The Fatwa of Church Discipline?

There are a few disturbing remarks that cannot pass without criticism. It is one thing to disagree with the practice of bringing the Federal Vision proponents upon trial in the church courts. It is another to call that practice a ‘Fatwa.’ Sadly, it appears this description of Presbyterian pastors who oppose the Federal Vision as Islamic Terrorists or Suicide Bombers is one that is growing in popularity.

This comparison is disgusting on so many levels that it makes my head hurt. Are these men really trying to say that the Central Carolina Presbytery, who has brought charges against Rev. Wilkins, and the Louisiana Presbytery are the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden? Do they really want to compare a church trial to the destruction of the Twin Towers and the deaths of thousands of people? Do they want to compare those who oppose the Federal Vision to those who blow themselves up in marketplaces and buses? I would hope not.

What makes it worse is that this is same crowd that was calling for tolerance and a level-headed debate not too long ago. Now they are the ones killing serious discussion. I suppose the need for restraint and respect only goes one way.

Christ and Universalism

I am wary to wade into this mess, but it needs to be done. Mr. Michael Spencer began a discussion of John 3:16 and other "all men" passages at The Boar’s Head Tavern. Mr. Spencer is highly critical of the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement, in other words, Mr. Spencer wants to argue that every man’s sin is on the cross. He goes as far to say,

A universalist understands Jesus far better than someone who splits humanity into people God loves effectually and savingly in Jesus, and people God is gracious to but excludes from his saving intentions in Christ.

In other words, Mr. Spencer thinks one shows his ignorance of Jesus if he were to claim, "Whoever is not with [Christ] is against [Christ], and whoever does not gather with [Christ] scatters" (Matthew 12:30). In fact, Mr. Spencer believes those who specifically say ‘all will be for Christ no matter what’ have a better understanding of Jesus.

Mr. Spencer’s chief complaint is that Calvinistic exegetes try to apply the rules of grammar and logic to the text. Arguing that ‘all’ can refer to everyone in a group rather than ‘every single person ever’ is apparently showing a lack of respect for the inspiration of Scriptures. Mr. Spencer does not see Jesus burdening people with talk of eternal decrees, instead Jesus just showers love on people. He explains:

Jesus feeding the 5,000 in Galilee or the 4,000 in the Decapolis. Just after the meal, a disciple stands up and explains that "God doesn't necessarily love all of you. Don't take this feeding miracle as implying that God loves everyone without exception. That's clearly not true. Have a nice day."

While I do not agree with the picture of Limited Atonement believers he paints, it should be noted that the day after Jesus feeds the 5,000 the same crowd followed him, and he laid on them such truths as "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father" (John 6:44). Fairly clearly a discussion of decrees by Jesus, something Mr. Spencer thinks a bad idea. The result was the disciples said, 'This is difficult' (v.60) and they left. The end of the discourse also has Jesus pointing out the Judas was a devil. Hardly Jesus telling the entire crowd he loved them.

One wonders how Mr. Spencer fits the end of Feeding of the 5,000 narrative into his theology. Mr. Spencer can respectfully disagree with the Limited Atonement exegesis if he wants, but declaring they have no business saying they know anything about Jesus crosses the line. If Mr. Spencer thinks the grammatical and logical arguments are worthless, then he can argue against them. It is not wrong to use grammar and logic in exegesis of Scripture. In fact, doing so shows reverence for the Word and its inspired status, not disrespect as he claims. Mr. Spencer should beware of forcing the blanket of his own personal experience over the eyes of others. A calmer discussion would be more fruitful for both sides.

Sadly, it is a discussion that needs to occur again today. One can see advocates of universalism (or at least universal atonement) in several different places today. Let the church be on notice, universalism is back and needs to be refuted.

Billy Packer and March Fairness

It is March Madness time, and if you are not a college basketball fan (I do feel sorry for you) this post is not for you.

Billy Packer is a basketball commentator who recently criticized the NCAA Selection Committee for letting in 4 teams from a small conference the Missouri Valley Conference. His beloved ACC and Big 12, traditional power conferences only got 4 each as well. He even implied a conspiracy by the smaller conferences. Packer’s reasoning was that traditionally the ACC and other of the 6 major conferences dominate the tournament. His point is well taken when you consider no small conference team has won the NCAA tournament since UNLV (Mountain West) in the early 90’s. Of course Mr. Packer forgot to take into account all of the advantages the Big Conferences get, such as routinely getting 6 teams in the tournament (this year the Big East sent 8), always getting the better seeds, being put close to home, and having more TV exposure to get better recruits.

