Category: Reformed Theology Page 1 of 2

The Problem with Federal Theology.

On November 21, 2023

Covenant is used in a particular way in scripture. It is used of God’s work of establishing a relationship with fallen man. The one possible reference to a Covenant with Adam is difficult to prove. And considering the use of covenant in scripture, it is difficult to say that Adam was in covenant with God, except by analogy to other covenants. So we argue that this is an implied covenant.

How is covenant used? I would begin with an analogy. Marriage is a covenant. While a mere relationship is not a covenant. So covenant involves a formalized relationship, that is, a relationship that did not exist, but through promises set out with obligations given, something new is formed that was not their before. That is not the relationship with God and Adam, where Adam’s relationship with God is established simply in being made by God and functions more as an analogy between father and son, rather than husband and wife. Later covenants are made in order to establish a relationship with God’s people (Abraham) or are made to restore God’s relationship with his people (God restores covenant with his people after the exile).

So why we can’t we simply extend the word covenant by analogy to other relationships? The problem is that the scriptures already use covenant in a certain way. We either then empty covenant of its content and context until it just means “relationship,” especially when it comes to the next step, an inter-Trinitarian covenant. In this case, succession of covenant is flattened. Or, the scriptural definition of covenant begins to leak into other administrations. The Adamic administration becomes a covenant of works by which Adam must merit eternal life. Or, a covenant between the persons of the Trinity, where the language moves more and more toward a social trinity, even a tri-theism.

page of a holy bible in close up photography

Am I a Theonomist?

By James

On October 19, 2023

In Covenant, Hermeneutics, Reformed Theology

I take God’s law in the Old Testament and I believe that the civil magistrate ought to use that law to inform his role as God’s servant.

Does this make me a theonomist? To many the answer is “yes, of course.” And many around me will say that they are theonomists because they believe something similar. This includes the rather strange animal, the theonomic baptist. I do not object to that being a thing. I just find it a strange thing. But the point here is not theonomic baptists per se, but how theonomy has come to mean something like “I want to take the Old Testament Law of God seriously for our civil institutions.”

A prime example (back to the Presbyterian world) is my fellow presbyter, Douglas Wilson in this recent blogpost where he argues that theonomy is one of the things that makes his work and the work of those connected to him attractive. His point is correct. His theonomy is attractive. I’m just not sure you can call it Theonomy.

Perhaps I helplessly push against the winds of history on this point. Words come to mean very different things than the word-coiner’s intentions. This transformation of the word theonomy has been going on for a long time. Perhaps, I am a theonomist.

Perhaps I am too precise about the joists and beams in my intellectual architecture. In my understanding, RJ Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen see a theonomist as one who holds that the civil law is to be directly applied to the civil magistrate’s role today. I do not agree. I believe in what the WCF calls a “general equity.” That has to be defined, but it is not theonomy. Therefore, the word is historically conditioned by a particular movement in time. I like my theology done decently and in good order, just like my worship, so I prefer to respect that historical moment. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

For now I prefer to distance myself from the word theonomy, though I happily admire those who might not agree. Without a doubt I also admire Rushdoony and Bahnsen. They brought an important light on a forgotten topic. They are the reason I am much more sanguine about the benefits of Deuteronomy for the civil magistrate than the early reformed may have been. Let the civil magistrate have a Bible. Let him use his Bible to define his task. However, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are not careful in seeing what changed in the light of Jesus Christ. Further, they defined their project in a way that excludes certain ways of approaching this question. Therefore, I am not a theonomist.

Resist the Civil Magistrate God’s Way.

By James

On August 6, 2022

In Freedom, Reformed Theology, Witness

As we have worked through the context of Romans 13, we have assumed that Christians are allowed to resist evil in general and evil from the civil magistrate in particular. The immediate context of Romans 13 gives us the way of resistance. We are to put away a desire for vengeance and use the opportunities that God gives us to do good to our enemies; as Christ says, “love your enemies.” And so cause “coals of fire” to be placed on their head. Resistance, according to God’s way, is overcoming evil with good.

Now, this would seek to contradict the call to the Christian “to not resist” the civil magistrate in Romans 13. Yet, Paul says do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This teaching suggests that there is a way to resist evil. Further, Paul speaks of putting coals on the enemy’s head, another image that is suggestive of what we might call resistance. These contextual clues suggest that what Paul means by “resist” in Romans doesn’t necessarily stretch to the meanings we mean by “resist” in English.

Initially, to speak of resisting the Civil magistrate seems to contradict Romans 13 directly. Part of that is simply a language problem. The resistance that Paul is talking about is an insurrection. Paul preaches against actions that seek to overthrow the existing order that God has established rather than seeking the good of the city. God had quite clearly told the Jewish people in Daniel that they would be part of the Roman Empire, and it was foolish to seek to overthrow it. Romans, though they could be cruel, had a strong sense of fairness in their justice system. For the early church, the Romans were very important for their protection from the predations of fellow Jews. It was necessary then to look at the civil magistrate as appointed by God to protect the righteous, even if the individual magistrates may not have been particularly virtuous.

