Category: The Basics Page 1 of 2

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

On August 13, 2022

A fourth installment of my series on Romans 13.

Why is it good to submit to the civil magistrate? Our text gives several reasons: because he is established by God, because he provides a particular service to society, because he is there for my good, and because if we do good, we will receive his approval. These are four distinct reasons we can find in Romans 13. Paul wants to establish that the civil magistrate is a good thing, just as the church is a good thing, and marriage is a good thing. If the civil magistrate is a gift of God, it is good for the Christian to recognize the civil magistrate’s proper function in society. We cannot simply reject the place of the civil magistrate for his failures, as our situation tempts many Christians to do.

We’ll look at the meat of Paul’s teaching on the civil magistrate by digging into three questions: “Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?”, Why submit to the civil magistrate?”, and “What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?”

Why is Paul defending the civil magistrate?

The history of the exegesis of Romans 13 is a history of over-exegesis and under-exegesis. On the one hand, we magnify the civil magistrate to such an extent that we turn Christians into people without a voice or other ways to resist oppression. Here we argue from the word “submit” and apparently, “submit” means counting every government law as worthy of total submission. Unless it explicitly contradicts Christian teaching. Because, after all, God established him, so to obey his every whim is to obey God.

Suddenly, the Christian becomes the slave of the civil magistrate. And even though the New Testament recognizes that some might have the status of the slave, it does not teach that the Christian ought to arbitrarily let himself be enslaved. This view fails to see why God wants us to submit to the civil magistrate or what the civil magistrate is for. It fails to allow for God’s providence in giving individuals specific responsibilities derived from God and not from the civil magistrate. Finally, it fails to understand that the total submission they demand toward the civil magistrate only belongs to God.

Or we under-exegete the passage and end up ignoring or rebelling against the civil magistrate. We use every little mistake or weakness we see in the civil magistrate as something to cry out against. We forget that he is a gift and primarily view him as an enemy. Or we use his mistakes as an excuse to sin, not only against human law but against divine law. We allow envy and pride to dwell in our hearts, and we begin to curse man, whom God made in his image. That leads to further sinful actions such as lying, stealing, and murder until we are worse than the civil magistrate.

The fact is, we need the rest of the teaching of scripture to fill out our relation to a particular civil magistrate. God gives many and varied examples in the Old Testament of how Israel related to her leaders, and we need the wisdom to apply it. We must also keep in mind the ultimate goal, the kingdom of God. And the means for pursuing that kingdom, which is doing good according to our calling.

Paul is not arguing for a particular type of government. Paul teaches that God ordains the civil magistrate as a gift to man. He argues against Christians who minimize and reject the civil magistrate. He wants the Christian to look to the civil magistrate as protection against evil and support the civil magistrate by doing good.

It is important to see here that Paul is relying on general truths. He is not exploring every avenue of the question of government. He is not investigating every situation a Christian might encounter concerning his civil government. Instead, he demonstrates the importance of working within the status quo that God gives, transforming from within rather than seeking to inaugurate an earthly kingdom of God in opposition to the powers that be. These general promises are why the promise is here: the authorities will reward those who do good. He also demonstrates that God gave the civil magistrate for the good of society. Like other leadership positions such as the Pastor or the husband, Paul views the civil magistrate as a gift from God that fulfills a particular purpose.

Why submit to the civil magistrate?

It’s easy to look at the negatives of what the civil government has done, even to focus on it in an unhealthy way. We love to dwell on the injustices we experience. However, it is crucial in approaching the role of the government to begin with Paul’s perspective: that God intends the government, whatever its failings, for something good. Further, if we believe in the resurrection, the civil magistrate is not irredeemable. Rather, we have a job to do in relation to the civil magistrate to demonstrate the way of redemption through good deeds.

Paul has very positive things to say about the civil government. God gives them the authority to bear the sword as an avenger. They are there to reward good and punish evil. They are keepers of virtue. God has appointed them in this role, even if they might not recognize the appointment of God. That appointment is made through his providences.