Now if Mr. Packer is honest and he really thinks that if the Missouri Valley or other smaller conferences deserve more invites if they perform well in the tournament, then next year he should be singing praises of several conferences for more bids. The Patriot League for instance. In the last two years the Patriot League is undefeated in the first round, each year upsetting a higher seed from a power conference, and even achieving the sweet 16. Will Mr. Packer argue for the Patriot League next year? I doubt it. The Missouri Valley this year was 2-2 in the first round, and has 2 teams through to the Sweet 16, which of course means they are out performing what was expected. Will Mr. Packer argue for the Missouri Valley next year? No. He had his chance to admit he was wrong about the Missouri Valley on TV last night when Jim Nance sent out congratulations to the Missouri Valley for having 2 teams advance. Mr. Nance had been hard on them as well. Mr. Nance allowed a few moments of dead air with the obvious purpose of Mr. Packer to add his thoughts. Mr. Packer chose not to say a word. The Colonial Conference had two teams in the tournament and one of them is in the Sweet 16. By contrast the Big 10 had 6 teams in the tournament and none of them made the Sweet 16. The Big East only had 50% of its teams make the Sweet 16: the same percentage as the Missouri Valley and the Colonial, and below the percentage of the West Coast Conference. Will Mr. Packer stay true to his argument and next year scream for less Big Ten participation and a higher participation of these successful small conferences?

Let us face the facts, Mr. Packer is a decent announcer who great basketball knowledge. He, however, is prejudice beyond belief toward the bigger schools. He does not like the small conferences and will never like them. Sadly, people will not remember Mr. Packer for his work behind the microphone, but will only remember his stupid blunders like his relentless attacks on Dick Vitale. This attack on the Missouri Valley is just another one of those examples of Mr. Packer sticking his foot in his mouth, and being unwilling to admit it.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part IV

It is time now to see what Scripture has to say about the Incarnation and what the purpose of the Incarnation truly is. Many Federal Visionists claim the Incarnation would have taken place even without the Fall. Is this the view of Scripture?

Now there are plenty of verses such as John 10:15 or the Servant Songs of Isaiah that speak of Jesus coming in order to lay his life down for his sheep. These show that Jesus knew his mission was sacrifice of himself on the cross. Yet, these verses do not prove the point of the Incarnation is the atonement for sin because they are all comments made post-fall. I do not think anyone is denying that after the Fall atonement became necessary. What is needed are verses that speak of the atonement being a pre-fall idea. The Bible does provide a few glimpses of the atonement being a pre-fall necessity.

Rev. 13:8 speaks of The Lamb’s Book of Life. This verse tell us that the Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world." This verse speaks of Jesus as the Lamb, which is sacrificial language. Thus, Jesus was from eternity past to be incarnated in order to be slain. Christ was meant to be sacrificed for our sins from the foundation of world, which pre-dates the Fall. There seems to be no room for how Jesus could have meant to be incarnated apart from his role as Lamb in this verse.

I John 3:8 also speaks to this point. It tells us that "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." Here the purpose of Jesus Christ being made flesh was to destroy the works of the devil, to destroy sin. It also tells us earlier in that verse that the "devil sinneth from the beginning." So here again we see that the devil sinned from the beginning and thus the Son of God took flesh in order to destroy his work.

Heb. 2:9 continues this theme. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Jesus is made in the flesh of man, which is lower than the angels, for the suffering of death. He was made a man to taste death and pay the price of death for his people. Again the purpose of the Incarnation is linked with death and suffering which only comes through sin. The necessity of the incarnation is linked to the presence of sin. Again not much room left for an incarnation apart from such things.

2 Tim 1:9 and 10 again link the incarnation and sin, and do so in an eternal way. "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (10) But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." This verse shows us the benefits of Christ are given to us before the world began. Those benefits are abolishing death and giving life and immortality. His recent incarnation made those things abundantly clear to all. Paul believes that the benefit of Christ’s destroying death is laid out before the world began. And it is given to us then as well. The Incarnation then is placed in eternity past and is linked in eternity past to sin. Paul does not contemplate immortality and life being possible if there were no sin. He does not contemplate then being given to us apart from the atonement of Christ.

