presuppositional priority in my overall approach to interpreting all of Scripture.
Secondly, another controlling presupposition for me is the hermeneutical maxim that Scripture interprets Scripture; and in that, the clear interprets the unclear. In short, this means that I will interpret Revelation in light of the rest of the NT. Revelation is the most symbol-laden book in Scripture and therefore must be considered in terms of the didactic sections of the gospels and epistles. I understand the latter as presenting God’s people/family as one; his plan to redeem these as one (not one for the Jews and one for the church); there will be one second return of Christ, one (physical) resurrection, one judgment, and these events are closely related in time; we are now in the “last days.” The symbolisms of Revelation will therefore be interpreted in light of these Matthew—Jude doctrines, not the other way around.
Finally, I take Rev 1:1 (w/ 1:19) to be the programmatic verse(s) for the interpretation of the book. This verse tells that the revelation of Jesus that John was given by the angel would be “signified.” Signified here is sēmainō, meaning signs, symbols, or tokens. Verse 1 is a clear allusion to Dan 2:28—29, 45. There are striking parallels in theme and phraseology between Rev 1:1, 19 and the Danielic counterpart. Furthermore, Rev 22 contains another allusion to Daniel 2, and so forming a likely inclusio that frames the entire book (see esp. vv 6, 10). Aside from the obvious discontinuities between Dan 2:28 and Rev 1:1, one is of special interest. Nebuchadnezzars’ dream was to symbolically reveal “what was to be in the latter days,” whereas John’s visions were to symbolically reveal “what must soon take place.” John, therefore, understood his and the church’s experience as the inception of the “latter days.” Something similar happens in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. In v 16 Peter offers a “this is that” (KJV) interpretation of Joel 2, which was a prophecy of what would God would do “in the last days” (v 17). Therefore, John tells us at the start that the book is largely symbolic and is concerned with the fulfillment of the “latter days,” which is the church age.
Therefore, from an eclectic perspective, solid historical references are both recognizable and acceptable without precluding escalated future fulfillments of like kind (e.g., arche- à antitypal fulfillments). The book is also ever-relevant, since it is a strategy book for the church militant living between the two ages, promising the final victory of the Lamb and his Bride over the Beast and his Whore. Stressing the doctrinal priority of the rest of the NT helps to bring clarity to the often opaque mixed metaphors and symbols of Revelation.
[1] To use the titles ascribed by Walvoord, Revelation, 16—22
[2] E.g., Hailey, Beale.
[3] It does, however, recognize analogical historical applications throughout the church age.
[4] There is one sense in which all the “data” in Scripture is eschatological in that each datum is a part of the larger whole of God progressive plan of redemption, which moves ‘eschatologically’ from the fall toward the consummation.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Lifting up Joni Eareckson Tada
Yesterday I heard on a radio program that Joni Eareckson Tada, founder and CEO of Joni and Friends, has, on top of being a quadriplegic, breast cancer. She has had a mastectomy already and has updates of her condition at the ministry’s website. Let us remember this extraordinary woman and bright witness for Christ in our prayers and thoughts.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Creator/creature distinction in the Anthropology of Irenaeus
“People...who attribute the weakness of their nature to God are completely unreasonable. They understand neither God nor themselves; they are ungrateful and never satisfied. At the outset they refuse to be what they were made: human beings who are subject to passions. They override the law of human nature; they already want to like God the Creator before they even become human beings. They want to do away with all the differences between the uncreated God and created humans. Thus they are more unreasonable than the dumb animals.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV:38:4
Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV:38:4
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A Biblical Worldview: Growing-up the Christian Mind
Eric Rauch has a fine article on “A Biblical Worldview” over at Christian Reader. With a block quote from Harry Blamires and the use of 1 Corinthians 3, it provides some sound judgments and has a hortatative appeal, stressing the maturation of the Christian’s thinking—thinking God’s thoughts after Him!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
MEREDITH KLINE—THE TWO TABLETS OF THE COVENANT
Everyone should indulge himself or herself by reading Meredith Kline’s rich article “The Two Tablets of the Covenant,” from a 1960 edition of The Westminster Theological Journal.
Although the article has a great number of insights, one that was especially penetrating for me was the idea that the Ten Words, in their entirety, were inscribed on both of the tablets. Here is an excerpt from p. 139.
Although the article has a great number of insights, one that was especially penetrating for me was the idea that the Ten Words, in their entirety, were inscribed on both of the tablets. Here is an excerpt from p. 139.
“These considerations point to the conclusion that each table
was complete in itself. The two tables were duplicate copies
of the covenant. And the correctness of this interpretation is
decisively confirmed by the fact that it was normal procedure
in establishing suzerainty covenants to prepare duplicate
copies of the treaty text.”
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Crucial Role of the Christian Mind in Sanctification
INTRODUCTION
The late Dr. Rufus M. Jones used to tell the story of the man who protested, “Whenever I go to church, I feel like unscrewing my head and placing it under the seat, because in a religious meeting I never have any use for anything above my collar button!”[i] The first clause of Dr. Jones’ statement is indicative of an attitude of an ever increasing number of Christians today. In the second clause, there is also the ring of truth. Few churches today give adequate attention to the development of the Christian mind and its role in the process of sanctification.
Most popular level Christian media, whether it be preaching, radio, books, or counseling, is all too often the case that only the will and/or the emotions of the Christian’s person are being treated. Moralistic messages challenge bad habits and beckon the believer to exercise a thrust of his volition, bring it into conformity with a list of do's and don’ts. In addition to this, due to the rising number of problems caused by emotional disorders, within and without the church, the Bible is wrenched in search of therapeutic solutions for recovering a healthy self-image and addressing felt needs. In spite of the best efforts to produce Christians that are morally reformed and emotionally sound, real Christ likeness and expressive spiritual maturity are sorely lacking in the church at large. Perhaps the number one reason for this is because little progress can be made in the process of sanctification without duly addressing the believer as a whole person, will, emotions, and mind.
Thesis and method
Therefore, the impetus of what follows will be spent demonstrating that the nurture and development of the Christian mind occupies a crucial place in the overall process of sanctification. This conclusion shall be supported by three premises. (1) Because the Fall has epistemological roots, sin pervades the whole person, including the mind. Thus groundwork must first be laid so to correctly establish the problem of the fallen mind. (2) The solution to all sin, and intellectual sin in particular, is regeneration and saving faith in the Lord Jesus. Therefore, there is a definitive beginning in the sanctification of the mind, a noetic regeneration. Finally, (3) two NT texts will be examined to show that the mind is to be in the fore of genuine sanctification. Thus, concluding that the role of the mind in sanctification is a crucial element in the Christian’s overall spiritual growth and holiness.
THE PROBLEM
The Fall and its epistemological roots
The one act of rebellion against the Creator, which brought about all other moral aberration, sin, and death, is rooted Adam and Eve’s intellectual anarchy. The act of eating the forbidden fruit was simply the expression or ratification of sinful reasoning; the head sin preceded the hand sin. In God’s good creation, man was not left without certain epistemological strictures. The ultimate reference point in his creature’s reasoning was to be no less than God’s supernatural, verbal revelation, namely his command forbidding man’s use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its entailments (Gen 2:16—17). Hence, Satan was wise enough to set forth his case in a manner which would address man’s entire person, with a concentrated aim at his mind.
Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve was framed with more or less subtle epistemological challenges. The question posed by Satan in Gen 3:1—“Did God actually say...”—was just enough to cast a cloud of uncertainty in Eve’s mind concerning the perspicuity of God’s declarative right rule over them, his creatures. This first shot at the rationality of Eve’s certainty, concerning her knowledge of God’s moral demands, was the starting point of a rapid descent down the slippery slope of manifest moral rebellion. Satan finishes his work in v.5 by appealing to Eve’s emotions and desires, postulating that God had base motives for depriving them of certain knowledge—namely the “knowledge of good and evil.” Eve then began to covet God in her lust for God-like knowledge when she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (v.5). Thus, their sin was largely one of the mind and an attack on the Lordship of God himself; their basis of knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “what is true?” “Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully.”[ii]
The holistic pervasiveness and consequential fall out of this sin is aptly summarized by Berkhof: “Sin...influences the intellect, the will, and the affections, in fact the whole man, and finds expression through the body.”[iii] Thus, sin not only exists in the mind of man, but more, the mind itself is the fertile ground from which all sin springs forth to fruition and finally manifest expression (Mt 15:19—20).[iv]
The irrationality of sin
To put it a bit crass, sin is simply stupid. That is to say, all sin is ultimately irrational in nature; it is that which is nonsensical, despite man’s efforts to rationalize it. The Fall provides two fine examples of the irrational essence of sin. First, Satan’s personal rebellion against God; hoping to usurp God from his throne and exalt himself above him, did not make a bit of sense. Secondly, Adam and Eve’s reasoning that they could accrue “knowledge” by means of disobeying God’s revelation made even less sense. These cosmic sins, both of them, were more than mere miscalculations in judgment, they were instead the effect of seeking to exercise the creaturely mind in autonomous independence of their Creator and his revealed knowledge and will.
Because the Fall is archetypical of all sin, and it was in great measure an epistemological issue, it is proper to conclude that all sin is largely rooted in the mind of man working autonomously in its search for real knowledge apart from the omniscient God that created him, and as such, it is an exercise in futility, it is irrationalism. Thus, “on the last day” Grudem concludes, “it will be seen in every case that sin ultimately just does not make sense.”[v]
To summarize, sin’s entrance into the world was founded in the mind of man choosing to operate without referencing God and his Self-revelation. The result of this sin and the inherited sin nature that flows out of it leaves no part of man’s person uncorrupted, so that all sin is at some level intellectual, being exemplified in the archetypical sin of the Fall.