God appoints them for his service. They are not just another service like a shoe salesman. The shoe salesmen may serve God, but he is not God’s minister in the sense that the civil magistrate is, or for that matter, the church officer. He does not speak for God. The civil officer and the ecclesiastical officer directly represent, respectively, justice and the mercy of God.

In the providence of God, God provides for all sorts of leaders in society. The civil magistrate is vital in bringing peace and order so that the wicked do not take over and attack and destroy the righteous. For the Christian, the civil magistrate is to be loved and honored because he is from God and ideally should reflect God. He is honored so that he might be encouraged to see who is truly an enemy of the land: not the Christian, but the one who seeks to destroy the good order of God.

They are ultimately a gift. Dealing vengeance according to one’s personal law or a sort of “might makes right” is not healthy for society. God gives the civil magistrate to adjudicate evil and good, not according to any law, but according to his law. Even an unbelieving civil magistrate can (the word can is important; many do not and many Christian civil magistrates do not) understand what sort of person provides stability for society and what creates instability and disorder. In that light, Christians have an important role in demonstrating that subjection to God’s Law is what is best for society.

Ideally, in such a situation, the Christian will also receive commendation from the civil magistrate for doing good. If the magistrate cares about justice and order for all, he will see the valuable life and the excellent example of the Christian even when they must not obey the demands of the magistrate.

What about a civil magistrate that does not approve of what is good?

The fact that our civil magistrate has lost this ability to distinguish between good and evil makes our society so unstable. Citizens who lawfully protest (I speak generally for there are exceptions)) unjust Covid regulations are jailed and mocked, while Black Lives Matter, an organization dedicated to overthrowing good order, is praised. What do Christians do in this sort of situation?

One line in Romans 13particularly helps us. Romans 13:4 says, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do good and you will receive his approval.” That good is ultimately not defined by the government; the word of God defines it. If we took this statement in some absolute sense, we would almost have to conclude that Paul is lying or is incredibly naïve. However, Paul is neither. Paul is speaking in more proverbial terms.

Doing good will bring reward from the civil magistrate, but not necessarily immediately. If Christians are in a situation where they suffer for doing good, they ought to persist in doing it. Ultimately God sees that, and God sees the civil magistrate. And we trust that eventually, God will work the heart of the civil magistrate in our direction as long as we persevere with faithfulness. Sometimes that takes generations, as it did with the Roman Empire. But suppose we have Christians willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake, who are firm in their duties and firm in standing strong for the gospel and the kingdom of God? In that case, we will produce good order among ourselves and beyond us. Finally, we trust that we will earn the commendation of the civil magistrate.

In his own life, Paul didn’t always have an easy time with the civil magistrate. He was jailed, he was beaten, and he was mocked. However, he had moments where he did receive the approval of the civil magistrate. The Philippian jailer, for example, was moved to come to Christ through Paul’s example. King Agrippa and Festus were both profoundly impressed with Paul.

On a smaller scale, we have an example from the Covid pandemic: Pastor Stephens, who was jailed for his willingness to worship during Covid, had the opportunity to preach the gospel to the Calgary Police Force at a funeral for one of their members who attended his church.

So, we are to give the magistrate due obedience because they are a gift from God, appointed by God for the good of the peace and order of society, and in general, if we continue to do good, even when we suffer for doing good, there is a promise here of the magistrate’s eventual approval for persevering in obedience to God. The suggestion here is that we want not just a passive submission to the civil magistrate but an active submission that seeks the good of the country and the community. Ultimately in the hopes that the civil magistrate might see the goodness of Christ in us. May his name be glorified.

Live Peaceably with All?

By James

On July 5, 2022

In Church, Freedom, Hermeneutics, History, Holiness, The Basics, Witness

Another contextual clue to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 is the words that come almost immediately before Romans 13, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” The call to submit to the Roman civil magistrate is part of the call to “live peaceably with all.” Our living peaceably with all depends on our ability to obey God; to live according to our calling before him. We are to honor God before men.