Because of the Jewishness of early Christianity, there probably was a portion of early Christians that the zealots attracted. These men sought to bring the kingdom of God by physical violence. And this strain has always continued to be a part of the Christian story, especially at times of great social unrest. Some, for example, will accuse my position of being anabaptist. They fail to understand that the anabaptist position is not merely a theory of resistance but a rejection of the very idea of the civil magistrate. The fact that this accusation can stick demonstrates the failure of our awareness of church history.

I imagine that some hold to an Anabaptistic position today, perhaps secretly, hiding behind Protestant resistance theory, or more openly. I haven’t come across too many. This reality may be because of the circles I interact with. Some may also sincerely hold to legitimately reformed resistance theory but do not always act in line with it. Though I do not see explicit anabaptistic thought, I believe it is out there. I certainly come across attitudes I am uncomfortable with, even if I cannot pinpoint a bad world and life view.

The sum of this discussion is that there is an attitude toward the civil magistrate that all Christians are called to reject. We are not called to insurrection in order to bring in the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God does not come by the sword. We do not reject the civil magistrate, but we submit to him as someone who God ordains.

So then, how do we resist evil? First of all, we put away our desire for vengeance and ensure in our own hearts that we desire the good of our enemies. At the same time, we must instill in ourselves the courage (a better word might be fortitude) to live according to our calling through good times and bad times. Through the Spirit, we can overcome. Through pursuing the goodness fo God, we can overcome.

A little note on the side, this attitude does not preclude acts of self-defense. Paul speaks of acts of vengeance or places where self-defense is impossible, unrealistic, or ill-advised. Christians may certainly defend themselves and certainly those who they are charged with.

On the other hand, Christians may also recognize through the Spirit that self-defense is not the right choice in a given situation. I think of men like Nate Saint, who, with his fellow missionaries, refused to defend himself against the tribe he was sent to as a missionary. He understood that in his role, his death would be more effective for the sake of the gospel than self-defense.

So, we want to overcome evil with good. We are granted the right to take vengeance, the civil magistrate has that right. So we take our “vengeance,” through doing good to our enemies

If that is the Christian way of resistance, what does that look like? What does that look like when the authorities over us work evil against us?

What does Paul mean by “Don’t be overcome by evil?” We can think of Cain, who is warned by God, “sin is crouching at your door: its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” When we receive evil in our lives, we want to respond with envy, anger, and malice. Our automatic impulse is to respond to evil in a way that satisfies our evil lusts. And so we become the very evil we war against. We end up mirroring our enemies in our desire to overcome them.

Another way to be overcome by evil is submission to it; becoming, if you will, “a doormat.” When the government gives evil commands, for example, forbidding us to fulfill our calling before God, we cannot submit to it. Sometimes we have no other choice but to submit to a wicked law and if such is the case, we need not worry; we can be confident in our freedom before God, even if we are not physically able to exercise it. However, when we have a choice, we ought to do what is right to the best of our ability. Being a doormat is just as dangerous for your spiritual well-being as mirroring your enemies. There is nothing holy about foolhardiness. There is nothing sacred about cowardice.

To all this, we can again apply the questions of prudence we discussed last time. We need to begin with the disposition of Christ, gentle and humble. The word “gentle” does not mean without offense rather, it means something closer to self-controlled, well-managed, motivated by faith, hope, and love. The result is that the gentle person is careful not to give unnecessary offense but courageous to offend when necessary. Like Christ with whips in the temple, Christ name-calling Herod, Christ condemning the Pharisees, and Christ who was willing to die for his enemies.

Regarding Covid, my desire here is to defend my approach and others’ approach to this situation. I cannot read hearts. I do not seek to condemn others for their decisions before God (though I have an exception to this when others bind the conscience of those in their care). However, I believe that I have sought to do good in response to a tyrannical government with evil rules. I do not even consider the various individuals in government as particularly evil, but they did uphold evil and destructive laws.

We overcome evil, including evil from our government, with good. So, let us do the good that our God has called us to. That brings us now to the main body of Romans 13. Next time we will dig deeper into the role of the civil magistrate.

Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor

By James

On June 22, 2022

In Church, Reformed Theology, The Basics, Worship

(This is the first of a series on Romans 13. The Covid regime has pushed Romans 13 to the front of conversation between Christians. I am working on putting out several articles on the issues that surround Romans 13 to shed more light on the big picture of what God is doing through his instruction in Romans 13.)

Many of the regulations our government put forward during the Covid-19 crisis undermine the fundamental duty of Christians to love one another. While keeping peace with all men, Christians should continue exercising this divine instruction as much as possible. In this sense, I agree with the many memes that say, “to resist tyranny is to obey God.”

Our duty to demonstrate an embodied love is a higher duty than that of honoring the civil magistrate. In fact, honoring and submitting to the civil magistrate is, in Romans 13, subsequent to the call to promote peace. Such an attitude allows the church to do the necessary work of proclaiming the gospel among men. The nature of the civil magistrate is such that it is good for the church to submit to them, for God has established them to bear the sword of vengeance. But the embodied love of the saints for one another remains a higher calling.

The word “embodied” is essential here. “Glorify God in your body,” God says to the Corinthians in the context of warning them about sexual immorality. The way we use our bodies is vital to God. If it is crucial, then the church’s authority as an expression of the power of Christ is an authority that affects the body as well.

