THE BIBLICAL ONTOLOGY: GROUNDING THE FAMILY

What are the theological foundations of the family? As St. Paul declared in doxological jubilee, speaking of the triune Majesty, the living and true God revealed in the cosmos, Canon, and Christ: “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). Since, according to scripture, history, and experience, the family is the central sphere of these “all things,” it follows that the family is rooted and deeply grounded in the nature of the holy Trinity.

Family: Rooted in the Nature of God

The family is rooted and grounded in the nature of the triune God. Human beings, individually and socially, are created in the imago Dei, the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26—28; cf. Ps. 8, etc.). In addition to the constitutional aspects of human nature, e.g., being rational, moral, spiritual beings, etc., this imago has a profoundly relational dimension.

Trinity and Family

Man is made to reflect God’s nature and glory, in a creaturely sense, not rationally only but also relationally. This relational reflection is firstly and obviously Godward, vertically, as the temporal fulfillment of God’s originally-good purposes for humanity hung on Adam’s perfect and personal covenant-keeping obedience to YHWH’s law-word. Similarly, man’s interpersonal relationships are what they are as humans display God’s moral attributes toward each other and enjoy the gracious metaphysical common ground people enjoy between themselves, as God’s image bearers.

Less obvious to many Christians, however, is the second horizontal plane of man’s relational image reflecting function, which is to “replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over [it]” and to “dress” and “keep” the garden-temple that YHWH had planted and wherein he originally placed man, “eastward in Eden” (Gen. 1:28; 2:8, 15). So, the object of man’s relational reflection of the image of God is tripartite: Godward, and also toward both his fellows and the rest of the non-human creation.  

            Man’s divine mandate was to cultivate and expand the garden-temple, rule over it in a God-like way, and fill the earth with subsequent image-bearing progeny—man was not, is not  to be, nor ever will be “an island to himself” (Gen. 1:28). This is because God himself is not an “island”; he is not a monad, an abstract point of singularity, as he is idolatrously conceptualized of in Judaism, Islam, and the later German idealism that come out of the Enlightenment. Rather, God is tri-unity. God is both unity and plurality; he’s the ultimate One and the Many. God is one with respect to the “what” question; yet he is many—three to be exact—with respect to the “who” question. He is one in his essential nature, yet three, i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the three co-equal, co-eternal, and co-glory-worthy persons. God is thus the ultimate and absolute Society or Community.

            As God created, ordered, and evaluated his creational works in the beginning, he pronounced that things—as they conformed and operated according to his law-word ordinances to reflect his glory—were “good” no less than seven times in Genesis chapter one. “Good” is God’s ordo rerum, his design and ordering of things. Nevertheless, in chapter two of Genesis, YHWH sees a moment in his creation that an aspect of his creation is “not good,” namely that man, God’s image-bearer, “was alone” (Gen. 2:18). Man as individual was insufficient to reflect God’s image and glory. This is not surprising, since in the nature of the Godhead, and therefore the nature of the case, aloneness is eternally impossible.

             God therefore created Adam his ezer-woman, his “help meet” (2:18). Eve was Adam’s co-equal in terms of her nature, dignity, and moral value, as she enjoyed an equal share in the honor, majesty and mystery of the divine image of her Creator. Similarly, in obedience to the culture-dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28, as Adam and Eve became “fruitful and multiplied,” they produced image-bearing progeny, according to the purposes of God. Man’s co-mission therefore requires a plurality of persons; it requires a micro-society, a family. Thus, the triune Majesty—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—created humanity in his very image, to reflect both the unity and the plurality of the Godhead.  So, according to their very nature—human nature—each member of the human family, the father, mother, and child(ren), share equal dignity and value, according to their mutually equivalent participation in the imago Dei.                                  

Family: Multi-Personal Image-Bearing

            Apart from the necessity of the family as the uni-plural image-bearer, for sake of the realization of God’s purposes expressed in the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28) there are manifold ways that the family reflects the image of the ontological Trinity (i.e., the a se Godhead, in and of himself, apart from any creature) in the ordinary rhythms of the family’s daily, covenantal life together. One such example comes by way of daily private family worship in the home.

            For eternity past each person of the Trinity has enjoyed the full communion, love,  and unmediated glory of the other two. This absolute spiritual love and unity is reflected, imaged, mirrored in a creaturely way, when the father, mother, and child(ren) come around the Word of God, listen to the voice of God, in the Spirit of God. In this harmonious fellowship and worship, the family reflects in glory and harmony of the intra-Trinitarian communion, love and fellowship, which is for the mutual good and honor of the others. Thus, being created in the image of God, the family subsequently reflects God’s nature through their private worship, revealing the love, harmony and sweet communion of the three persons of the triune God.