What does it mean, “if possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all?” There are a lot of ways to apply those words to today. Does that mean we are to do everything for the sake of peace?

A good understanding of these words begins with an understanding of the church’s mission. The mission of the church, the mission of Christ, informs what it means to live peaceably with all. Our goal is nothing less than the reconciliation of all things to Christ. The church’s work in fulfilling that mission can bring times we are offensive to the world around us. In fact, says the scriptures, “to those who are perishing we are the smell of death.” Jesus says, “the world will hate you as they hated me.” This is a reality, but within that Paul wants us to work our best to live peaceably with all, including the civil magistrate, as much as possible.

But when the magistrate interferes with the mission of the church whether in her worship or in her call to love one another, the church is called to stand up to the civil magistrate. But even so, she does not do this in a way that is malicious, angry, or threatening. She does this in a way that continues to keep the peace, recognizes the importance of law and order, and seeks the city’s good.

The good of the city is our ultimate goal. It is a good that is defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This good has two aspects. First, the righteousness and order of Jesus Christ: those in Christ and out of Christ have two different value systems. We want to bring the value system of Christ to the world as a whole.

The second aspect of this good is how it defines our resistance of evil in this world. Or we might say how we seek to bring Christ’s value system into our world’s value system. It is a spiritual war, not a physical one, which we fight. We do not seek to destroy our enemies. No, we love our enemies and aim to transform them by putting away our desire for vengeance and ultimately seeking their good. We seek peace with our enemies by continuing to do what is good, thus heaping burning coals on his head. This action is all according to the law of love and in line with Christ’s act of obedience to our Father in heaven.

Our ability to live peaceably with all depends on our ability to live according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Living according to the righteousness of Jesus Christ is not only about the things we don’t do, but also about the things we do. An example of the first might be where the government commands us to give a pinch of incense to Caesar or commands us to kill somebody who is innocent. An example of the second might be things that interfere with our worship or our call to love one another, basically anything that interferes with our three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king in Jesus Christ.

We must recognize that we have a duty toward the government as those who bear the sword for vengeance. According to this calling, they are to defend the righteous and condemn the wicked. We are called to give due honor, due obedience, and due monetary support, with regard to that calling. That is part of the righteousness and order of Christ. Some could argue that those things interfere with our ability to fulfill our duty as Christians, but they are also part of our duty as we seek the good of those in authority over us. Ideally, they also secure the peace and order of the community of God.

But when the civil magistrate begins to use its monopoly on force to deny or undermine our duties, then we ought to start to think through where we might owe obedience to God before we owe obedience to the government. I say start because there is an important place for patience and for conversation before action.

Here I want to discuss a bit the use of prudence in these things in making that decision about how best to respond to various types of tyranny. The very command “as much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” assumes a call to prudence. Our goal is the peace of God, but at the same time, faithfulness can disturb the peace. Ahab calls Elijah “A troubler of Israel.” Zechariah 1 describes a type of peace that is not due to faithfulness but due to unfaithfulness. The Apostle Paul is accused of “turning the world upside down.” He too is a disturber of the peace.

So is it time to be an Elijah or a Paul, or is it time to be quiet and patient? How do we accomplish the goals of the kingdom in our station of life? Paul is not a revolutionary, he desires to transform from within. Just as the Spirit comes into a person and crucifies the flesh and brings to life the new man, so those moved by the Spirit transform from within society with deeds of love and mercy. We look to the Spirit to apply the wisdom of scripture in our current situation.

Part of this prudence is in recognizing your situation. If the evil done to you comes from those who are positioned over you, the response is different than to one who is your equal or under you. You owe greater honor and patience to the civil magistrate than to your average citizen because of the nature of their role in society. You will also have a different response as a pastor, plumber, farmer, policeman, or nurse. Each of those comes with varying factors of risk. It also matters whether you have dependents or not. Paul sees the importance of the work of providence in giving us each a different vocation in our lives. That is why he tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 to “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him.”