This leads to another point that needs to be made. Some have claimed that the Incarnation is much more than Atonement. They support this claim by pointing to his miraculous birth and his being both God and Man for all eternity. Are not these things more than simple atonement by death and resurrection? The problem is that the atonement is much more than simple death and resurrection. It is no wonder they believe the Incarnation to be so much more than atonement for they limit the scope of the atonement. The Virgin Birth of Christ is linked to his atonement. His miraculous birth, I think we can all agree, frees Christ from the stain of original sin so that he might become a high priest for us. One who is tempted in every way like us, but is not conceived and born in sin. Then it is good and right for us to say his Virgin Birth plays a role in the Atonement. What of his ascension into heaven? Hebrews tells us of Christ the High Priest at the right hand of God. Romans 8 tells us that he is at the right hand of God making intercession for us even now. Does Christ himself not tell us he goes before us to prepare places for us? Is this not a part of the atonement? Of course it is part of the atonement. That is why Revelation almost always refers to Christ in heaven as the Lamb. The atonement is always before the eyes of God. The Lamb that was slain is there for us. His whole life is living a life without sin so that when he did die and rise again he

Justice O'Connor on Judicial Independence

Former Justice O’Connor has spoken out about the need for Judicial Independence in America, even using the term dictatorship. Her speech shows exactly why she was a bad Justice. She does not understand Judicial Independence.

In her speech Justice O’Connor quotes the Republican attacks on Judicial system. She never names names, but quotes Tom Daly and Justice Sunday. She states her opposition to judicial reform based on partisan politics. All of this she believes threatens Judicial Independence and is the beginning of dictatorships.

I have two major problems with this speech. I believe they correspond to two major flaws of Justice O’Connor. The first is her misunderstanding of Judicial Independence. We do have Judicial Independence in this country. I am not aware of any laws proposed by Mr. Daly or the Republican Congress that reshapes the Supreme Court or Federal courts at all. To have Judicial Independence threatened their must be a law of some sort. The only possible example is the Terri Schavio case where Congress passed a law to allow a Federal Court to hear the case. When the courts did nothing, Congress did not step in again. So, even this example is weak. The Republican Party did run on a platform of picking judges to sit on the bench, but that is hardly a threat to Judicial Independence that is simply how the Constitution says judges are to be chosen. People are allowed to criticize judicial decisions. This is what Justice O’Connor really seems upset about. Mr. Daly and others publicly said the Supreme Court was wrong. Justice O’Connor thinks that is a threat to Judicial Independence. While it may be a threat to the Judicial Dominance that has been going on for several decades, it is hardly a threat to the system as a whole. It is simply a healthy pull and tug for power that the Founders of the Constitution placed in the Constitution. Checks and Balances really means a struggle for power. As long as our government is fighting for control between the branches the people are safe. When the President takes too much power, invariably the Congress tugs back. Exhibit A is what is going on in D.C. right now. When the Supreme Court tells Congress its laws are all wrong for too long, expect Congress to take a swing back at the Court. It is a tension filled system, but a system that works. Justice O’Connor wants to be praised, but not criticized. This simply shows a complete lack of understanding of how the American Government works. If she thinks people should just accept Supreme Court decisions without speaking a word, she needs to read more about President Andrew Jackson.

Second, Justice O’Connor seems to have no understanding of how dictatorships work. It is a nice fantasy that once Judicial Independence is gone then dictators rise to power, but in the end it is simply a self-aggrandizing fantasy with no basis in reality. Name one example of dictatorship by political takeover of a judicial system. Try it. Now think of some dictators and how they came to power. Yes, they come to power on the backs of horses or tanks or armies. Julius Caesar, Lennin, Chairman Mao, Castro, any dictator in Africa or South America, even Napoleon. American has had plenty of actual attempts to interfere with Judicial Independence. FDR got all of his Welfare State passed by threatening to put more justices on the bench. Abraham Lincoln tried to arrest Chief Justice Taney for issuing a decision against Lincoln’s government. Are we in a dictatorship now? No, no we are not. Is Justice O’Connor upset about those Presidential actions? No, I doubt it.

Justice O’Connor’s inability to understand the Constitution and history help explain some of her bad decisions on the court. I hope history picks up on this speech and judges her for it.

The Author of Hebrews

In a shameless attempt to draw out a friend of mine in debate, I have decided to answer the age old question of who is the author of Hebrews. I shall mainly be interacting with the arguments of John Owen who believes both internal and external evidence shows that Paul is the author of Hebrews. This I reject out of hand. For those unfamiliar with Owen’s arguments, Dr. Crampton has a condensed form.

Let all know also that the true author of Hebrews cannot be known for sure, nor is it fundamentally important. The book is canonical inspired by God. In heaven the author will be known, until then we can only argue. But sometime arguing can be fun, so let the fun begin.