All sin is ultimately irrational. Because the sin condition corrupts the mind of man, man then uses his corrupted cognitive faculties in a way that is irrational and thus in moral opposition to God. This process is then back of all actual sins a person commits. Hence, the sinful state and use of man’s intellect is essentially as much an ethical matter as it is an epistemological one. Therefore, the mind of the Christian must be adequately focused upon throughout the process of sanctification if victory is to be attained. The mind of the sinner must be redeemed and renewed.
THE SOLUTION: I
Having established, in the preceding section, what theologians often call the noetic element and effect of sin on man’s nature and outworking of this condition in actual sins committed, this section will consider God’s solution to man’s “depraved mind” (Rom 1:28 NASB); noetic regeneration and sanctification. It will, therefore, be necessary to posit a general working definition of sanctification and its binary nature of being both a definitive event (regeneration) and a progressive process throughout the life of the believer (sanctification) and how this applies to the life of the Christian mind.
Working definition
In setting forth a general definition from which to work, that which Berkhof offers is very helpful, he defines sanctification as: “that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which He purifies the sinner, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”[vi] Berkhof carefully qualifies his definition by delineating it from justification, saying that sanctification differs from justification in as much as sanctification “takes place in the inner life of man,” furthermore; it is a recreative act rather than a legal reckoning, as with justification.[vii]
In light of the thesis of this composition, one element of Berkhof’s remarks is noteworthy. Berkof stated that sanctification “renews the whole nature in the image of God.” But of course this begs the question of what elements constitute the image of God in man? Lightner, following Buswell, argues “that the image of God in man includes or is related to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.”[viii] Some historic creeds refer to these principle parts as the “renewed image virtues.”[ix] This conclusion is arrived at through what is called the “restoration hermeneutic,” wherein the three elements above are extrapolated from Eph 4:21—24 (“true righteousness/holiness) and Col 3:9—10 (“true knowledge”). These qualities, restored upon saving faith in Christ Jesus, who is the true expression of God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3, etc.), are then read back into Gen 3 in order to reconstruct the originally good constitution of man as God’s image bearer and what man lost in the Fall.[x] So then, the earlier conclusion that the Fall and man’s sin nature is fundamentally rooted in man’s intellect, reasoning, and understanding, is likewise corroborated by the fact of the restored “knowledge” through Christ.
Through a scriptural survey, Lightner, in his recognition of the role of the mind as a functional quality of God’s image in man, contrasts the mind before and after regeneration: “The unregenerate mind is vain (Eph 4:17), defiled (Tit 1:15), blinded (2 Cor 4:4), darkened (Eph 4:18) and reprobate (Rom 1:28).” Conversely, “the regenerate mind is to be lead captive (2 Cor 10:5); it needs girding (1 Pet 1:13) and renewed (Rom 12:2).”[xi] The mind, therefore, is a preeminent object of sanctification, being an essential part of man’s whole person in which Christ redeems and restores. God the Holy Spirit works both instantly and continuously in purifying the Christian’s mind of inherent sin and sinful reasoning, and transforming his mind into the image of Christ his Creator.
Noetic regeneration
Because the mind is such an integral part of the Christian’s restored nature, the whole of the believer’s mind and cognition must definitively come under the Lordship of Christ at conversion and continue the renewal process throughout his life. This definitive role of the mind in conversion shall be considered first.
The passive side
The work of John Frame is very helpful in regard to the regeneration of the noetic aspect of the sinner. Frame calls the intellectual aspect of regeneration “cognitive rest.”[xii] Pointing to the moment when a sinner no longer struggles against the Scripture’s testimony of the saving Person and work of Jesus Christ, Frame says, “Coming to cognitive rest about Christianity is achieving a ‘godly sense of satisfaction’ with the message of scripture...(and to) accept it willingly.”[xiii] The regeneration of the mind is a Trinitarian work. The Holy Spirit confirms his word in order to bring conviction. Also, the new believer is endowed with “the mind of Christ” and his wisdom. Finally, the scriptures speak of the Father as the teacher of the saving truth of the message.[xiv] These observations help to illustrate the divine work in the sinner’s conversion; it is the quickening of a mind that was once hostile to God and dead to his word. Like sanctification in general, this renewal of the mind or setting apart as holy unto God should be, in one sense, understood as a definitive one time event (e.g., Acts 20:32; I Cor 6:11), yet having ongoing effects. From the human perspective, the regenerative work is passive. It is solely a supernatural work of God on the intellect and will of the sinner. Nevertheless, the mind of man must also play a very proactive role in conversion.
The pro-activity of man in conversion
The activity of the sinner’s mind in his conversion can be summarized in one word—repentance. Repentance, upon which a person’s salvation is contingent, while involving the whole person, has predominately epistemological connotations. The Greek word for repentance, μετάνοια, metanoia, is a compound formed from meta, a word with broad semantic range, however, when in conjunction the root nous, “mind,” meta is best taken to mean “with, around, or change.” Thus, the root meaning of the term repentance is “to change one’s mind” or “to adopt another view” or even “to change one’s feelings.”[xv] Lest a word study would lead to misconstruing the NT meaning as being too cerebral, it must be understood in light of the Hebraic context of the biblical writers who viewed man holistically. For this action will affect a. the emotions, b. the will, and c. the thoughts. It is seldom a function of the intellect alone, but the whole person.
The fullest expression of God’s moral obedience that he commands of man is found in the Shema (Deut 6:5) and Jesus’ reiteration of it, in what is called the Great Command (Lk 10:27; cf. Mk 12:29—30; Mt 22:37). These again reinforce the utter unity of man’s personhood, with God demanding an entire reorientation toward him and total surrender from his creatures, even all their minds.
So then, the non-negotiable action demanded from sinners in the Gospel call is repentance. This, while involving the whole person, is an act that begins in the intellect when the Gospel is clearly articulated and then correctly understood and spiritually appraised by the regenerated sinner. With this new and right understanding of his moral rebellion, his standing before a just and holy God, and his personal plight, the sinner experiences and expresses profound remorse. He turns from his sinful reason and the actions that result from it, to Christ, in whom all wisdom and knowledge is deposited (Col 2:3). Christ’s wisdom and his righteousness then become the “new man’s” controlling presupposition. This is the newly sanctified (set apart as holy) mind—this is “cognitive rest.”
Although there is an immediate, definitive point at which the noetic aspect of a person is “sanctified,” this once-for-all-time event does not, however, magically confer upon the believer “all spiritual wisdom and knowledge” (Col 1:9) in respect to their thinking Christ-like-ly—God’s thought after him. There is also a gradual, ongoing progress. This process will now be taken up.
THE SOLUTION II
Noetic sanctification
In this final section two points will be raised and briefly exegetically examined. First, as a case in point, the positive injunction of I Pet 1:13 will be considered; here Peter yokes the believer with the responsibility for the care and nurture of the mind as a preeminent element in sanctification. Second, the circular (or better concentric) nature of the mental—ethical connection will be highlighted from Phil 1:9—11 before finally concluding.
Think holy, as He is holy
The first text that will be considered here is I Pet 1:13. The best and most literal expression of this command is, “Therefore, Gird up the loins of your mind” (v.13a KJV; NKJV). This familiar Hebrew idiom would have evoked in the mind of its original readers the idea of carefully folding up and tucking into the belt the long flowing robes worn by men in antiquity. The robes would obstruct freedom of movement and hindered their being “prepared...for action” (v. 13a ESV; NIV).[xvi] Moreover, the “loins” were the “place where the Hebrews thought the generative power resided.”[xvii] The command, therefore, indicates that the mind, far from being intrinsically good, must “be girded” in order to correctly use its “generative power.”
Peter sandwiches this command between vv. 3—12, wherein he exhorts his readers to contemplate the riches and glories that Jesus’ first Advent brought them. As well, v.13c they are to set their hope fully upon the grace which will be brought to them at Christ’s second Advent. “Therefore,” Peter says, the mind of the Christian “must remain alert” and be “ready and able to think actively to glorify and adorn God’s name, will, and kingdom.”[xviii]
The purpose of this injunction is a life of holiness, sanctification. In vv.14 and 15 Peter creates a contrast between the prohibition of conformity to “former ignorance” and the positive precept to “be holy in all your conduct.” The grounds which Peter bases his argument on here is nothing less than God’s own holy nature (v.16). We see, therefore, that a life progressing in sanctification and holiness is the effect of the Christian’s mind being taken up and actively engaged as a mediating, regenerative power source for the believer’s role in the process.
Sanctification: linear or circular or both?
Of course, the path to holiness is linear or teleological. That is to say, the believer is purposely moving from his originally corrupt state at conversion toward a point of Christ-likeness. However, many passages indicate that the pilgrimage from point A to point Z is to be in some sense circular, or better concentric, where Christ’s character is the plumb-line to which the believer’s mind and experiences in life are gradually drawn closer and closer by means of exercise and engagement. Frame, therefore, would have one to “note the circular relationship between ethical sanctification and Christian understanding.” He further argues that the ability of a believer to progressively augment his “cognitive rest” in the outworking of the Christian life requires growth in holiness—and vise versa—holiness and sanctified conduct are the result of “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Cor 10:5).[xix]
This principle of circularity alluded to in the exposition of I Pet 1:13, is perhaps even more emphatic in Phil 1:9—11 (and its close parallel in Col 1:9f. See also: Rom 12:1—2). In this text the Apostle reveals his prayerful desire for his church with the concentric model described above. The ultimate end of this prayer is purity (v.10b), fruitful righteousness in believers (v.11a), and the “glory and praise of God” (v.11b). Genuine holiness is then the teleological centerline. However, in order for t[xx]hese believers to achieve this high calling in life, Paul explains the process in a concentric fashion, narrowing the circles toward the goal with each phrase.