Another part of that prudence is discerning what you are willing to risk or what hill you are willing to die on. The natural way of the Gentiles is to lord it over one another and we should expect that they will try to lord it over the church as well. The natural way of our hearts is to lord it over one another. Therefore, the first attitude toward the rise of tyranny is one of patience.

In terms of Covid, which is the apparent reason for writing these articles, I would argue that most Christians responded with patience. Still, beyond initial patience, Christians had different metrics for deciding when civil disobedience was necessary and different understandings of the severity of the pandemic, understandable because of the lack of open conversation about these things in the public square.

Yet even when we decide that it is necessary to ignore government mandates, we must still seek peace with all men as much as possible. That doesn’t mean we can’t be sarcastic or confront the authorities. After all, Christ gives us examples of precisely this type of action. But we must, in all this, prioritize mercy and justice. In all this, we must follow the way of Christ. “Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” “Bless those who curse you,” says the Lord. God gives us this truth generally and this is where prudence and the leading of the Spirit come in. We’ll come to this more in our next article, where we will discuss resisting the government God’s way.

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.

Tim Keller, Religion is not the Opposite of the Gospel.

By James

On November 18, 2017

In education, The Basics

In the 5th chapter of Center Church by Tim Keller, Keller sets up religion and the gospel side by side. Religion is obeying in order to be accepted. The Gospel recognizes that I am accepted so I obey. I have no argument with the content. Tim Keller is giving Biblical teaching.

Tim Keller’s problem is a problem of semantics. He is using the wrong words to teach us. The gospel is the opposite of merit, not of religion. The gospel is the teaching that Christ has provided our righteousness so that we may follow the way of righteousness. Merit is the teaching that you must find the way the way of righteousness and God’s law helps us with that.

Religion is something else. Religion is the practice of worship and good works according to James 1:27. More popularly, religion refers to practices such as prayer and going to church.

Keller’s problematic division shows itself later in the same chapter when he speaks of “reorientation to Christ.” How does that happen? It doesn’t merely happen through thinking about the gospel. It happens by seeking the means of grace. You seek Christ through listening to his word and partaking of his sacrament with the saints. Where that is not an option you seek him through scripture-reading and prayer. You use religion as a way to seek Christ. It is true that you can seek religion through the gospel or through merit, but it is very unhelpful to simply conflate merit and religion.

Unfortunately, Keller’s way of speaking is all too common. It is something that deeply bothers me because I believe such a way of speaking undermines the God’s ordination of the means of grace as a way to seek him.

Theses on Natural Law and its Recovery

By James

On August 23, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, Uncategorized

In this post, I want to give some initial thoughts on natural law itself and the recent recovery of natural law.