Owen puts forth several claims that supposedly prove Paul the author of Hebrews. First is the external evidence. In the list of divines who held to Pauline authorship we would include Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Tertullian possibly, Eusebius, Augustine, and almost all the Medieval Theologians. Some would add Origen, but his endorsement is more along the path of ‘if people say so, fine by me’; thus, he should not be included in the list. W.H. Goold wants to add Ambrose, Hilary, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Athanasias. Yet, this list only tells half the story. Hebrews was slow to be universally recognized as part of the canon because many in the West did not believe it to be from Paul. Rejecters of Pauline authorship would include Clement of Rome, the Muratorian canon, Gaius, the Roman church at the time of Eusebius, and Jerome can be quoted on this side as well. Also Tertullian does explicitly ascribe Hebrews to Barnabas. To this we can add the doubt of Origen, who seems less than convinced himself. Throw in the fact that the Roman church and the Western tradition first recognizes it as canonical while denying its Pauline authorship, and the case Owen makes seems a little different. So appeals to the external evidence comes up wanting.

Owen also points to the internal evidence. He shows great relation to the existent works of Paul. Similarity in syntax, vocabulary, and doctrine. This is Owen’s strongest point, yet I remain unconvinced. Most people grant that Hebrews was written by someone in the Pauline circle. Thus, they would have used similar vocabulary, syntax and of course doctrine. Origen, despite his many faults, was a fine scholar of languages held that the Greek of Hebrews was superior to Paul’s epistles. Origen posits the Greek of Luke-Acts or Clement of Rome as equivalents rather than any other epistle of Paul. Eastern Church acceptance of Pauline authorship did not deny this difference, but instead posited a hebrew original written by Paul and translated into Greek by Luke. The superior polish of the Greek in Hebrews cannot be explained by appealing to a contested oral origen of the book. For Paul himself claims to be a speaker without oratorical polish in I Corinthians 2:1-5. Also Hebrews calls itself a letter in 13:22.

Also in favor of the Pauline authorship is other internal evidence. The pre-64 A.D. date puts it around the right time for Paul to be released from his first imprisonment in Rome, where most believe the epistle originated. This meshes well with 13:23,24. Yet, no where does is it stated that the author was in prison or being set free from prison. Only Timothy is said to be set free and about to visit. Surely Paul would have written of his own release. Or spoken of the chains of prison as his own, as he does elsewhere (Philippians 1:13-16, Colossians 4:3). 13:3 indicates to pray for those who are in chains, chains that are not his, but belong to others. A very non-Pauline way of speaking regarding imprisonment for the cause of Christ.

Owen also claims that 2 Peter 3:15 is a mention of Hebrews when it talks of Paul’s letter. Owen attempts to use 1 Peter 1:1 to show that Peter’s epistles were to Jews since it uses the term ‘dispersion’. However, this proof requires the reading of dispersion to mean only Jews instead of Christians in general, a reading that is questionable. It also neglects the fact that Paul’s letter referred to in 2 Peter could easily be Galatians rather than Hebrews.

Of course the main objection used by those who deny Paul the author of Hebrews is 2:3. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation;; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”. The objectors point out that Paul who never have claimed that the gospel was confirmed to him by others. In fact in Galatians he goes out of his way to show he received the Gospel directly from Jesus. Hebrews seems to claim that it was given to the author by the apostles, which would place the author outside their number. Some claim that it makes him a second generation Christian. This point is the major reason Calvin, Luther, and Beza reject Paul as the author of Hebrews.
John Owen’s argument on this verse is convincing. I believe Owen here destroys the idea that the author is not an apostle and has to be a second generation Christian. He shows that the having the gospel
“confirmed to him” is not the same as given to him. Paul himself admits in Galatians that he went to Jerusalem to make sure he had not run in vain (Galatians 2:2), which could be seen as confirmation of the gospel. Reading 2:3 this way brings back into play the first generation Christians, including Paul. However, it does not establish Paul. Barnabas and Luke could both fit having the gospel “confirmed”, as would Apollos and about any other person ever suggested for the book.

Thus, my objections to a Pauline authorship of Hebrews rest on stylistic differences between the Epistle to the Hebrews and all of Paul’s other epistle including his lack of a signature, the highly polished Greek of Hebrews, the constant quoting of the Septuagint (Paul often corrected the Septuagint), and the fact that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and the letter is to the Hebrews. Another objection that I do not know enough about, but should be mentioned is Hebrews’ use of the Codex Alexandrinus while Paul used the Codex Vaticanus. Take that for what it is worth.