Steve Bishop's Wonderful Overview of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Dan Brown in his 2003 book The DaVinci Code claims that the Trinity was a fourth century invention. He wasn’t the first person to suggest this, but his book placed doubt regarding the historical origins of the Christian faith and the role of the Gnostic gospels.

All good errors are based on a partial truth. And Brown was partially right. There was a fourth-century council and there are gnostic gospels. There are many so-called gospels that didn’t make the cut and get into the canon of scripture. But not for the reasons that Brown maintains! I’ll leave aside discussions of the gnostic gospels – but let’s look at the Trinity, as it’s appropriately Trinity Sunday.

Despite writing a work of fiction Brown maintained that his book was based on fact. But what are the facts behind the Trinity? Is it really a fourth-century mash up?

It was in the fourth century that the council of Nicea affirmed the idea of God as Trinity. But they didn’t come up with the idea, they drew together and clarified Trinitarian beliefs. Beliefs that were held from the early days of Christianity.

The idea of a Trinity has always caused problems, the one time president of the United States Thomas Jefferson wrote of the “incomprehensible jargon of Trinitarian arithmetic”!

On one level it does sound ridiculous. How could three be one?

Please review Steve’s great primer/overview of this, our central doctrine, the holy Trinity.  What a fine way to move into Trinitytide.

The Trinitarianism of Ephesians 4:4-6, a Chiastic Creed

A few daring theologians in our day are carefully teasing out some of the “Trinitarian metaphysics” from especially certain creedal and doxological New Testament passage, not least Tom Wright and Peter Leithart.  This is not new, though.

St. Irenaeus, in Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, quotes in part Ephesians 4:4—6, which reads:

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

From this text, he concludes, “...because ‘above all’ is the Father, and ‘through all’ is the Word—since through Him everything was made by the Father—while ‘in us all’ is the Spirit, who cries ‘Abba, Father,’ and forms man to the likeness of God” (I:5). 

Granted, within this creedal remark of St. Paul, Irenaeus picks up on the unmistakable Trinitarian formula, “One Spirit...one Lord (Jesus)...one God and Father.”  What is interesting, and certainly out of sorts with much of the rationalistic exegesis common this side of the Enlightenment, is that Irenaeus continues his Trinitarian reasoning throughout the following three prepositional phrases of verse six.  Before we dismiss Irenaeus’ exegesis as a byproduct of the old quadriga, the four-folded methodology, or some other highly subjective approach, judged through our modernistic rationalism, we should revisit St. Paul.

When we return to the text, we find an interesting chiasmus, which would point to the same conclusion that Irenaeus so naturally draws.  Look at the structure of this creed.

4:4       A. One Spirit

4:5              B. One Lord (Jesus)

4:6a                   C. One...Father

4:6b                   C. Over all

                   B. Through all

            A. In all

Granting that this text is likely a creedal formula, and that it is naturally structured in terms of a chiasm, I for one tend to think that Irenaeus’ Trinitarian conclusion is spot one.  It is further supported by the patristics’ hermeneutical key, the regulae fidei, the creedal Rule of Faith, which Irenaeus stresses in the early sections of the same work. 

Our ancient fathers in the faith did not pretend or deceive themselves into believing that they came to the text without any pre-drawn conclusions, much less without having a deep, deep precommitment.  Neither did they strive to recognize their precommitments so as to avoid them during exegesis, which all our hermeneutical textbooks caution us to do.  Rather the singular precommitment that ruled exegesis—sometimes for better or worse—was the regulae fidei, which matured into what we know today as the Apostle’s Creed.  For them, a robust Trinitarianism was the presupposition of all exegesis (and all of life), not merely its conclusion.  Perhaps we should put our fathers’ landmark back where we found it (Prov. 22:28).  Thankfully, some are.

The Trilemma of the Atonement

Few theological questions can ignite a firestorm of controversy as easily as the question concerning the divine intent of Christ’s cross-work.  At the center of this issue is the query, for whose sins did Christ die?  This question creates a trilemma; only three answers are possible.  Christ’s death propitiated and satisfied for either (1) some of the sins of all people, (2) all of the sins of some people, or (3) all of the sins of all people.  The Reformed perspective of the intent of Christ’s death, that his death atoned for all of the sins of only some people, is the correct view of the atonement.