Reading many contemporary proponents of natural law, I am impressed by their ability to interact with 16th and 17th century sources. They are particularly impressive in their understanding of the protestant scholastics and their forebears. They give a robust defense of natural law as something biblical. Further, they prove that natural has the stamp of the best of Christian tradition. Unfortunately, I don’t see a willingness to critically interact with classical natural law theory of the 16th and 17th century. It may be that the proponents of the 16th and 17th century got natural law right. Even if they did, there should be room to talk about natural law with greater specificity than those in the past. Natural law can be a highly ambiguous term.
(a) One of the most egregious examples of an inability to interact with natural law critically is the lack of interaction with the Van Tillian critique of natural law. I realize that the Van Tillian critique is guilty of a dependence on bad historiagraphy. Van Til relied on a poor reading of Thomas Aquinas, as well, as a poor historical understanding of the development of natural law. Even so they were dealing with a contemporary form of natural law that had twisted what the Protestant scholastics taught. Contemporaries of Van Til would use their theories of natural law to undermine the faith. (b) This lack of interaction is combined with a lack of understanding: Van Til was dealing with men who were using natural law to defend things like old earth creationism and liberalism in the churches in general. I say this, not to exonerate Van Til and Rushdoony, but to give context to what he was fighting.
This thesis is more of a pet peeve of mine. If natural law is a reality then unbelievers also have access to God’s truth in their interactions with God’s world. This means Christians can learn from unbelievers, who had many things wrong about God. My thesis is this: contemporary unbelievers should be just as helpful in finding truth, perhaps even more so, as past unbelievers.
Now we come to the critique of classical natural law theory. I want to argue that natural law is an aspect of God’s relationship to his creation, not a particular something in itself. In my reading so far I have not seen a clear recognition of this in the scholastics. If this is not clearly laid out natural law can slowly be separated from God and gain an authority of its own. It can begin to compete with the Scriptures as a source of authority. If we immediately define as an aspect of God’s relationship, this becomes impossible.
Against the Protestant Scholastics, I want to argue that natural law is mutable. If the cosmos changes, natural law changes. This is a change in creation relative to God that changes the configuration of natural law. One example would be the necessity of sacrifice after Adam fell into sin. This was because the human race changed in relation to God.
Behind all this is a certain theory of the universe. We can think of the universe in terms of a puzzle or legos. A world made on the analogy of legos contains a number of possibilities for design. A box of legos has the potential for several different shapes. The natural law legos can be kept in the same configuration even if the rest of the legos are re-configurated. If creation is more like a puzzle, then each piece is contingent on the other pieces. If a part of the puzzle is re-configurated then the whole puzzle is reconfigurated. Natural law is the aspect of “rightly fitting together” according to the maker’s design. Like the legos, the puzzle pieces have reality in themselves. Unlike the legos they are contingent on one another for the completeness of the puzzle. I argue that the universe is a puzzle. (I wonder if this is behind Van Til’s argument that unbelievers cannot have capital-T truth. Van Til thinks of truth radically contingent on knowing Christ as the centre and expllanation of the universe. The problem with this is that you can still know part of the puzzle as something that is truly part of the puzzle. You just don’t have the key to the puzzle; Jesus Christ. It is a hermeneutical problem, not an epistomological problem.)
My boldest thesis: I would suggest that the term “created order” replace the term “natural law.” I believe that the understanding of the term “natural law” can quickly turn to a semi-autonomous force. In reality, “natural law” is radically contingent on the creator. The term “created order” emphasizes that contingency.

How do we know it’s true?

By James

On April 11, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, typology

I believe that we need to come to scripture as literature. We look for patterns, we look for motifs, and we look for allusions. In doing so, we reflect the way in which the apostles read the scripture. When Paul responds to the Galatians he argues from one of the patterns he has found. It is not an explicit pattern. Rather, he sees it through discerning the patterns of the text.

We won’t go into the full argument, but Paul sees a pattern in the lives of Isaac and Ishmael, as recorded in Genesis. Isaac is the son of freedom and promise. Ishmael is the son of slavery. By reading and re-reading Genesis, as well as studying the revelation of God in Christ, Paul has discerned this pattern in the scripture. We might call it a typology.

I believe this exegesis is repeatable. We need to discern the scriptures using Paul’s hermeneutic. This is not well received by some. They argue that this is a hermeneutical method that has no guards. There is no methodology. I have to admit that to some degree that this hermeneutic is subjective. It is inductive rather than deductive. However, there are guards against false interpretation.

There are two types of guards: Negative guards and positive guards. Negative guards are those which demonstrate deniability. Because this method is inductive, the positive guards do not necessarily demonstrate absolute truth. Instead, they demonstrate that the typology that we have seen is either strong or weak.

a. Negative guards:

Demonstrate Contradiction. The typology either contradicts another strong typology (The rock is explicitly used as an image of Yahweh or Christ. If one were to connect it to Gentiles this would be strange) or a contradiction of something that is revealed. (You could use typology to argue that Mary, mother of Christ, was sinless. This contradicts the message of the book of Romans, where this characteristic belongs to Christ exclusively.
Demonstrate a more thorough alternative: The books of the Bible build upon one another creating a complex whole. You could see the salvation of Christ’s blood in the scarlet thread of Rahab. You could also demonstrate how the story of the first few chapters of Joshua mirror the story of the Passover and how Christ’s death mimics that. (This overlaps with the first rule as well, where we might have opposing or contradictory typologies)
Demonstrate that an external source was used for the typology rather than an internal source: Is the interpreter using patterns from Greek philosophy or from modern science to structure his typology? There is some legitimacy to this, but we are no longer discussing meaning, but application. The scriptures have their own internal rules for understanding itself. It needs to be understood through its own internal structures.