Paul begins with the summum bonum of Christian virtue, “love,” praying “that” (ίνα, hina; purpose clause) it would “abound more and more” in his reader’s lives. The love here is to be understood as “unrestricted” concerning its object, but not its application as Paul is quick to qualify this love, desirous that it be “in real knowledge and all discernment.”.[xxi] The categorical breadth of “abounding love” is then tightened by “real knowledge” (επιγνωσις, epignosis). Thus, “love must be intelligent and morally discerning, in order to be genuine.”[xxii]
The Christian’s mind and his morality are inseparable here. Moreover, love and full knowledge are brought together in the next circle, being further tightened by Paul adding “all discernment”—the conjoining of “love” and “real knowledge” in practical, authentic, real life application. This word, “discernment” (αισθησις, aisthēsis), occurs nowhere else in the NT nor the LXX, but a relative form is found in Heb 5:14 within a similar context. Thus, Thayer defines it as: perception, not only by the senses but by the intellect; cognition, discernment; of moral discernment in ethical matters.[xxiii] Hebrews 5:14 and Thayer’s analysis help us to see Paul’s progressive constriction and concentration, bring the categories of both mind and morality into a unified force, thrusting toward the goal of holiness. Thus, Paul, in a final circle of means-to-the-end, states, “that you may approve what is excellent,” so as to bring the two domains of the Christian’s epistemology and praxiology to a point of singularity before stating the central goal to which he would have them striving.
Paul earlier used a hina clause to introduce the proposed means through which his prayer would be efficacious in the reader’s lives, so also here, beginning in v.10b Paul states the prayer’s ultimate goal or end: “in order (ίνα, hina) to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ...filled with the fruit of righteousness...to the glory and praise of God” (vv.10b—11 NASB). Thus, we arrive at the centerline of the concentric process, the place of sanctification. The role of the mind in this process is undeniable. For love alone, without real knowledge being sought and exercised simultaneously would render discernment impossible, thus disenabling the believer from proving that which is best or excellent in any circumstance.
Therefore, without a proper balance of godly knowledge and Christ-like reasoning with love-filled motivation, the result of the Christian life is not sanctification; but amorality. This is why, not only in the NT but through the entire Bible, the mind, understanding, cognition, thought—all categories of the intellect—are “generally portrayed as the center of a person’s ethical nature,” thus making the mind central in morality and therefore sanctification.[xxiv]
CONCLUSION
The role of the mind in sanctification has been demonstrated to be a critical factor in the Christian’s overall sanctification process. Because man’s eternal peril, founded in the Fall, is in great measure epistemological in nature, man’s mind is bent in opposition to God’s Self-attesting revelation. Thus, the corruption of the mind has ontological, epistemological, and above all moral implications. Furthermore, because the cleansing of this sinful nature and the recovery of what was lost in the Fall through faith in Christ Jesus, namely true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, the mind has a very important place in the regeneration of the sinner; both passively and proactively through repentance.
The one time sanctification that occurs at conversion is nevertheless part of a larger whole. This initial point of “cognitive rest” is to be augmented throughout the life of the believer. The believer’s mind being active and cultivated in this progressive work was seen to be commanded by Peter in I Pet 1:13, where he placed the believer’s mind at the fore of the process. Moreover, Paul, in Phil 1:9—11, praying for a sanctified body, posited mental and moral categories together, and through a concentric narrowing brought them to a concentrated point of singularity. Thus unified, the means of the mind informing the will, being tightened through conscious experience and engagement, the two categories are dissolved bringing about a life of genuine holiness.
As one has said, you aren’t what you think you are; but what you think, you are! Therefore, a sanctified mind leads to sanctified actions; which leads to genuine holiness; which leads to the “glory and praise of God” (Phil 1:11) and as such, the Christian mind has a crucial place in the process of sanctification.
“Now for this reason, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge...For if these qualities are yours and are increasing...you will never stumble...for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you!” (II Pet 1:5, 8, 10—11 NASB).
The late Dr. Rufus M. Jones used to tell the story of the man who protested, “Whenever I go to church, I feel like unscrewing my head and placing it under the seat, because in a religious meeting I never have any use for anything above my collar button!”[i] The first clause of Dr. Jones’ statement is indicative of an attitude of an ever increasing number of Christians today. In the second clause, there is also the ring of truth. Few churches today give adequate attention to the development of the Christian mind and its role in the process of sanctification.
Most popular level Christian media, whether it be preaching, radio, books, or counseling, is all too often the case that only the will and/or the emotions of the Christian’s person are being treated. Moralistic messages challenge bad habits and beckon the believer to exercise a thrust of his volition, bring it into conformity with a list of do's and don’ts. In addition to this, due to the rising number of problems caused by emotional disorders, within and without the church, the Bible is wrenched in search of therapeutic solutions for recovering a healthy self-image and addressing felt needs. In spite of the best efforts to produce Christians that are morally reformed and emotionally sound, real Christ likeness and expressive spiritual maturity are sorely lacking in the church at large. Perhaps the number one reason for this is because little progress can be made in the process of sanctification without duly addressing the believer as a whole person, will, emotions, and mind.
Thesis and method
Therefore, the impetus of what follows will be spent demonstrating that the nurture and development of the Christian mind occupies a crucial place in the overall process of sanctification. This conclusion shall be supported by three premises. (1) Because the Fall has epistemological roots, sin pervades the whole person, including the mind. Thus groundwork must first be laid so to correctly establish the problem of the fallen mind. (2) The solution to all sin, and intellectual sin in particular, is regeneration and saving faith in the Lord Jesus. Therefore, there is a definitive beginning in the sanctification of the mind, a noetic regeneration. Finally, (3) two NT texts will be examined to show that the mind is to be in the fore of genuine sanctification. Thus, concluding that the role of the mind in sanctification is a crucial element in the Christian’s overall spiritual growth and holiness.
THE PROBLEM
The Fall and its epistemological roots
The one act of rebellion against the Creator, which brought about all other moral aberration, sin, and death, is rooted Adam and Eve’s intellectual anarchy. The act of eating the forbidden fruit was simply the expression or ratification of sinful reasoning; the head sin preceded the hand sin. In God’s good creation, man was not left without certain epistemological strictures. The ultimate reference point in his creature’s reasoning was to be no less than God’s supernatural, verbal revelation, namely his command forbidding man’s use of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and its entailments (Gen 2:16—17). Hence, Satan was wise enough to set forth his case in a manner which would address man’s entire person, with a concentrated aim at his mind.
Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve was framed with more or less subtle epistemological challenges. The question posed by Satan in Gen 3:1—“Did God actually say...”—was just enough to cast a cloud of uncertainty in Eve’s mind concerning the perspicuity of God’s declarative right rule over them, his creatures. This first shot at the rationality of Eve’s certainty, concerning her knowledge of God’s moral demands, was the starting point of a rapid descent down the slippery slope of manifest moral rebellion. Satan finishes his work in v.5 by appealing to Eve’s emotions and desires, postulating that God had base motives for depriving them of certain knowledge—namely the “knowledge of good and evil.” Eve then began to covet God in her lust for God-like knowledge when she saw that “the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (v.5). Thus, their sin was largely one of the mind and an attack on the Lordship of God himself; their basis of knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “what is true?” “Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully.”[ii]
The holistic pervasiveness and consequential fall out of this sin is aptly summarized by Berkhof: “Sin...influences the intellect, the will, and the affections, in fact the whole man, and finds expression through the body.”[iii] Thus, sin not only exists in the mind of man, but more, the mind itself is the fertile ground from which all sin springs forth to fruition and finally manifest expression (Mt 15:19—20).[iv]
The irrationality of sin
To put it a bit crass, sin is simply stupid. That is to say, all sin is ultimately irrational in nature; it is that which is nonsensical, despite man’s efforts to rationalize it. The Fall provides two fine examples of the irrational essence of sin. First, Satan’s personal rebellion against God; hoping to usurp God from his throne and exalt himself above him, did not make a bit of sense. Secondly, Adam and Eve’s reasoning that they could accrue “knowledge” by means of disobeying God’s revelation made even less sense. These cosmic sins, both of them, were more than mere miscalculations in judgment, they were instead the effect of seeking to exercise the creaturely mind in autonomous independence of their Creator and his revealed knowledge and will.
Because the Fall is archetypical of all sin, and it was in great measure an epistemological issue, it is proper to conclude that all sin is largely rooted in the mind of man working autonomously in its search for real knowledge apart from the omniscient God that created him, and as such, it is an exercise in futility, it is irrationalism. Thus, “on the last day” Grudem concludes, “it will be seen in every case that sin ultimately just does not make sense.”[v]
To summarize, sin’s entrance into the world was founded in the mind of man choosing to operate without referencing God and his Self-revelation. The result of this sin and the inherited sin nature that flows out of it leaves no part of man’s person uncorrupted, so that all sin is at some level intellectual, being exemplified in the archetypical sin of the Fall.
All sin is ultimately irrational. Because the sin condition corrupts the mind of man, man then uses his corrupted cognitive faculties in a way that is irrational and thus in moral opposition to God. This process is then back of all actual sins a person commits. Hence, the sinful state and use of man’s intellect is essentially as much an ethical matter as it is an epistemological one. Therefore, the mind of the Christian must be adequately focused upon throughout the process of sanctification if victory is to be attained. The mind of the sinner must be redeemed and renewed.