I seek to prove this in two parts. First, I will demonstrate that the love of the brotherhood is the highest calling after the love of God. After that, I will seek to illustrate the importance of that love being embodied instead of projected through letters, phones, or screens.

Before I get to Romans 12 and 13, I will bring in several passages that more clearly point to the priority of the love of the brotherhood. (I assume, of course, that the most important love is the love of God. Brotherly love flows from the love of God and demonstrates that love.)

The most striking passage in this regard is John 13. There Jesus, having washed his disciples’ feet and having expressed his love toward his disciples through the love feast of the Lord’s Supper, says this: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” The unique expression of Jesus’ love defines the Christian brotherhood’s love for one another. There is a constant willingness to give oneself for one another, just as Christ gave himself for us on the cross, just as Jesus expressed his love by washing the disciples’ feet.

Christ gives this command to the brotherhood, the Christian church. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, giving them instructions on what it is to be the new Israel. Significantly, this is the central commandment he gives his disciples before going to the cross. This command marks out the church as an alternative community, an alternative community that is defined by the self-giving of Christ.

Another place where we see the priority of brotherly love is in 1 Peter 2: 17, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the Emperor.” Notice the gradations of command. “Fear God.” Obviously, God is first. God is the only one we ought to tremble before truly. God is the only one whose opinion matters in the end. “Love the Brotherhood.” We owe the brotherhood the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. “Honor everyone… Honor the Emperor.” These deserve honor because of God’s image and their office. The commands of Peter demonstrate priority, however. We owe God, the brotherhood, and then we have duties to others in society.

The teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians reflects this on a practical level. In the opening chapters, Paul calls on the Corinthians to prioritize Christ over their attachment to various Christian leaders, but even more the world’s wisdom. Then, in 1 Corinthians 5-10, Paul warns Christians about attachments to the world, especially regarding the temptations of sexual immorality and idolatry.

One passage that particularly stands out for our purposes is in the first part of chapter six, where Paul warns about settling civil matters before the ungodly civil magistrate (in other places, Paul clearly sees the benefit of the civil magistrate for criminal matters). A deduction from this passage might be that the church ought to oversee her own civil affairs as much as possible, especially when the civil magistrate is ungodly.

The remainder of 1^st Corinthians defines the love of the community, especially as it pertains to the practices of worship and the use of each person’s gifts for the sake of the community. Again, we see the priority of the love of the community of Christ.

Now we come to Romans. Romans 13 is sandwiched between calls to love the brotherhood. Romans 12 begins with personal transformation, but that personal transformation turns into the service of love toward the community of God, calling each member to use the gifts of grace given to them for the sake of the community. It all culminates in the words of verses 9 and 10, “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.”

Similarly, after the teaching on civil government in Romans 13: 8, Paul goes back to the love we owe one another, “owe no one anything except to love one another.” The teaching on the civil magistrate is sandwiched in the primary commandment of Christ, “just as I have loved you, so you also are to love one another.”

We can make our case even stronger in Paul’s theology of the church in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. All emphasize our priority in connecting to our head as the body of Christ. In Ephesians, we are told that we are “raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” In Colossians, “you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God,” and “you died to the elemental spirits (a reference to the social order) of this world.” Finally, in Philippians, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

We are citizens of heaven who do not truly belong to this earth. The order of our affairs is distinct. According to that reality we have the calling that is only second to our fear of God to love one another.

And in this love of one another, we have Christ as our example, which brings us to our second part, where I seek to demonstrate the importance of embodied love.

The very act of Christ in washing the feet of his disciples as a demonstration of his love shows the importance of bodily presence in our love of one another. Christ shows his love in a very personal and human way. The fact that Christ has sent his Spirit upon us allows us to call the kindness we do to one another in visiting and sharing good works that we have done to him. We see this in the teaching on the sheep and the goats before the judgment seat of Christ in Matthew 25. “What you have done to the least of these, you have done to me.”

There is also what we noted in our introduction, the call to glorify God with one’s body, which affects most prominently sexuality, but we can also note, again in 1^st Corinthians, how the use of one’s body brings glory or shame to the church of Jesus Christ. Particularly, we can think of the Lord’s supper, where the way the Corinthians have organized themselves is so offensive to God that God tells the Corinthians that it is not the Lord’s Supper they are eating. The way they use their bodies demonstrates their service of God.

Neither can the body be replaced by letters or other forms of distance communication. Most prominent in this is the example of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated himself through a love that could touch, that could become sick, that could be maimed. God did present himself to his people in the Old Testament at a distance, necessarily behind a veil and through mediaries. However, in his most significant act of love, God becomes flesh so that he can be physically present with his people. Christ has the fullness of the glory of God within him. If we are to imitate Christ’s love, our love should also be physical.

The Christian has the Spirit of Christ. He is a temple, like Christ. That is why corporate worship is so important; we come to see Christ in one another. The church has always taught, based on a chapter like Hebrews 12, that Christ is present in a unique way in the corporate worship of the church. Long-distance communication, whether letters or live streams, cannot take the place of this corporate worship. In the same way, private Bible Study cannot replace membership in the body. We need the body.