I think the best case can be made for Barnabas as the author of Hebrews. The reasons for Barnabas include Barnabas was from Cyprus where Greek would be his first language answering for the highly polished Greek in Hebrews. He was a Levite and much of Hebrews is about the imagery of Jesus in the temple and the priesthood. The similar vocabulary to Paul is answered by his close association with Paul. This also fills the requirement of 13:22-23 with Timothy. Cyclical nature of warnings and encouragement in Hebrews fits well with a man known as the “Son of Encouragement.” Barnabas is an apostle according to Acts 14:14. Yet the best evidence is the long standing tradition of Barnabas being the author of Hebrews. This tradition pre-dates Paul, and is attested to as far back as A.D. 200 in Tertullian. Tertullian states it as if it were a fact beyond dispute. This North African Tradition of Barnabas is also attested by Jerome, Filaster, and Gregory of Elivra, all of whom lived in the 4th Century. This tradition is deeply rooted in Alexandria, which is a death blow to the Luther’s guess of Apollos as author since he was a native Alexandrian. Barnabas seems to remain as the best candidate and one of the earliest candidates for the authorship of Hebrews. Without other writings of Barnabas it is impossible to establish, but since this blog is about conjecturing for fun, I will argue Barnabas is the author.

Classis

I have not been blogging lately because I have been at Classis and preparing for it. Now that it is over I can breathe a sigh of relief. At least until Synod in May. I enjoyed the time of fellowship and the meeting was mostly productive. I received quite an education in parliamentary procedure. I am sure everyone would tell you, I still have quite a way to go.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part III

We have been looking at the idea that Jesus would have become incarnate even if Adam did not sin in the Garden put forth by many Federal Visionists. Some of you may be asking is this really important? Isn’t this sort of like the debate about whether or not angels have voice boxes? Does it affect our system of beliefs or is this just something pastors do when they have too much time on their hands? I believe it is important and it does affect our system.

If we hold to an idea about Jesus coming even without sin, then we have fundamentally altered the work of Christ on earth. The redemption from sin purchased on the cross becomes secondary, something that was added because of Adam’s failure, but what Jesus would have given Adam in the Garden remains the major focus of salvation. The death of Christ is no longer as important as the incarnation of Christ. It is nice to have our sins removed from us, but it is not salvation, nor can it be seen as Christ’s major work in the Federal Vision system. As James Jordan puts it, “What we receive is not Jesus’ merits, but His maturity, His glorification” (pg.195).

Notice who held this position historically in the church. Rupert of Deutz seems the first to put forward this position of Christ becoming Incarnate if Adam had not sinned. Rupert was a German Mystic who lived around 1120. The mystics were famous for two things. One their devotion to God, and two the union of the believer to God. In this union came justification. In this union came all things. Union takes priority over everything else. The devotion often aids in the union with Christ. Salvation then takes on more of a participationism or implantationism rather than any form of imputation of Christ’s merits to us. This is very similar to Jordan’s desire for the maturity and glorification of Christ rather than any sort of merit from Christ.

John Duns Scotus is also a proponent of Jesus Incarnate apart from Adam’s sin. Scotus is most famous for his view of the Freedom of the Will of God, or volitionism. In his working out of this doctrine, he declares that God’s election is free from everything else including sin. He goes on to state that nothing in nature or guilt of sin made it necessary for the Son of God to die. Salvation could have been accomplished in many other ways. God simply chose the death of his Son as the way it would be done. Scotus then separates election and the incarnation from the redemption from sin. It then downplays the centrality of the cross as salvation could have very well been done by an man or angel if God had so willed, and Christ would have become incarnate if Adam had not sinned.

These men reveal some of the tendencies that Incarnation apart from sin creates. While Scotus can be seen as positing his view as a defense of God from any accusation from sin, more can be gleaned. Scotus lowers the atonement of Christ by saying election and salvation could be done in many ways, God simply choose to have his Son die on the cross. The lowering of the atonement is a bit more explicit in the Rupert the Mystics view where union with God gains a greater focus. A trend continued in the Federal Vision.

In short, arguing for an Incarnation apart from sin removes the atonement or death and resurrection of Christ from the center of the gospel. The emphasis is shifted to his birth or his incarnation in general. What the believer needs is no longer the death of Christ so much as his life. This of course can be gained through the mystical sacramental eating of grace or faithful obedience that keeps one in covenantal union to Christ’s life. Therefore, this discussion is not a mere distraction, but part of the main issue in the Federal Vision debates.