THE SOLUTION: I
Having established, in the preceding section, what theologians often call the noetic element and effect of sin on man’s nature and outworking of this condition in actual sins committed, this section will consider God’s solution to man’s “depraved mind” (Rom 1:28 NASB); noetic regeneration and sanctification. It will, therefore, be necessary to posit a general working definition of sanctification and its binary nature of being both a definitive event (regeneration) and a progressive process throughout the life of the believer (sanctification) and how this applies to the life of the Christian mind.
Working definition
In setting forth a general definition from which to work, that which Berkhof offers is very helpful, he defines sanctification as: “that gracious and continuous operation of the Holy Spirit by which He purifies the sinner, renews his whole nature in the image of God, and enables him to perform good works.”[vi] Berkhof carefully qualifies his definition by delineating it from justification, saying that sanctification differs from justification in as much as sanctification “takes place in the inner life of man,” furthermore; it is a recreative act rather than a legal reckoning, as with justification.[vii]
In light of the thesis of this composition, one element of Berkhof’s remarks is noteworthy. Berkof stated that sanctification “renews the whole nature in the image of God.” But of course this begs the question of what elements constitute the image of God in man? Lightner, following Buswell, argues “that the image of God in man includes or is related to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.”[viii] Some historic creeds refer to these principle parts as the “renewed image virtues.”[ix] This conclusion is arrived at through what is called the “restoration hermeneutic,” wherein the three elements above are extrapolated from Eph 4:21—24 (“true righteousness/holiness) and Col 3:9—10 (“true knowledge”). These qualities, restored upon saving faith in Christ Jesus, who is the true expression of God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3, etc.), are then read back into Gen 3 in order to reconstruct the originally good constitution of man as God’s image bearer and what man lost in the Fall.[x] So then, the earlier conclusion that the Fall and man’s sin nature is fundamentally rooted in man’s intellect, reasoning, and understanding, is likewise corroborated by the fact of the restored “knowledge” through Christ.
Through a scriptural survey, Lightner, in his recognition of the role of the mind as a functional quality of God’s image in man, contrasts the mind before and after regeneration: “The unregenerate mind is vain (Eph 4:17), defiled (Tit 1:15), blinded (2 Cor 4:4), darkened (Eph 4:18) and reprobate (Rom 1:28).” Conversely, “the regenerate mind is to be lead captive (2 Cor 10:5); it needs girding (1 Pet 1:13) and renewed (Rom 12:2).”[xi] The mind, therefore, is a preeminent object of sanctification, being an essential part of man’s whole person in which Christ redeems and restores. God the Holy Spirit works both instantly and continuously in purifying the Christian’s mind of inherent sin and sinful reasoning, and transforming his mind into the image of Christ his Creator.
Noetic regeneration
Because the mind is such an integral part of the Christian’s restored nature, the whole of the believer’s mind and cognition must definitively come under the Lordship of Christ at conversion and continue the renewal process throughout his life. This definitive role of the mind in conversion shall be considered first.
The passive side
The work of John Frame is very helpful in regard to the regeneration of the noetic aspect of the sinner. Frame calls the intellectual aspect of regeneration “cognitive rest.”[xii] Pointing to the moment when a sinner no longer struggles against the Scripture’s testimony of the saving Person and work of Jesus Christ, Frame says, “Coming to cognitive rest about Christianity is achieving a ‘godly sense of satisfaction’ with the message of scripture...(and to) accept it willingly.”[xiii] The regeneration of the mind is a Trinitarian work. The Holy Spirit confirms his word in order to bring conviction. Also, the new believer is endowed with “the mind of Christ” and his wisdom. Finally, the scriptures speak of the Father as the teacher of the saving truth of the message.[xiv] These observations help to illustrate the divine work in the sinner’s conversion; it is the quickening of a mind that was once hostile to God and dead to his word. Like sanctification in general, this renewal of the mind or setting apart as holy unto God should be, in one sense, understood as a definitive one time event (e.g., Acts 20:32; I Cor 6:11), yet having ongoing effects. From the human perspective, the regenerative work is passive. It is solely a supernatural work of God on the intellect and will of the sinner. Nevertheless, the mind of man must also play a very proactive role in conversion.
The pro-activity of man in conversion
The activity of the sinner’s mind in his conversion can be summarized in one word—repentance. Repentance, upon which a person’s salvation is contingent, while involving the whole person, has predominately epistemological connotations. The Greek word for repentance, μετάνοια, metanoia, is a compound formed from meta, a word with broad semantic range, however, when in conjunction the root nous, “mind,” meta is best taken to mean “with, around, or change.” Thus, the root meaning of the term repentance is “to change one’s mind” or “to adopt another view” or even “to change one’s feelings.”[xv] Lest a word study would lead to misconstruing the NT meaning as being too cerebral, it must be understood in light of the Hebraic context of the biblical writers who viewed man holistically. For this action will affect a. the emotions, b. the will, and c. the thoughts. It is seldom a function of the intellect alone, but the whole person.
The fullest expression of God’s moral obedience that he commands of man is found in the Shema (Deut 6:5) and Jesus’ reiteration of it, in what is called the Great Command (Lk 10:27; cf. Mk 12:29—30; Mt 22:37). These again reinforce the utter unity of man’s personhood, with God demanding an entire reorientation toward him and total surrender from his creatures, even all their minds.
So then, the non-negotiable action demanded from sinners in the Gospel call is repentance. This, while involving the whole person, is an act that begins in the intellect when the Gospel is clearly articulated and then correctly understood and spiritually appraised by the regenerated sinner. With this new and right understanding of his moral rebellion, his standing before a just and holy God, and his personal plight, the sinner experiences and expresses profound remorse. He turns from his sinful reason and the actions that result from it, to Christ, in whom all wisdom and knowledge is deposited (Col 2:3). Christ’s wisdom and his righteousness then become the “new man’s” controlling presupposition. This is the newly sanctified (set apart as holy) mind—this is “cognitive rest.”
Although there is an immediate, definitive point at which the noetic aspect of a person is “sanctified,” this once-for-all-time event does not, however, magically confer upon the believer “all spiritual wisdom and knowledge” (Col 1:9) in respect to their thinking Christ-like-ly—God’s thought after him. There is also a gradual, ongoing progress. This process will now be taken up.
THE SOLUTION II
Noetic sanctification
In this final section two points will be raised and briefly exegetically examined. First, as a case in point, the positive injunction of I Pet 1:13 will be considered; here Peter yokes the believer with the responsibility for the care and nurture of the mind as a preeminent element in sanctification. Second, the circular (or better concentric) nature of the mental—ethical connection will be highlighted from Phil 1:9—11 before finally concluding.
Think holy, as He is holy
The first text that will be considered here is I Pet 1:13. The best and most literal expression of this command is, “Therefore, Gird up the loins of your mind” (v.13a KJV; NKJV). This familiar Hebrew idiom would have evoked in the mind of its original readers the idea of carefully folding up and tucking into the belt the long flowing robes worn by men in antiquity. The robes would obstruct freedom of movement and hindered their being “prepared...for action” (v. 13a ESV; NIV).[xvi] Moreover, the “loins” were the “place where the Hebrews thought the generative power resided.”[xvii] The command, therefore, indicates that the mind, far from being intrinsically good, must “be girded” in order to correctly use its “generative power.”
Peter sandwiches this command between vv. 3—12, wherein he exhorts his readers to contemplate the riches and glories that Jesus’ first Advent brought them. As well, v.13c they are to set their hope fully upon the grace which will be brought to them at Christ’s second Advent. “Therefore,” Peter says, the mind of the Christian “must remain alert” and be “ready and able to think actively to glorify and adorn God’s name, will, and kingdom.”[xviii]
The purpose of this injunction is a life of holiness, sanctification. In vv.14 and 15 Peter creates a contrast between the prohibition of conformity to “former ignorance” and the positive precept to “be holy in all your conduct.” The grounds which Peter bases his argument on here is nothing less than God’s own holy nature (v.16). We see, therefore, that a life progressing in sanctification and holiness is the effect of the Christian’s mind being taken up and actively engaged as a mediating, regenerative power source for the believer’s role in the process.
Sanctification: linear or circular or both?
Of course, the path to holiness is linear or teleological. That is to say, the believer is purposely moving from his originally corrupt state at conversion toward a point of Christ-likeness. However, many passages indicate that the pilgrimage from point A to point Z is to be in some sense circular, or better concentric, where Christ’s character is the plumb-line to which the believer’s mind and experiences in life are gradually drawn closer and closer by means of exercise and engagement. Frame, therefore, would have one to “note the circular relationship between ethical sanctification and Christian understanding.” He further argues that the ability of a believer to progressively augment his “cognitive rest” in the outworking of the Christian life requires growth in holiness—and vise versa—holiness and sanctified conduct are the result of “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Cor 10:5).[xix]
This principle of circularity alluded to in the exposition of I Pet 1:13, is perhaps even more emphatic in Phil 1:9—11 (and its close parallel in Col 1:9f. See also: Rom 12:1—2). In this text the Apostle reveals his prayerful desire for his church with the concentric model described above. The ultimate end of this prayer is purity (v.10b), fruitful righteousness in believers (v.11a), and the “glory and praise of God” (v.11b). Genuine holiness is then the teleological centerline. However, in order for t[xx]hese believers to achieve this high calling in life, Paul explains the process in a concentric fashion, narrowing the circles toward the goal with each phrase.