Of course, we must take circumstance and necessity into account. I cannot be present with my father and mother at this time, so I use other means. But in the community where God put me, where I am fully able and willing to go, I ought to be a part of the communion of saints. Sickness can take us away from the body, weather, coercion, and persecutions, and God gives us strength in these times. Nothing can keep us from his love, even if our bodies are somehow unable to make it to the communion of the saints. However, if possible, I ought to search out the body and join it regularly for my spiritual health. The arm does no good to the heart if it is not physically present.

I ought to make a caveat here that some regulation is helpful in a pandemic. There are regulations I would be happy to follow. There are excellent resources demonstrating a different and wiser path our government may have taken, which considers the flourishing of all parts of society and respects the historical rights of individuals and institutions. One example is the Great Barrington Declaration. But, since the government chose the road of tyranny (as best I understand it), we must figure out how to self-regulate according to the best sources we have on Covid, which isn’t always ideal. Yet even then, we still ought to prioritize the communion of the saints as much as possible.

Therefore, if I owe love to the brotherhood more than I owe submission to the government, and if I that love I owe ought to be embodied, then when governments undermine my love for the brotherhood through mandates, I still ought to fulfill what I owe to my brothers as much as possible. This love can be shown in visiting brothers when we are not allowed to visit. This love can be in showing equal kindness to vaccinated and unvaccinated. This love can be my presence in church for the joy of assembling before the Lord. Because of the importance of the love of the brotherhood, the possibility of fines, mockery, and jail time (all of which have proved relatively low risk if you choose to be non-confrontational and respectful), should be a small price to pay for reflecting Christ in our love toward one another.

In conclusion, the church should count her duties to one another as more important than her duties to the government. There is, however, a big “however” here. Paul notes the importance that as much as possible we ought to have peace with all men. Even where we must obey God before men, we are do so out of a desire for the good of our country, even out of love for our enemies. There is the critical question of prudence in these things. I hope that in our next blog post, we can deal with this question. We also not that we do not dismiss the government entirely even when it acts in a tyrannical fashion. Paul also notes that, properly speaking, the civil magistrate does have a vital role to play which we are called to recognize, submit to, and obey. We owe the civil magistrate for certain services, but that cannot take away from what we owe one another.

A Review of “Aiming to Please” by Rev. Wes Bredenhof

By James

On January 21, 2021

In Reformed Theology, Worship

It is good to see another book on the worship of the church. When we consider the importance the scriptures place on worship, it is an area in which we ought to examine ourselves continually. Over time we can pick up attitudes toward worship or certain elements of worship that we are not even aware of. We use the light of the word to uncover our biases in our worship of God continually.

In “Aiming to Please,” Rev. Bredenhof argues that we ought to take into account both the elements that God calls us to observe in his word, and the order God demonstrates in his word with regard to those elements. Arguably, in our history, the conversation about worship has narrowly focussed on the elements at the expense of thinking about order. Rev. Bredenhof rightly emphasizes both. After all, as reformed, we confess that worship is dialogical, and even the most basic dialogue has a recognizable order to it.

Another critical point for Dr. Bredenhof is the Regulative Principle of Worship; basically, we ought to worship according to the Word of God. He spends a fair bit of time defending it and arguing that it is foundational for Reformed worship. I’m not exactly sure why he puts such emphasis on this principle. Those whom he singles out for not emphasizing the Regulative Principle of Worship, would have few problems with the remaining content, of the book. In fact, they end up arguing for services, which are very close to his proposal. Regardless, he views a conscientious confession of the Regulative Principle of Worship as foundational to his work.

There is a lot to appreciate in his work. I especially note his work on the confession and absolution in the worship service, his work on the psalms, and his attention to detail.

Unfortunately, the confession and absolution was largely lost in the Dutch tradition, so I am happy to see Rev. Bredenhof bring back a heavy emphasis on it. While the denomination I grew up in, the United Reformed Churches, have largely regained the practice, the Canadian Reformed churches still have many churches that do not make this a regular part of their worship. If we are going to grow in our understanding of God’s holiness and the real challenge of our remaining sinfulness, we need a regular confession and absolution. The practice also helps anchor our identity in Christ, as we weekly deny ourselves, crucify the old man, and find full righteousness in our true identity.

Rev. Bredenhof’s work on the Psalms is fantastic. He didn’t fall into the trap of exclusive psalm-singing, which in my opinion is grounded in a juvenile hermeneutic of scripture. At the same time, he fully lays out the case for why the psalms are so essential to the Christian life. He calls for ministers to set up a system for singing the psalms so that they can be regularly sung through every year. It is too bad he is somewhat dismissive of the church calendar later on, for the Anglican and Lutheran liturgical years have resources that would give us a good place to start for such a project.

Finally, I appreciated his attention to detail. The scriptures give us a bounty of worship details and teaching for worship. Therefore it is good to ponder the details of worship. This does make me wonder why he fails to urge a greater frequency in communion. For we certainly have far more precedent for communion, at least weekly, than for many of the smaller details that he commends with high certainty. Nevertheless, the detail is appreciated and is often thought-provoking.