b. Positive guards (The more of these you have the stronger your argument is)

Demonstrate patterns: Repeated patterns in scripture reveal typologies. When they align closely they strengthen your position. Breaks in the pattern can be revealing for what the text is trying to teach us.
Demonstrate repetition: When patterns are repeated often your argument is strengthened. However, repetition is not about patterns exclusively. The scriptures repeat concepts as well. For example, the idea of the Messiah is an important concept in scripture.
Demonstrate verbal allusion: If there is a word or phrase that is prominent in another part of scripture, there may be a connection to that part of scripture. Jesus breathes on his disciples in John 20, alluding to the God’s breath of life upon Adam. The same Greek word is used in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
Demonstrate a conceptual allusion: This is not as strong as a verbal allusion. If you can combine this with a verbal allusion or demonstrate a pattern, you will have a stronger argument.
Relative closeness: If you discern a pattern in the same book or in another book by the same writer, you have a stronger pattern than if you draw lines from that book to a similar pattern found in a book written a thousand years later.

Is Theology the Queen of the Sciences?

By James

On March 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics

The answer to the question might seem obvious to a bible-believing Christian. Yes, theology is the Queen of the sciences. The Bible is authoritative over every area of life, therefore the theology, which comes from the bible, is also over every area of life. However, the question answer is not quite so simple. Does that mean theologians can start telling scientists how to do science?

One way to understand the question is to argue that the bible is authoritative over every area of life, but theology, a scientific discipline in its own right, should not be exalted over the others. We look at the question this way: The bible is over everything. The bible is the King. Every science is equally subject to the bible and equally authoritative in its own field. The representatives of the various sciences will have a conversation as equals.

I would disagree. I believe, as was argued in the beginning, that theology proceeds from scripture and therefore theology functions as the queen of the sciences. Theology is the study of foundations as revealed in scripture. These are foundations for every area of study. This does not mean there is no room for conversation between Theology and other disciplines. This is necessary because Theologians may get something wrong in its understanding of scripture and may be corrected through another disciple. Theology through discussing a matter with the Science of Archeology, for example, may receive a deeper understanding of scripture.

What about the problem of theologians, who think they can inform members of other disciplines how to their work? We need to make an important distinction here between the experts and the discipline itself. The discipline itself doesn’t claim to teach methodology to other disciplines. It only claims an understanding of the significance of other disciplines. It gives answers to the deepest questions that all other disciplines must answer in order exist. Further, like every other discipline, theology does not belong to a special group of people. It belongs to all people. There are those who can claim greater expertise or greater knowledge in theology, but every person will have a bit of the theologian in them. Individual persons may misuse the discipline for their own ends, arguing that their conclusions should have primacy. When theology is the queen of the sciences that does not make her courtiers (theologians), supreme lords over the other sciences.

We Receive our Heritage by the Grace of God

By James

On January 24, 2017

In The Basics

This post is written for those of those, who like me, trace their theological roots back to the reformation of the 16th century.

About a week ago Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary put on a conference about the Reformation. Dr. Ted Van Raalte gave the opening speech. He argued that the Reformation happened by the grace of God. He demonstrated that earthly factors could not account for the reformation

This simple fact seems obvious to Christians (Maybe not to those who don’t see the reformation as a good thing). Even though it is obvious, it remains essential. The gifts that we have and the truth that we believe are all a gift from him. We stand in grace.

It is a warning against idolizing those men who were the means to that reformation as well. God worked through their weakness. It wasn’t the strength of their ideas or their logic that won the day. God won the day, sometimes despite the reformers.