Paul begins with the summum bonum of Christian virtue, “love,” praying “that” (ίνα, hina; purpose clause) it would “abound more and more” in his reader’s lives. The love here is to be understood as “unrestricted” concerning its object, but not its application as Paul is quick to qualify this love, desirous that it be “in real knowledge and all discernment.”.[xxi] The categorical breadth of “abounding love” is then tightened by “real knowledge” (επιγνωσις, epignosis). Thus, “love must be intelligent and morally discerning, in order to be genuine.”[xxii]
The Christian’s mind and his morality are inseparable here. Moreover, love and full knowledge are brought together in the next circle, being further tightened by Paul adding “all discernment”—the conjoining of “love” and “real knowledge” in practical, authentic, real life application. This word, “discernment” (αισθησις, aisthēsis), occurs nowhere else in the NT nor the LXX, but a relative form is found in Heb 5:14 within a similar context. Thus, Thayer defines it as: perception, not only by the senses but by the intellect; cognition, discernment; of moral discernment in ethical matters.[xxiii] Hebrews 5:14 and Thayer’s analysis help us to see Paul’s progressive constriction and concentration, bring the categories of both mind and morality into a unified force, thrusting toward the goal of holiness. Thus, Paul, in a final circle of means-to-the-end, states, “that you may approve what is excellent,” so as to bring the two domains of the Christian’s epistemology and praxiology to a point of singularity before stating the central goal to which he would have them striving.
Paul earlier used a hina clause to introduce the proposed means through which his prayer would be efficacious in the reader’s lives, so also here, beginning in v.10b Paul states the prayer’s ultimate goal or end: “in order (ίνα, hina) to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ...filled with the fruit of righteousness...to the glory and praise of God” (vv.10b—11 NASB). Thus, we arrive at the centerline of the concentric process, the place of sanctification. The role of the mind in this process is undeniable. For love alone, without real knowledge being sought and exercised simultaneously would render discernment impossible, thus disenabling the believer from proving that which is best or excellent in any circumstance.
Therefore, without a proper balance of godly knowledge and Christ-like reasoning with love-filled motivation, the result of the Christian life is not sanctification; but amorality. This is why, not only in the NT but through the entire Bible, the mind, understanding, cognition, thought—all categories of the intellect—are “generally portrayed as the center of a person’s ethical nature,” thus making the mind central in morality and therefore sanctification.[xxiv]
CONCLUSION
The role of the mind in sanctification has been demonstrated to be a critical factor in the Christian’s overall sanctification process. Because man’s eternal peril, founded in the Fall, is in great measure epistemological in nature, man’s mind is bent in opposition to God’s Self-attesting revelation. Thus, the corruption of the mind has ontological, epistemological, and above all moral implications. Furthermore, because the cleansing of this sinful nature and the recovery of what was lost in the Fall through faith in Christ Jesus, namely true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, the mind has a very important place in the regeneration of the sinner; both passively and proactively through repentance.
The one time sanctification that occurs at conversion is nevertheless part of a larger whole. This initial point of “cognitive rest” is to be augmented throughout the life of the believer. The believer’s mind being active and cultivated in this progressive work was seen to be commanded by Peter in I Pet 1:13, where he placed the believer’s mind at the fore of the process. Moreover, Paul, in Phil 1:9—11, praying for a sanctified body, posited mental and moral categories together, and through a concentric narrowing brought them to a concentrated point of singularity. Thus unified, the means of the mind informing the will, being tightened through conscious experience and engagement, the two categories are dissolved bringing about a life of genuine holiness.
As one has said, you aren’t what you think you are; but what you think, you are! Therefore, a sanctified mind leads to sanctified actions; which leads to genuine holiness; which leads to the “glory and praise of God” (Phil 1:11) and as such, the Christian mind has a crucial place in the process of sanctification.
“Now for this reason, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge...For if these qualities are yours and are increasing...you will never stumble...for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you!” (II Pet 1:5, 8, 10—11 NASB).
[i] Bob Deffinbaugh, The New Mind: an Exposition of Romans 12, (as found at: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1178).
[ii] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2000), 493.
[iii] Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, 9th edition, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1997), 69, emphasis mine.
[iv] For a summary of Pauline hamartiology by L. Morris, adducing this same conclusion, see: Leon Morris, “Sin, Guilt,” pp. 877—81 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Gerald F. Hawthorn, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, editors, (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press. 1993), 879. Also see: Westminster Confession of Faith, VI/ii—iii.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, 133, emphasis original.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Robert Lightner, Evangelical Theology: A Survey and Review, (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1986), 171.
[ix] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1998), 429.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Lightner, Evangelical Theology, 170.
[xii] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship, (Phillipsburg—New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. 1987), 152ff.
[xiii] Ibid., 153.
[xiv] Ibid. Texts concerning the work of the (1) Holy Spirit: Jn 3:3ff; I Cor 2:4, 5, 14: I Thess 1:5; I Jn 2:20f., 27. (2) The Son: Mt 11:25ff; Lk 24:45; I Cor 1:24, 30; 2:16; Phil 2:5; Col 2:3. And (3) the Father: Mt 16:17; 23:8ff; Jn 6:45.
[xv] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, editors, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1967), IV: 976.
[xvi] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press. 1993), 710.
[xvii] Thayer’s lexical aides (e-Sword Bible softeware).
[xviii] Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude: New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker. 1987), 58.
[xix] Frame, DKG, 154—55.
[xx]
[xxi] Kent A. Homer Jr., “Philippians,” pp. 787—811 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary—Abridged Edition: New Testament, Kenneth L Barker, John R. Kohlenberger III, editors, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co. 1994), 791.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] Thayer’s lexical aides (e-Sword Bible softeware).
[xxiv] Gerald Cowen, “Mind,” pp. 1128—29 in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Butler, Trent C., general editor, (Nashville: Holman Reference. 2003), 1129.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Philip Schaff on the works of the Patristic Apologists
The Christian apology [i.e., vindication of Christianity] against non-Christian opponents, and the controversial efforts against Christian errorists, are the two oldest branches of theological science...
Their first object was to soften the temper of the authorities and people towards Christianity and its professors by refuting the charges against them...
Yet the chief service of this literature was to strengthen believers and to advance theological knowledge. It brought the church to a deeper and clearer sense of the peculiar nature of the Christian religion, and prepared her thenceforth to vindicate it before the tribunal of reason and philosophy; whilst Judaism and heathenism proved themselves powerless in the combat, and were driven to the weapons of falsehood and vituperation. The sophisms and mockeries of a Celsus and a Lucian have none but historical interest; the Apologies of Justin and the Apologeticus of Tertullian, rich with indestructible truth and glowing piety, are read with pleasure and edification to this day.
The apologists do not confine themselves to the defensive, but carry the war aggressively into the territory of Judaism and heathenism. They complete their work by positively demonstrating that Christianity is the divine religion, and the only true religion for all mankind.
History of the Christian Church, vol. II, pp. 105—07.
Their first object was to soften the temper of the authorities and people towards Christianity and its professors by refuting the charges against them...
Yet the chief service of this literature was to strengthen believers and to advance theological knowledge. It brought the church to a deeper and clearer sense of the peculiar nature of the Christian religion, and prepared her thenceforth to vindicate it before the tribunal of reason and philosophy; whilst Judaism and heathenism proved themselves powerless in the combat, and were driven to the weapons of falsehood and vituperation. The sophisms and mockeries of a Celsus and a Lucian have none but historical interest; the Apologies of Justin and the Apologeticus of Tertullian, rich with indestructible truth and glowing piety, are read with pleasure and edification to this day.
The apologists do not confine themselves to the defensive, but carry the war aggressively into the territory of Judaism and heathenism. They complete their work by positively demonstrating that Christianity is the divine religion, and the only true religion for all mankind.
History of the Christian Church, vol. II, pp. 105—07.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Notable Quotables
A couple of quotes from this month’s Christianity Today sure jumped out at me.
The first one ironically came from Ted Olson’s “Quotation Marks” sidebar, p. 13. It was Benny Hinn complaining, “My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done.” Frankly, I’m actually encouraged by this comment, that Hinn would concern himself over “biblical grounds” for anything is both remarkable and hopeful. How long have we made the same complaint against his message and ministry?!?
The second is from p. 35. Gerald McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, has an article called “On the Jesus Trail.” Therein Prof. McDermott surveys the continual influence of Jesus within the religious diversity of the Muslim, Judaic and Arabic Christian context of Palestine. Through a series of interviews, McDermott cites a Jewish convert, become Christian Pastor. Pastor Yossi Ovadia, of Galilee, was cited, saying,
“The English Christians I met had hearts for God and knew the Bible better than I did, even though I had grown up the son of a synagogue cantor. I started to envy them.”
Isn’t this exactly what God revealed would happen in the great mystery of redemption? Deut. 32:21 (Cf. Rom 10:19) promised that this would happen; that with “those who are not a nation...a foolish nation” [i.e., Gentiles] God would provoke Israel to a jealousy which would result in their inclusion in the New Covenant (Rom 11:11).
How exciting, that we can speak of biblical history in two ways: 1) in the sense of past events which are recorded for our salvation and edification in the Scriptures, and 2) in that we today are living-out, as it were, the history-future promised to come about in the power and reign of Christ through the Holy Spirit working in the Church!
The first one ironically came from Ted Olson’s “Quotation Marks” sidebar, p. 13. It was Benny Hinn complaining, “My wife has no biblical grounds for what she has done.” Frankly, I’m actually encouraged by this comment, that Hinn would concern himself over “biblical grounds” for anything is both remarkable and hopeful. How long have we made the same complaint against his message and ministry?!?