That brings me to a couple of negative criticisms. I did find the book overly reliant on abstractions, especially in its fundamentals. The simplest definition of the RPW is “the Bible forms our worship.” Or if you like, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” In this sense, every church will claim that they are following the RPW.

In fact, I would argue that historical Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican worship are all faithful to the RPW to varying degrees. A case could be made that worship service in a Conservative Lutheran Church is more faithful to the RPW than our own services. I am particularly thinking here of the structure of their service as found in the “Lutheran Service Book” of the LCMS. Ultimately the RPW is an abstraction and doesn’t really prove anything until you actually examine concrete “orders of the service” through the lens of scripture.

Another example of this is how he uses the rubric of “guilt, grace, and gratitude.” He argues that this order is foundational to the order of the service. Again this is another abstraction. It is helpful because it helps us see a common pattern. But it doesn’t really find a concrete reality until it finds a form in a sacrifice or the Lord’s Supper. On its own the pattern does nothing because it could merely be applied to a sermon structure. The entire liturgy could be the minister talking. That is actually where Rev. Bredenhof goes for that rubric, the “sermon” of Romans.

Another negative comment is regarding the lack of scripture. I was hoping for a robust Bible Study that allowed me to see how scripture forms our worship. I was somewhat disappointed. Like my comment about abstractions, this judgment is more of a comment on emphasis than a statement about the entire book. While Rev. Bredenhof does a good job of pointing to scripture, it ends up feeling somewhat piecemeal. He gives little insight into how our whole liturgical practice is an organic outgrowing from the whole of scripture.

That being said, I found value in the book. We live in a time, where, with regard to worship, every man does what is right in his own eyes. The commands of scripture and the witness of the church stand such an approach. The scriptures ought to form our worship. “Aiming to Please” is a good reminder of the importance and necessity of true biblical worship. A reminder, in a time when that is often questioned.

Grotius and Natural Law

By James

On May 13, 2019

In Reformed Theology

It was interesting to find this quote in Ruben Alvarado’s book, “The Debate that changed the West: Grotius vs. Althusius.” I found it very telling. When men like Cornelius Van Til inveighed against natural law, it was this interpretation of natural law that they fought against. I find this reason enough to give Van Tillians some charity when they fight against the new natural law.

“Another fundamental change takes place in Grotius’ definition of natural law. Recall that in the De Jure Praedae Grotius equated the natural law simply with the will of God. In the De Jure Belli et Pacis, however, he makes the natural law totally independent of God’s will; in fact, God’s will becomes a subset of law, which cannot contradict he natural law. He specifically states that his ideas about natural justice and law would not be different even if God did not exist, which he however hurriedly affirms is an idea which involves the gravest sin in entertaining. Now this expression, one of the most famous in the whole work, is not new to him but was often repeated by natural law philosophers and theologians to emphasize the immutability of natural law. However, because Grotius infuses the natural law with an entirely different content, this kind of affirmation makes his teaching revolutionary: natural law becomes totally divorced from the will of God.

Instead, God’s will is another only secondary source of law, distinct from the natural law. Grotius adds some further qualifications concerning the relation of the will fo god to natural law. Reason teaches us to obey it unconditionally; the natural law can be considered the creation of god in the sense that God willed that it be planted in our hearts; in divine law God makes the properties of natural law better visible and more easily executable. Biblical history also confirms the doctrine of the inborn desire for community, by showing that we all spring form the same forefathers, and that parents are to be upheld with special honor and given special (non-absolute) obedience.”

Among the reformed there has been a resurgence of support for natural law theory. This is good. I believe it provides another pillar to strengthen our overall understanding of the world around us. It also provides a useful polemic against those who seek to champion a twisting and warping of nature through homosexuality and other perversities. But I have some qualifications to my support. What I don’t see is the careful work developing a theological language around that tradition that guards us against past failures of the natural law tradition.

Natural Law is a wide-ranging phrase that suggests all sorts of traditions and meanings. It can be a bit of a wax nose in the hands of a theologian who wants to defend his beliefs according to natural law. It’s easy to point out the historical failings of the Van Tillian tradition. He read a form of Grotius’ natural law into the natural law tradition of the reformed. He rejected natural law as Grotius’ natural law. Let’s clarify what he was fighting against. Van Til made errors in his reading of history, but he was no fool. Let us carefully distinguish Christian natural law from other forms of natural law. That likely means that we can’t take the natural law structures of the 16th-century reformers verbatim. We have work to do.

Review of “Grace Worth Fighting For”

By James

On April 22, 2019

In Church, Reformed Theology

A review of “Grace Worth Fighting For” by Daniel R. Hyde. Find the book here.

On the 400^th anniversary of Dort, Rev. Daniel Hyde wants to remind us again of the importance of Dort to the whole church. So what makes Rev. Hyde’s book special among all the literature on Dort? Rev. Hyde wants to demonstrate the catholicity of Dort. He desires to prove Dort’s continuity with the 1500 years of Christian doctrine before it. This catholicity not only affirms the historic doctrine of the church of Christ but also seeks a consensus on the various ways in which the Reformed had interpreted that tradition up to this point. The men of Dort wanted to be guided by scripture and so were careful not to condemn theological systems that sought to affirm the primacy of the grace of God in his electing purpose. Rev. Hyde has written this book so his contemporaries can recover the catholic vision exemplified in the Canons.