Option one (1), which states that Christ died for some of the sins of all people, is essentially the Roman Catholic position.  On this view, Christ’s death propitiated the wrath of God against humanity’s guilt of original sin.  Postbaptismal sins, however, must be atoned for through the efforts of the believer by means of good works.  This truncated view is utterly foreign to a biblical theology of what Christ’s death accomplished.  If option (1) is the case, then all people have innumerable sins for which Christ did not die. Consequently, no one is actually saved by Christ’s death, if option one is the case. 

         
Option two (2),the historic Reformed understanding of the atonement, holds that Christ died for all of the sins of some people.  These beneficiaries are variously related to Christ as “his people” (Matt. 1:21), his “friends” (Jn. 15:13), his “body” (Eph. 5:23—26), his “Bride” (Rev. 19:7), his “church” (Acts 20:28), and his “sheep” for whom he lays down his life (Jn. 10:11, 15).  In theological parlance, the term of choice is the “elect” (Rom. 8:32—34).  On this view, option two, Christ’s death efficaciously accomplished the full redemption of  some people, namely the elect. 

         
Option three (3) is that Christ died for all of the sins of all people without exception.  This view is held by Arminians and Amyraldians.  However, if Christ’s death was substitutionary and efficacious, and he died for all people, then it follows that all people are redeemed and thus saved.  The teaching that all are saved is called universalism.  Historic Christian orthodoxy precludes universalism as a biblically faithful conclusion.  The attempt to avoid the charge of universalism is often made by maintaining that while Christ died for all the sins of all men, a person’s unbelief is what ultimately condemns him or her.  It may be asked, however, is not unbelief also a sin?  If unbelief is a sin, then Christ also died for that sin, since he died for all sins, as presented by option three.  If, on the contrary, unbelief is not a sin, then it may be rightly asked why God condemns a person for it?  Hence, if option three is maintained, and Christ’s death was efficacious, then universalism is unavoidable.

The foregoing has demonstrated that, despite the heated controversy that is often invoked by the question of the intent of the atonement, two of the three horns of this logical trilemma are pointedly unbiblical.  If the choice is option one (1), then all are condemned, which is unbiblical.  If the choice is option three (3), then unbelief would be included as a sin for which Christ died, and thus universalism is the unavoidable conclusion.  This is likewise unbiblical. Therefore, it has been proved that only option two (2), which posits that Christ died for all of the sins of only some people, the historic Reformed view, is the correct view of the atonement.  Hence, only option two, the historic Reformed view of the atonement, offers theologically self-conscious, critical-minded Christians a logically consistent perspective of Christ’s atonement, one which also couches coherently within the broader edifice of orthodox Christian theology.

____________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. London: Banner of Truth, 1959.

The EPC's Perspective on Abortion

I paid a recent visit to our denomination’s website, The Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I was struck by the clarity, cogency and compassion of our official positional paper regarding abortion. I couldn’t agree more, so thought it was well worth sharing. It reads as follows.


The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

"My frame was hidden from Thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:15)

"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me." (Isaiah 49:1)

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism, a confessional statement shared by most Reformed churches, forbids the taking of life while demanding the preservation of life:

"The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others." (Question 68)

"The Sixth Commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (Question 69)

Scripture teaches that we are not merely to avoid involvement in injustice. God's people are called upon to speak for the oppressed and defenseless. The Scripture passages cited above are evidence that God accords human value and dignity to the unborn child.

The 6th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child.

Because we hold these convictions concerning unborn children, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor and weak.

Christians are called to be good citizens by impacting the state in positive ways. All citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, must have freedom of conscience on all private moral and ethical issues, since God alone is Lord of the conscience. But the issue of equal protection of life under the laws of the state is not a private but a public matter.

The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their ethical decisions, including those which relate to the preservation of human life.

In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly urges that the following steps be implemented by individuals, congregations, and judicatories in an effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problem pregnancies:

1. Women facing problem or unwanted pregnancies should receive support, love, acceptance and counsel from pastors, counselors, physicians and Christian friends both during and after the decisions they face. The Church must provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to these persons.

2. The men involved who respond with indifference must be confronted with their responsibilities and role in such crises.

3. The Church must support and nurture women who decide to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.

4. The Church must seek ways to support and care for all children who result from unwanted pregnancies.

5. The Church must serve as a therapeutic community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds from abortion or giving up a child for adoption.

6. Both individual Christians and the Church should oppose abortion and do everything in their power to provide supportive communities and alternatives to abortion.

7. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion must never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.

The purpose of this statement is pastoral. It is best proclaimed by those who are profoundly aware of their continuous need for the mercy and forgiveness of God. The Church must always follow the compassionate example of Christ who said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Adopted by the 6th General Assembly
June 1986