The second is from p. 35. Gerald McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, has an article called “On the Jesus Trail.” Therein Prof. McDermott surveys the continual influence of Jesus within the religious diversity of the Muslim, Judaic and Arabic Christian context of Palestine. Through a series of interviews, McDermott cites a Jewish convert, become Christian Pastor. Pastor Yossi Ovadia, of Galilee, was cited, saying,
“The English Christians I met had hearts for God and knew the Bible better than I did, even though I had grown up the son of a synagogue cantor. I started to envy them.”
Isn’t this exactly what God revealed would happen in the great mystery of redemption? Deut. 32:21 (Cf. Rom 10:19) promised that this would happen; that with “those who are not a nation...a foolish nation” [i.e., Gentiles] God would provoke Israel to a jealousy which would result in their inclusion in the New Covenant (Rom 11:11).
How exciting, that we can speak of biblical history in two ways: 1) in the sense of past events which are recorded for our salvation and edification in the Scriptures, and 2) in that we today are living-out, as it were, the history-future promised to come about in the power and reign of Christ through the Holy Spirit working in the Church!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Dr. Richard Pratt Jr. is Coming to Rivermont!
I am both thrilled and proud to share that our church, Rivermont Presbyterian Church, in Lynchburg, VA will be hosting Dr. Richard Pratt April 18 and 19. Dr. Pratt is the founder of Third Millennium Ministries; he chaired the Old Testament Dept. and taught at Reformed Theological Seminary for 21 years; and has authored a number of great books, including Every Thought Captive, one of the best primer texts for introducing presuppositionalist apologetics.
“The goal will be to provide an inspiring portrait of the ‘big picture’ of our biblical faith, focusing on the unfolding of God’s purpose for our lives as his people.”
The schedule:
Sunday 8:30 and 11:00 AM: The Vision of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:5—15)
Sunday School at 9:35 AM: God Original Plan for the World (Gen 1:26—28)
Sunday Evening at 6:30 PM: The Unfrozen Chosen in God’s Plan (Gen 12:1—3)
Monday Evening at 7:00 PM: Fighting for Victory (Josh 1:6—9)
“The goal will be to provide an inspiring portrait of the ‘big picture’ of our biblical faith, focusing on the unfolding of God’s purpose for our lives as his people.”
The schedule:
Sunday 8:30 and 11:00 AM: The Vision of Christ in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:5—15)
Sunday School at 9:35 AM: God Original Plan for the World (Gen 1:26—28)
Sunday Evening at 6:30 PM: The Unfrozen Chosen in God’s Plan (Gen 12:1—3)
Monday Evening at 7:00 PM: Fighting for Victory (Josh 1:6—9)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Raising Up the Next Generation of Pro-Lifers!
I am so blessed to share the following letter with you. It was written by a good friend and co-worker, Ryan Campbell. Ryan is a younger guy (considerably younger than me;), and an outstanding athlete. He even played a couple of years of pro-am football after high school, without having played that sport in school! He very quite and unassuming; but as the letter demonstrates, he’s not afraid to speak the truth! Look forward with me to more from Ryan in the future!
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Life of Nero at a Glance
Here is an essay Israel did last year (8th grade) on the life of Nero.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Friday, March 26, 2010
A New Kind of Stupid!
Here is another letter exchange I had at the Roanoke Times. WARNING: The first letter contains a new kind of stupid; read at your own academic risk!
“We’re not alive until we’re breathing” (03/23/10)
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
“We’re not alive until we’re breathing” (03/23/10)
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Normative Ethical Relativism
Israel (Beaner) has just finished this essay on Normative Ethical Relativism or Conventional Ethics. In her philosophy class, before getting into the history of philosophy, I had her to do a fairly extensive survey of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. This task was broken into two separate sections: first examining these foundational categories from within the Christian worldview, then, secondly, a brief overview of the dominate views that secular philosophy has devised. Secular ethics was her final section in this part of the class, and she chose for her essay Conventional Ethics. Enjoy.
Normative Ethical Relativism, also known as Conventionalism, is the system of belief that morals “ought” to be designated by individual societies. It teaches that whatever a certain society says to do, their citizens are morally obligated to follow these ethical constructs. Francis Beckwith, in his book with Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, defines it in this way. “[N]ormative ethical relativism teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements that all individuals are obligated to honor...Morality, then, is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, and expressed through laws, customs and mores” (p. 49).
There are some obvious flaws facing this perspective on human attitudes and behavior.
First, no one society can accuse any other society of do that which is morally wrong. Assuming this axiological idea, we in America were wrong in telling Nazi Germany, during World War II, that is was morally wrong to kill Jews and others on a whim. So also, during the War of Southern Independence (the so-called Civil War), the North could not have told those in the South that it was immoral to keep slaves, as the North and the South represented two very distinct societies or cultures.
A second flaw is that no law or behavioral code is wrong if appointed by the society’s majority. In this way, it confuses morals with mores. Beckwith has a good example illustrating this point. Again from Relativism:
“An attorney once called a radio talk show with a challenge. ‘When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?’ She asked. ‘You may not like it, but it’s the law.’ Her point was simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for rebuttal. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffers because it confuses what is right with what is legal” (pp. 51—52).
Third, and finally, if a particular society legalizes or allows something that an individual citizen sees as morally wrong, they themselves become immoral outcasts for transgressing the status quo. This is known as the Reformer’s Dilemma.
If conventionalism is correct, no moral reformation would be possible without the reformer(s) becoming an iconoclast of sorts. Martin Luther’s struggle against the abuses and oppression of the Roman Catholic organization; Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts to hide Jews during the Holocaust; William Wilberforce, with the ending of the slave trade in England and Europe, and many other men and women who spent themselves seeking to liberate souls and setting free the truth would have to be deemed as immoral persons, and their causes as wrong. However, today, we hold these people in high esteem for what they stood for and did.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Normative Ethical Relativism is correct. If so, we can do nothing but rebuke the above men and women for their choices, because they are by definition immoral for going against what their societies said was morally right. So, was it all in vain? Was that they did pointless, because it was not what their societies would have had them to do?Conventionalism does nothing but give to us a number of counterintuitive results. With this theory of morality, virtue becomes vice and heroes become hellions.
Men and women may say that they believe that ethical truth is relative to society, but in their heart of hearts they know there is an ultimate, universal standard of moral truth that is to govern their lives, to which they must give an account (Rom 1:32). This ultimate standard of moral truth is revealed to us by God in three ways: 1) the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 2) in nature, and most explicitly 3) in his Son, Christ Jesus our Lord. He has written his moral law on our hearts (Rom 2:15) and stated in clearly in the Ten Commandments. Even so, the conventionalist seeks to suppress God’s truth and ultimately trades it for a lie (Rom 1:18, 25).
Christians must resist conventionalism wherever it is found. Conventionalism renders the gospel of Jesus Christ meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance an absolute moral law. Conventionalism seeks to do away with any absolute moral law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ. But, since it contradicts the God of the Scriptures, it is impossible to live according to conventionalism consistently. Therefore , it cannot in anyway possible be morally right. Conventionalism is just one of many ways humanity has tried to throw off God’s rule over us.
One reason people reject God’s standard and accept others, such as conventionalism, is because God’s law is perfect (Ps 19:7) and demands perfection from us. But no one can live up to this standard. Only in Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father, and came to earth in the form of a man (Phil 2:6f) is there hope. He lived in perfect obedience under the law of God; he died the death that no other man past, present or future could ever endure; he bore the sins of all those who would believe. The third day he arose again from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples. He ascended into heaven and is sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Trusting Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity’s moral problem. God alone is our ultimate standard for morality; not society, not ourselves, only him.
Normative Ethical Relativism, also known as Conventionalism, is the system of belief that morals “ought” to be designated by individual societies. It teaches that whatever a certain society says to do, their citizens are morally obligated to follow these ethical constructs. Francis Beckwith, in his book with Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, defines it in this way. “[N]ormative ethical relativism teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements that all individuals are obligated to honor...Morality, then, is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, and expressed through laws, customs and mores” (p. 49).
There are some obvious flaws facing this perspective on human attitudes and behavior.
First, no one society can accuse any other society of do that which is morally wrong. Assuming this axiological idea, we in America were wrong in telling Nazi Germany, during World War II, that is was morally wrong to kill Jews and others on a whim. So also, during the War of Southern Independence (the so-called Civil War), the North could not have told those in the South that it was immoral to keep slaves, as the North and the South represented two very distinct societies or cultures.
A second flaw is that no law or behavioral code is wrong if appointed by the society’s majority. In this way, it confuses morals with mores. Beckwith has a good example illustrating this point. Again from Relativism:
“An attorney once called a radio talk show with a challenge. ‘When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?’ She asked. ‘You may not like it, but it’s the law.’ Her point was simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for rebuttal. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffers because it confuses what is right with what is legal” (pp. 51—52).
Third, and finally, if a particular society legalizes or allows something that an individual citizen sees as morally wrong, they themselves become immoral outcasts for transgressing the status quo. This is known as the Reformer’s Dilemma.
If conventionalism is correct, no moral reformation would be possible without the reformer(s) becoming an iconoclast of sorts. Martin Luther’s struggle against the abuses and oppression of the Roman Catholic organization; Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts to hide Jews during the Holocaust; William Wilberforce, with the ending of the slave trade in England and Europe, and many other men and women who spent themselves seeking to liberate souls and setting free the truth would have to be deemed as immoral persons, and their causes as wrong. However, today, we hold these people in high esteem for what they stood for and did.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Normative Ethical Relativism is correct. If so, we can do nothing but rebuke the above men and women for their choices, because they are by definition immoral for going against what their societies said was morally right. So, was it all in vain? Was that they did pointless, because it was not what their societies would have had them to do?Conventionalism does nothing but give to us a number of counterintuitive results. With this theory of morality, virtue becomes vice and heroes become hellions.