Rev. Hyde wants to do this in an accessible way so that the regular pastor and layman can have better access to the theology of the Synod. He succeeds. The book is easy to read and well laid out. He explains the significant points of the Canons well along with historical awareness. Somebody who wants to begin studies in the Canons of Dort would have a hard time finding a better resource for understanding the theology that produced the language of the Canons.

Hyde frames his work within recent scholarship recovering the depth and breadth of Reformed theology in the 16^th and 17^th century. Particularly, Muller’s work on the Reformed Scholastics. Muller has rehabilitated the theology of the Reformed Scholastics, demonstrating their continuity with the first reformers; Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and others. He has also reminded us once again of the diversity of thought among the reformed. It is wonderful to see these insights integrated into an accessible explanation of the Canons. They flesh out the picture of what was going on at Dort for us.

The recent scholarship of Michael Lynch on the British Delegation to Dort also brings a unique perspective to the book. There is sometimes a tendency to devalue or ignore the contributions of the British Delegation. Though some of their views were in the minority, they had an important voice in shaping the canons and in providing a moderating voice between different factions. Notably, The wisdom and erudition of the British delegate John Davenant played a role. There was also politics involved. James I was an essential ally against the Netherland’s primary enemy at the time: Spain.

Rev. Hyde is at his best when he brings out the importance of the catholicity of this synod. He argues that the way the Remonstrants framed the doctrine of predestination completely undermined the historic doctrines concerning Christ and his works. As Turretin likes to note, it was the Remonstrants who were the innovators, meaning that it was the Remonstrants were departing from and undermining the historic doctrines of the church. Hyde draws parallels between the work of the Synod of Dort and the Councils of Orange and Carthage, along with numerous references to the Church Fathers and Medievals. This historical background is part of the catholicity of the synod. It desired to preserve what had always been taught by the church of Christ.

There was another aspect to this catholicity. The synod’s catholicy was revealed in their attempts to affirm the theologies of the various reformed traditions so long as they attempted to grapple with the truth of an election based on God’s good pleasure. Even though there were deep tensions in the synod, the synod ended with a document that could be affirmed by the diverse group of delegates. Hyde’s attitude channels the final fraternal Spirit of the Synod, even if the process may not have been so “catholic.” We can see this in his generosity to the Lutherans in his discussion on the Perseverance of the Saints.

In this desire to emphasize catholicity perhaps he does miss a couple of things. One is the role of the civil government in pushing these men to a consensus. It is a real question whether the synod would have held together without the push from James I and Prince Maurice. What is the significance of the interference of the civil government to the catholicity of the synod? Another discussion that is missed is the reception of the Canons in the countries from which the delegates came. Hyde does mention that the Dutch and the French received it as a standard, meaning that they bound their ministers to this standard. I was left wondering about the reception in Germany, Switzerland, and England and how that affects the enduring catholicity of the document. These are not major critiques, but some interaction with these realities would have added an important perspective.

The book left me wanting more (something that a good book does). I was curious to learn more about the particular theologies of the German delegates. How did the French church and the Swiss church interact with the Canons? What were the particular differences between the delegates on the perseverance of the saints? What about church order? Were their conversations on that? What other peripheral issues were discussed? Of course, a popular treatment will not deal with all these questions, but I hope that this work will prompt others to dig into this synod that is unique in the history of the reformed churches.

I have high praise for this book. It challenges both pastor and laymen to stand firm against those who militate against the doctrines of grace. It should incite in all Christians a doxology to the “depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” This is the God who saves. At the same time, it should give the pastor and laymen humility as the church seeks to find the best way to express the mysteries of God’s grace.

Is a King a Good Thing?

By James

On April 18, 2018

In Hermeneutics, Reformed Theology

The question arises from reading Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8. In Deuteronomy 17, God assumes that Israel will eventually want a king like the nations around them. He gives instructions for how that king is to live before him and before Israel.

In 1 Samuel 8, when Israel comes to that moment where she does look for a king like the nations around here, Samuel refuses. He sees the folly of Israel’s request. God tells Samuel otherwise but encourages him to warn Israel about the prerogatives of a king.

Samuel presumes that the king will not follow the rules of Deuteronomy 17. Deuteronomy warns against multiplying horses (Deuteronomy 17: 16). The king Samuel speaks of has many horses and his depredations are connected with his stables (1 Samuel 8: 11-12). The king in Deuteronomy does not pile up silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17: 17). Samuel’s king freely taxes the people (1 Samuel 8: 13-17).

The key difference between what happens in Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8 is not that Israel wants a king like the nations around them. This is a common comment from the commentators. The fact is both Deuteronomy 17 and 1 Samuel 8 assume that the king is like the nations around Israel.