Understanding this is important. It is important for our labor in understanding the scriptures. Here we continue to grow by God’s grace. It is important for how we view other Christians. We are nothing special for our knowledge. It is a gift. God’s Word calls us to humility. We are to demonstrate humility in our interactions with others; including those with less understanding. We are to pray for them. Let us continue as little children, receiving the gifts of our heavenly father.

God’s grace in Christ is indescribable. God’s grace in our history is indescribable. That grace is fundamental to whatever wisdom or knowledge that we have. That grace is the reason we seek to convince and persuade others to join us in the kingdom of God. It is that same grace, which gives us a reason to encourage all Christians to grow in knowing God in an increasingly fuller and better way. For that reason, I want to continue the work of the reformers, both in defending what they grew to understand and in continuing their work of further submission to the word and work of God.

Subjective Truth

By James

On January 22, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics

There is always a certain subjectivity in a response. We evaluate something through a number of pre-conceived notions. Because of these pre-conceived notions, we tend to organize the truth we receive in certain categories. Then we try to structure what we have received according to certain patterns. We test this structure through careful re-evaluation. Even though our response is based on the objective truth we have responded to, there is always an element of subjectivity.

I want to argue that this is a good thing. This is what people should be doing. It’s already part of our nature. We don’t give a bare recitation of facts or truths, rather we work them into a narrative. We do this all the time with history. A good historian doesn’t only give us a bunch of facts, he wants to tell a story with it. It should be the same for reading scripture. In fact, this should be even more true for scripture. God intends scripture to be one book. We are called to find the themes and symbols that bring scripture together.

The problem is that our subjective response is often wrong. Historians go out of their way to prove that other historians have the wrong way of interpreting history. Theologians and exegetes do the same with scripture. Now some of this is due to perspective, but many views actually contradict one another. Somebody has to be wrong. Isn’t it better to just stick to the data?

Absolutely not. If we just “stick to the data” we lose out on our ability to gain a deeper understanding of things. When we study something, we need a structure in order to understand it. The less arbitrary the structure, the better we will remember it.

We also lose the ability to gain a greater understanding of who we are. We are not the result of a set of data points we are the result of a narrative; a story. As Christians, we believe that God is writing the story of the world. Being made in the image of God, we are also storytellers. God wants us to re-tell the story of scripture. He wants us to understand history in light of that story. When we lose the desire to find a structure for that story so that we can re-tell it, we lose some of the impact of that story. We lose the ability to create a shared framework through which to understand ourselves.

Think about this in terms of typology for a moment. We can isolate the figure of David in two ways. We can either isolate him from ourselves, by looking at him as an ancient figure that has little to do with modern life. He is then a data point from scripture, that has something to do with the history of salvation. We can also isolate him from an interpretive framework of scripture, making him a nice moral story that really doesn’t have much to do with history. Or as a part of the history of salvation, we can integrate him into our understanding of the message of the whole of scripture. He becomes a type of Christ and so also a type for us.

The Bible gives us an objective beginning of both an interpretive framework for itself and for history. The beginning is the person of Christ. We often get the details wrong. We miss some data or over-emphasize a theme, but if we begin with Christ, we can be confident that we do have the basic interpretive framework of scripture and of history; that Christ is bringing sons to glory.

Another trans-hermeneutical principle

By James

On December 7, 2016

In Hermeneutics, The Basics

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (Prov. 1:7)

This has often been interpreted as an epistemological principle. We know truth because we know the Lord. Ultimately this doesn’t make sense of what we see in the world around us. People have knowledge of the truth; people have knowledge of the “works of the law” as Paul notes in Romans 2: 14 and 15. Historically the church has always taught that people may have some knowledge of God and the world through “natural law” or through the “created order;” even through the “image of God.” The fear of the Lord can only be the epistemological beginning of knowledge in a limited sense then.

Perhaps we should see this principle as a hermeneutical principle. One can only rightly interpret the world through the fear of Lord. When we approach the world from the position of trust, we can begin to rightly interpret the facts that are before us. Without the fear of the Lord, the basic instrument in the interpretation of the world is lost.