Men and women may say that they believe that ethical truth is relative to society, but in their heart of hearts they know there is an ultimate, universal standard of moral truth that is to govern their lives, to which they must give an account (Rom 1:32). This ultimate standard of moral truth is revealed to us by God in three ways: 1) the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 2) in nature, and most explicitly 3) in his Son, Christ Jesus our Lord. He has written his moral law on our hearts (Rom 2:15) and stated in clearly in the Ten Commandments. Even so, the conventionalist seeks to suppress God’s truth and ultimately trades it for a lie (Rom 1:18, 25).
Christians must resist conventionalism wherever it is found. Conventionalism renders the gospel of Jesus Christ meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance an absolute moral law. Conventionalism seeks to do away with any absolute moral law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ. But, since it contradicts the God of the Scriptures, it is impossible to live according to conventionalism consistently. Therefore , it cannot in anyway possible be morally right. Conventionalism is just one of many ways humanity has tried to throw off God’s rule over us.
One reason people reject God’s standard and accept others, such as conventionalism, is because God’s law is perfect (Ps 19:7) and demands perfection from us. But no one can live up to this standard. Only in Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father, and came to earth in the form of a man (Phil 2:6f) is there hope. He lived in perfect obedience under the law of God; he died the death that no other man past, present or future could ever endure; he bore the sins of all those who would believe. The third day he arose again from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples. He ascended into heaven and is sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Trusting Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity’s moral problem. God alone is our ultimate standard for morality; not society, not ourselves, only him.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
What Are The Contours of Calvinism?
Here’s a bit more from Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (to view this fine work at Amazon, see linked title in the post below).
In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.
The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?
Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).
Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).
If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.
“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”
In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.
The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?
Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).
Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).
If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.
“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Why Nothing that Unbelievers Do Can Be Good
Loraine Boettner, in his classic, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (pp. 69—70), borrows a genius illustration from W. D. Smith’s What Is Calvinism?, explaining why we must say that unregenerate persons can do nothing good. Boettner writes:
“This distinction [between Christian virtues and man’s common “virtues”] is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D. Smith. Says he: ‘In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are good in themselves. Though that are in wicked rebellion against the laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recommend them as pirates. That may so many things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the government requires honesty and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as citizens. The first step must be to give up their rebellion, acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world, or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed.’
The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, ‘are not positively sinful in themselves, but sinful by defect. The lack the principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing, mending, or rigging the vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue in their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even the most ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is, ‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Prov. 21:4.’”
“This distinction [between Christian virtues and man’s common “virtues”] is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D. Smith. Says he: ‘In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are good in themselves. Though that are in wicked rebellion against the laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recommend them as pirates. That may so many things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the government requires honesty and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as citizens. The first step must be to give up their rebellion, acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world, or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed.’
The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, ‘are not positively sinful in themselves, but sinful by defect. The lack the principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing, mending, or rigging the vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue in their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even the most ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is, ‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Prov. 21:4.’”
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
R. L. Dabney on our Federal Headship in Adam
“The explanation presented by the doctrine of imputation is demanded by all except Pelagians and Socinians. Man’s is a spiritually dead and condemned race. See Eph. 2:1-5, et passim. He is obviously under a curse for something, from the beginning of life. Witness the native depravity of infants, and their inheritance of woe and death. Now, either man was tried and fell in Adam, or he has be condemned without trial. He is either under the curse (as it rests on him at the beginning of his existence) for Adam’s guilt, or for no guilt at all. Judge which is most honorable to God, a doctrine which, although profoundly mysterious, represents Him as giving man an equitable and most favorable probation in his federal head; or that which makes God condemn him untried, and even before he exists.”
Robert Lewis Dabney, Theology.
Robert Lewis Dabney, Theology.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Truth and Love
All of Scripture—especially John’s Gospel and epistles—exhorts Christians, individually and corporately, to conjoin and maintain the perfect balance of the two chief virtues of the faith, truth and love. Truth without love is dead cold intellectualism; it’s “ugliness,” as Schaeffer put it. Likewise, love without truth is mere sentimentalism and compromise, which is also ugly.
In my perusal today, I came across a most interesting expression of this perennial dilemma. In a sermon delivered to the House of Commons, the controversialist English Puritan, Richard Baxter, put it like this.
“Men that differ about bishops, ceremonies, and forms of prayer, may be all true Christians, and dear to one another and to Christ, if they be practically agreed in the life of godliness, and join in a holy, heavenly conversation. But if you agree in all your opinions and formalities, and yet were never sanctified by the truth, you do but agree to delude your souls, and neither of you will be saved for all your agreement” (Baxter’s Works, Vol. XVII. P. 80).
In my perusal today, I came across a most interesting expression of this perennial dilemma. In a sermon delivered to the House of Commons, the controversialist English Puritan, Richard Baxter, put it like this.
“Men that differ about bishops, ceremonies, and forms of prayer, may be all true Christians, and dear to one another and to Christ, if they be practically agreed in the life of godliness, and join in a holy, heavenly conversation. But if you agree in all your opinions and formalities, and yet were never sanctified by the truth, you do but agree to delude your souls, and neither of you will be saved for all your agreement” (Baxter’s Works, Vol. XVII. P. 80).
Saturday, March 13, 2010
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOMINATE VIEWS OF LAST THINGS
I. ESTABLISHING SOME TERMS:
A. Method of Interpretation: the controlling methodological assumptions each position brings to the prophetic material.
B. Its Heritage: is simply seeking to point to the point in history when each perspective began to develop into a systematic framework for interpreting the “last things” in scripture and history.
C. The Millennium: refers to a period of time, mentioned explicitly in Rev 20:1—6.
D. The Kingdom of God: in the broadest sense is God’s reign through Jesus Christ (the NT never defines the kingdom, only describes it. See: Mt. 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).
E. Israel and the Church: this is specifically addressing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the ethnic, historical nation of Israel and the church of the NT era. Mostly concerning OT promises, prophecies, etc.
F. The Rapture: This term comes from the Latin word rapio in the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate. It is referring to the saints being “caught up,” most explicitly mentioned in I Thess 4: 13—18.
G. After the Millennium: This category is obviously relative to how a particular position will define the millennium itself, and will be defined within the context of each respective position.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: The brief list of names at the end of each summary is to expose you to some of the more notable scholars that write for and from each perspective; to provide a place to begin, if you were to become interested in studying further, on your own, the options available.
I. The Tribulation: Mt 24:15—21. Amillennialism views this as already (pre-70 A.D.) and not yet, when it will be fully realized at the end of the age, just prior to Christ’s second coming. Generally speaking, Postmillennialists view this as purely a historical event that occurred in 66—70 A.D., although there will be a mixture of kingdom victory and persecution throughout the church age. Premillennialism is split. Generally, the Historical/Classical view takes a Post-Tribulation position of the Christ’s return (seeing the Rapture and the Second coming as two sides of the same event). The usual rule within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ will privately return for his church prior to a 7 year period of “great tribulation,” thus, they are Pre-Tribulation. However, there are those in both Premillennial camps that would maintain that the Rapture will occur mid-way through the Tribulation period; hence this is a Mid-Tribulation view.
I. HISTORICAL/CLASSICAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Grammatical—Historical
B. Its Heritage: This position has its roots in the first century, being taught by early church fathers: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others (1st—4th centuries). Although eclipsed by Amillennialism for a largest part of church history following the 4th century, it has maintained a following and is still popular among many scholars today.
C. The Millennium: After an intense period of persecution and tribulation, Christ will return to institute an earthly 1000 year kingdom (some take this number to be literal; others as an indefinitely long period of time).
D. The Kingdom of God: The kingdom of God is already a spiritual reality in the church since Pentecost, yet will become a visible earthly reality during the millennium after Christ’s return.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: Will be a public event were all believers, living and dead, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air immediately prior to the millennium. These will immediately return with Christ to judge the world and establish the millennial kingdom.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, Theodore Zahn, Robert Gundry.
II. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Strict—literal.
B. Its Heritage: Is a relatively new system, having its inception in the 1830’s, pioneered by J. N. Darby and further developed by C. I. Scofield (e.g., The Scofield Reference Bible). Due to the volatile climate of the Middle East; namely in the Holy Land, and the outstanding popularity of the Left Behind book and movie series this position is hands down the most widely held in America today, especially at the popular level.
C. The Millennium: At the end of the 7 years of great tribulation Christ will return to earth to establish a literal 1000 year, earthly reign from geographic Jerusalem. This period is to fulfill the OT promises to the nation Israel; including an earthly temple, the Levitical priesthood and much of the sacrificial system.
D. The Kingdom of God: Is the literal physical kingdom prophesied in the OT during which God will fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel. Because the religious leaders of Israel rejected their King (Christ) at his first coming, the kingdom was postponed until his second coming, after Israel has undergone a period of intense suffering (i.e., the great tribulation). The believers who come out of the tribulation shall enter and populate the earthly millennial kingdom.
E. Israel and the Church: Israel and the church are two very distinct entities, with two individual redemptive plans. The church age is a parenthetical time in God’s plans for Israel—largely unknown to the OT prophets.
F. The Rapture: Is a “secret” event which proceeds the 7 year period of great tribulation. Here, all believers from Pentecost until the tribulation will be “caught up,” taken to heaven, at which time the marriage of the Lamb will occur. Simultaneously, on earth, the Anti-Christ will rule. In the last three and a half years God will pour his wrath upon the earth in judgment.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Lewis Chafer, Norman Geisler, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey (i.e., The Late Great Planet Earth), Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (i.e., the “Left Behind” series).