No, the key difference is that Israel, when she comes before Samuel is rejecting God as king. She is coming with the wrong heart. She is not seeking a king after God’s own heart. If she was she would seek the king of Deuteronomy 17. This is demonstrated in that after Samuel’s warning, Israel gladly accepts the type of king that Samuel describes. If she had been reading Deuteronomy, she would have asked God to apply the warnings of Deuteronomy 17 to the king. Now God does provide a king for Israel and he does warn the king to follow in his ways, but this is out of grace, despite the fact his people rejected him.

Actually, if Israel had been careful to circumscribe their king with the laws that Deuteronomy provides, much of the bad power of the king would have been undermined. The king would have been constrained by the law of God from seeking great riches and honor. God told the king not to collect gold, or horses, or wives. If the kings of Israel had listened, they would not have moved in the direction of tyranny.

But why was it so important to have a king? Did God intend to give Israel a king all along? The king is important because the people of God needed somebody who could give true justice. In the end, judges failed, regular avenues of justice failed, and the people of God needed a person with great wisdom to discern the hardest cases. It is interesting that in Deuteronomy 17 the rules for a king follow the section concerning hard cases. Because of man’s sinful nature, there is no such thing as perfect justice and we crave that justice. The king would fill that role but in order for the king to fulfill that role well he had to be a man after God’s own heart.

In the end the only king that did not fall prey to the temptations mentioned in Deuteronomy 17 was and is the Lord Jesus Christ.

We can conclude that a king is a good thing. The rules of Deuteronomy 17 assume that. 1 Samuel 8 demonstrates that the impatience of the people warped God’s gift of a king to Israel. Israel did not have the patience to put boundaries in place so that the king would not become a tyrant. The role of Jesus Christ assumes that. A king without the boundaries God gave is an evil thing. Israel never asks for the boundaries of Deuteronomy 17 in 1 Samuel 8. Israel rejects the Lord as king because she rejects his teaching for a king.

n.b. I don’t pretend to have the final word on this controverted subject.

Jesus fulfills the law: He Creates a Spiritual People

By James

On December 1, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, education, Reformed Theology

The 3rd part of “Jesus fulfills the law.”

Christ fulfilled the law. Now when Christ or Paul talk about the law they are referring to the entirety of the law, both the rules and the institutions which they are connected to. We’ve already shown how Jesus fulfilled other portions of the law here and here. I’m referring, more particularly, to the many rules that God gives in the Old Testament.

Christ obeyed those perfectly. From the Ten Commandments to the laws concerning the clean and unclean. When we come to Christ in faith, we receive everything that he did for us from the beginning of his life to the end of his life, so that we may have perfection in all that we do. That is why our good works are pleasing to God. We have his full righteousness, the whole Christ; so that he counts or sin-filled works as good. God even gives a reward out of the mere grace of God. Knowing this, we cannot but respond with such a joy. Our efforts feel so tiny, almost useless, but Christ is our righteousness.

How does he do this? As we have already mentioned, he sends out his Spirit among us, to guide us and direct us so that as we read in Romans 8:, the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, so that we too may be holy, righteous and blameless, so that we may really do good things before God.

So how do we learn from all those rules of the Old Testament through Christ? How do we order our lives after those laws? We first need to understand, how Christ changed our relationship to the law. Christ freed us from the law. Paul teaches us in Galatians 4 that the people of the Old Testament were under a tutor. That tutor had absolute authority over the Jews. The law taught them and as their tutor demanded obedience.

In Christ, we are freed. We are no longer under the law. Yet we still use the law. For example, Paul uses the law that you should not muzzle your ox to encourage his hearers to provide for their leaders in 1 Corinthians 9:9. You might say that the law is now a mentor. The Spirit teaches us how to apply it to our lives. In Christ, we’ve grown up and now we look with affection to our old tutor, the law, in order to find advice on ordering our lives.

Of course the centerpiece of the law, written by the very finger of God, the Ten Commandments, continue to have an important part in our lives. This is the law of love, the law of Christ, that Christ gives to guide our lives. Christ’s call to live by the fruits of the Spirit cannot be followed without the guidance of the Ten Commandments. This is what we might call the substance of the law. But we do so under Christ and guided by the Spirit. We do not do so under the law.

But other laws of the Old Testament can guide us in how we live our lives as well. We can the example of the Old Testament to bring order to the church and to our individual lives. We’ve already noted how Paul uses the law about muzzling oxen. For example, the practice of daily sacrifices teaches us the practice of daily devotion. No Christian will deny that daily devotions are a good way to order our lives.

The church, as a whole. may decide to have two services on Sunday based on the practice of morning and evening sacrifices. We can also think of the practice of fasting in the Old Testament. A local church may decide to call a day of fasting in order to meet certain problems in the world around them or within the church itself. These are Spirit-led, free choices that the Spirit calls us to do for the sake of destroying the sin that remains in us and for expanding the kingdom of God.

We can learn from the law, as long as we do bind one another’s consciences to the practices that the Spirit has led our church too. We do not argue from the law in order to control one another but in order to encourage and edify one another. As individuals and as communities we learn from the law, but we do so in freedom from the law.

We are not law-led, we are Spirit led. And the Spirit leads us through the word of Christ. The perennial temptation of the church is to go back to the slavery of the law instead of the freedom of the Spirit. That betrays a desire for slavery. Instead look to your wisdom, Christ. He gives you the Holy Spirit. As John teaches us in 1 John 2:20, through that Holy Spirit, you know all things.