III. AMILLENNIALISM (or Inaugurated Millennialism)
A. Method of Interpretation: Redemptive—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Beginning with St. Augustine (4th—5th century A.D.), this position became the dominant view of most of the church, being slightly modified and taught by the Protestant Reformers. With the rise in biblical theological interpretive methods today, many scholars are finding this position to be the simplest, yet most comprehensive view for accounting for the flow and progressive nature of God realizing his redemptive purposes for his creation.
C. The Millennium: Was inaugurated at the time Christ’s resurrection. The millennium is now, in the sense that Christ is ruling over his growing kingdom through the church while Satan is bound and restrained in a great degree. The kingdom is already a spiritual reality now, but not yet fully realized. It will be visible and physical after Christ’s second coming, in the new creation.
D. The Kingdom of God: A present spiritual reality, being participated in through faith in Christ. The kingdom will be visible, wholly pervasive and fully realized at the consummation.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel. The church is the realization of the OT hopes for Israel, redefining the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
F. The Rapture: At the end of the millennium (i.e., church age) believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the air to immediately accompany him in a royal procession, return to earth to judge the wicked and establish the new creation.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium (church age) Satan will be release from his restrained capacity and allowed to make war with the saints. Christ returns, defeats Satan and the rest of his enemies; ushers in the consummation (New Creation).
H. Popular Modern Proponents: John Murray, William Hendrikson, Anthony Hoekema, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith Kline.
IV. POSTMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Covenantal—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Building off a theology of history taught by Joachim (12th cent.), some Protestant Reformers began to identify the recovery and expansion of the Gospel in 16th century Europe with the millennium mentioned in Rev 20. More contemporarily, the Industrial Revolution with all its promises of human possibility led to a revival in postmillennial thought. Human progress seemed unstoppable at the dawn of the 20th century; however, two world wars and the bloodiest century of human history has led many to abandon the notion of a “golden age” before Christ’s return.
C. The Millennium: Is understood to be a time in which the majority of the world would be Christian, thus, inaugurating a “golden age” where Christ would virtually rule the entire earth from heaven through Spirit filled preaching of the Gospel, after which Christ will return, the dead would be resurrected, judged and the eternal state ushered in.
D. The Kingdom of God: A spiritual reality experienced on earth through the expansion of the Gospel, and the conversion and Christianization of over half the world.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: The rapture is simultaneous with the Second Coming of Christ; in most cases it is synonymous with the resurrection of believers.
G. After the Millennium: Christ returns; the dead are raised and judged, and the eternal state is ushered in.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Gary North, Kenneth Gentry Jr., R. C. Sproul, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen.
A. Method of Interpretation: the controlling methodological assumptions each position brings to the prophetic material.
B. Its Heritage: is simply seeking to point to the point in history when each perspective began to develop into a systematic framework for interpreting the “last things” in scripture and history.
C. The Millennium: refers to a period of time, mentioned explicitly in Rev 20:1—6.
D. The Kingdom of God: in the broadest sense is God’s reign through Jesus Christ (the NT never defines the kingdom, only describes it. See: Mt. 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).
E. Israel and the Church: this is specifically addressing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the ethnic, historical nation of Israel and the church of the NT era. Mostly concerning OT promises, prophecies, etc.
F. The Rapture: This term comes from the Latin word rapio in the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate. It is referring to the saints being “caught up,” most explicitly mentioned in I Thess 4: 13—18.
G. After the Millennium: This category is obviously relative to how a particular position will define the millennium itself, and will be defined within the context of each respective position.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: The brief list of names at the end of each summary is to expose you to some of the more notable scholars that write for and from each perspective; to provide a place to begin, if you were to become interested in studying further, on your own, the options available.
I. The Tribulation: Mt 24:15—21. Amillennialism views this as already (pre-70 A.D.) and not yet, when it will be fully realized at the end of the age, just prior to Christ’s second coming. Generally speaking, Postmillennialists view this as purely a historical event that occurred in 66—70 A.D., although there will be a mixture of kingdom victory and persecution throughout the church age. Premillennialism is split. Generally, the Historical/Classical view takes a Post-Tribulation position of the Christ’s return (seeing the Rapture and the Second coming as two sides of the same event). The usual rule within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ will privately return for his church prior to a 7 year period of “great tribulation,” thus, they are Pre-Tribulation. However, there are those in both Premillennial camps that would maintain that the Rapture will occur mid-way through the Tribulation period; hence this is a Mid-Tribulation view.
I. HISTORICAL/CLASSICAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Grammatical—Historical
B. Its Heritage: This position has its roots in the first century, being taught by early church fathers: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others (1st—4th centuries). Although eclipsed by Amillennialism for a largest part of church history following the 4th century, it has maintained a following and is still popular among many scholars today.
C. The Millennium: After an intense period of persecution and tribulation, Christ will return to institute an earthly 1000 year kingdom (some take this number to be literal; others as an indefinitely long period of time).
D. The Kingdom of God: The kingdom of God is already a spiritual reality in the church since Pentecost, yet will become a visible earthly reality during the millennium after Christ’s return.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: Will be a public event were all believers, living and dead, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air immediately prior to the millennium. These will immediately return with Christ to judge the world and establish the millennial kingdom.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, Theodore Zahn, Robert Gundry.
II. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Strict—literal.
B. Its Heritage: Is a relatively new system, having its inception in the 1830’s, pioneered by J. N. Darby and further developed by C. I. Scofield (e.g., The Scofield Reference Bible). Due to the volatile climate of the Middle East; namely in the Holy Land, and the outstanding popularity of the Left Behind book and movie series this position is hands down the most widely held in America today, especially at the popular level.
C. The Millennium: At the end of the 7 years of great tribulation Christ will return to earth to establish a literal 1000 year, earthly reign from geographic Jerusalem. This period is to fulfill the OT promises to the nation Israel; including an earthly temple, the Levitical priesthood and much of the sacrificial system.
D. The Kingdom of God: Is the literal physical kingdom prophesied in the OT during which God will fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel. Because the religious leaders of Israel rejected their King (Christ) at his first coming, the kingdom was postponed until his second coming, after Israel has undergone a period of intense suffering (i.e., the great tribulation). The believers who come out of the tribulation shall enter and populate the earthly millennial kingdom.
E. Israel and the Church: Israel and the church are two very distinct entities, with two individual redemptive plans. The church age is a parenthetical time in God’s plans for Israel—largely unknown to the OT prophets.
F. The Rapture: Is a “secret” event which proceeds the 7 year period of great tribulation. Here, all believers from Pentecost until the tribulation will be “caught up,” taken to heaven, at which time the marriage of the Lamb will occur. Simultaneously, on earth, the Anti-Christ will rule. In the last three and a half years God will pour his wrath upon the earth in judgment.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Lewis Chafer, Norman Geisler, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey (i.e., The Late Great Planet Earth), Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (i.e., the “Left Behind” series).
III. AMILLENNIALISM (or Inaugurated Millennialism)
A. Method of Interpretation: Redemptive—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Beginning with St. Augustine (4th—5th century A.D.), this position became the dominant view of most of the church, being slightly modified and taught by the Protestant Reformers. With the rise in biblical theological interpretive methods today, many scholars are finding this position to be the simplest, yet most comprehensive view for accounting for the flow and progressive nature of God realizing his redemptive purposes for his creation.
C. The Millennium: Was inaugurated at the time Christ’s resurrection. The millennium is now, in the sense that Christ is ruling over his growing kingdom through the church while Satan is bound and restrained in a great degree. The kingdom is already a spiritual reality now, but not yet fully realized. It will be visible and physical after Christ’s second coming, in the new creation.
D. The Kingdom of God: A present spiritual reality, being participated in through faith in Christ. The kingdom will be visible, wholly pervasive and fully realized at the consummation.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel. The church is the realization of the OT hopes for Israel, redefining the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
F. The Rapture: At the end of the millennium (i.e., church age) believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the air to immediately accompany him in a royal procession, return to earth to judge the wicked and establish the new creation.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium (church age) Satan will be release from his restrained capacity and allowed to make war with the saints. Christ returns, defeats Satan and the rest of his enemies; ushers in the consummation (New Creation).
H. Popular Modern Proponents: John Murray, William Hendrikson, Anthony Hoekema, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith Kline.
IV. POSTMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Covenantal—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Building off a theology of history taught by Joachim (12th cent.), some Protestant Reformers began to identify the recovery and expansion of the Gospel in 16th century Europe with the millennium mentioned in Rev 20. More contemporarily, the Industrial Revolution with all its promises of human possibility led to a revival in postmillennial thought. Human progress seemed unstoppable at the dawn of the 20th century; however, two world wars and the bloodiest century of human history has led many to abandon the notion of a “golden age” before Christ’s return.
C. The Millennium: Is understood to be a time in which the majority of the world would be Christian, thus, inaugurating a “golden age” where Christ would virtually rule the entire earth from heaven through Spirit filled preaching of the Gospel, after which Christ will return, the dead would be resurrected, judged and the eternal state ushered in.
D. The Kingdom of God: A spiritual reality experienced on earth through the expansion of the Gospel, and the conversion and Christianization of over half the world.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: The rapture is simultaneous with the Second Coming of Christ; in most cases it is synonymous with the resurrection of believers.
G. After the Millennium: Christ returns; the dead are raised and judged, and the eternal state is ushered in.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Gary North, Kenneth Gentry Jr., R. C. Sproul, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)