Christ fulfills the law: Christ changes spiritual geography

By James

On November 29, 2017

In Applied Hermeneutics, Covenant, eschatology, Reformed Theology

n.b. I recently preached a sermon on Belgic Confession 25. This Article deals with how Christ fulfilled the law. This doctrine is not well understood today and so I thought it was fitting to publish the sermon. I’ve divided it up into blog-sized sections for easier reading:

The basic institution in the Old Testament was the tabernacle or temple. This was the center of Israelite culture and religion. It was even their political center. David ruled from Jerusalem. This was the city where the ark was and later where the temple would be set up. The tabernacle was the place where God could dwell with his people. God set up the system of the law around the tabernacle in order to protect the people from his presence. God is a holy God. Out of his grace and love for mankind, God desired to dwell with his people. But his people needed to be protected from him, his power, and ultimately his holiness. So God gave his people the law so that they would protect themselves from his holiness.

The people of Israel were able to approach God through various washings, through sacrifices, and through keeping themselves clean when approaching the temple, or the tabernacle, of God. God even instituted levels of holiness in Israelite society. There was a division of labor. Everybody in society wasn’t able to keep the law equally rigorously so God gave Israelites a High Priest. He was required to keep the greatest level of Holiness; then Priests, then Levites and finally the rest of the people. The Holiest men were able to come the closest to God for the sake of the rest of the people. These are the ceremonies and symbols of the law, which the Belgic Confession is speaking of. These ceremonies allowed men to approach the God of heaven and earth. The coming of Christ brought an end to all of these.

Why? There is a host of aspects of Christ’s work that we could look at in order to see how he fulfilled every element of the temple, the sacrificial offerings and the various offices that God set up in and around the temple. I want to focus on two aspects. Christ’s fulfillment of the tabernacle itself and his fulfillment of the sacrificial system.

John 1: 14 gives us a hint as to how Christ fulfills the tabernacle system. We are told there that the word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word, God, came down and took on flesh. He was in a human body. Remember what we said the tabernacle was for? It was a place for God to dwell with his people so that, we could approach him. John gives us a further hint through the Greek word he uses for dwell. The word literally means tabernacled. God dwelt among us in the flesh.

But Jesus did more. He fulfilled the sacrificial system. The ancient Israelites and to repeat the commanded sacrifices again and again so that men could draw near to God. Jesus, by his death, offered a sacrifice that covers all sin; all sin. That means that all the laws of uncleanness no longer apply. We don’t need repeated sacrifices, we don’t need repeated washings. We all need one sacrifice: Christ’s, and we only need one washing: his baptism. This is why God tore the veil of seperation on the night of Christ’s death. Any man could approach God through Christ. There was no need for the institutions of the temple. As the Belgic Confession says, they are abolished.

Ultimately, what happens is that the spiritual geography of the Old Testament is changed. We have a New Testament spiritual geography. The tabernacle is no longer a building, but the flesh of Christ. Because Christ has gone to sit at the right hand of his father, our tabernacle is in heaven. There is more. Christ unites us to himself so that we also change. In Christ, we are a temple of the Holy Spirit.

That is why God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. After Christ died and sat down at the right hand of God, the temple was no longer necessary. When the Jews, who had rejected Christ, continued to use the rituals and ceremonies of the Old Testament the temple became an abomination. According to Hebrews, Christ’s fulfillment of the Mosaic system means that we may freely and confidently draw near to the throne of Christ. Christ’s truly powerful sacrifice covers corrupt flesh with his blood. Those who defended the temple were now defending a false way to God. In a sense, it was a false Christ, claiming to continue the work that Christ had already accomplished. God’s dwelling was now in Christ and those who were, and are today, united to Him.

And yet the substance of these remain for us in Jesus Christ according to the Belgic Confession. The book of Hebrews gives us a way to understand this. We still have a sacrifice. We still have a tabernacle. Because of Christ’s work their nature changed.

But the Belgic Confession doesn’t stop there, the author adds these words, “We still use these testimonies taken from the law and the prophets.” They have two uses for us. They confirm the gospel to us. We can see a little bit of what that means in seeing how Christ fulfilled the tabernacle and the sacrificial system. The second use is that they help us “order our life in all honesty, according to God’s will and to his glory.”

How does the tabernacle system help us to order our lives? Surely this must refer to the Ten Commandments or maybe some of the civil laws might be helpful for the ordering of the church? Paul’s words to Timothy would suggest differently. He tells us that all scripture is inspired and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness.

How does the tabernacle system train us in righteousness? There is a lot to say, but I will mention a couple things. The tabernacle system teaches us about how holy God is and how sinful we are. Most importantly it teaches us that we may only approach God through the means he provides, namely Christ and his Spirit.

Further, it teaches us that we are to approach God with humility and with the desire to seek righteousness in Him. It teaches us that this is something that is lifelong. It teaches us about God’s desire for purity when we approach him. We can also argue from the law that in Christ we are sacrifices before God. That is what Paul suggests in Romans 12: 1. He tells us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. We do so with the same purity and humility that God called his people to in the Old Testament.