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.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part II

We have seen how the search for a bigger Christ-centered picture in the Bible led many Federal Visionists to propound an Incarnation of Jesus Christ apart from sin, but let us now look at their exegetical reasons. I believe it is quite telling.

Paul Duggan puts forth his exegetical reasons for believing in an Incarnation without sin.
1. He says that Genesis 2:16 says all the trees of the Garden are for Adam, and thus the prohibition in verse 17 must either be a contradiction or an indication of the temporary nature of the prohibition. This defies the logic of grammar. When someone says, “You can have everything in the refrigerator, but the cheesecake” he is not contradicting himself, and it is not necessarily indicative of a temporary restraint on the cheesecake. This is a very forced proof at best.
2. He then tells us that knowledge of good and evil is something men should have, thus one can believe that they should get access to the tree. In fact, they need knowledge to be rulers. Which is related to his third point. . .
3. Knowledge of Good and Evil came by eating just as life came by eating the Tree of Life.
This is where I really want to pause and look at this exegesis once again. It is very revealing of the Federal Vision way of thinking about things. The act of eating gave both life and knowledge to Adam and Eve. They were magical fruit in a very real sense. One taste and things are imparted to you. It is not hard to see where their sacramentology comes from since by eating the Supper one receives the benefits of that ‘eatable grace.’

I deny that fruit of the Tree of Life or the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge imparted anything. I believe it is easily provable from the Bible. Genesis 3:2-3 shows us that Eve knew the difference between good and evil. She had knowledge of it because she resists the first temptation of Satan. She repeats the command of God not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. She knows she ought to listen to God, and not disobey. That is the basis of good and evil right there. Eve and Adam already knew good and evil. If they did not, then how can one blame them for not obeying? If they truly had no knowledge of good and evil, then their sin is lessened because they were ignorant. Instead, they knew full well what was right, and they still decided they would be like God and declare good and evil for themselves. Thus, the temptation of Satan to “be as gods, knowing good and evil.” It is not teaching them good and evil, it is a temptation to rebel against what God says is good in order to make their own good and their own evil. The Tree does not impart anything, but it stands for who will declare good and evil. Will it be God, or will it be man? The fruit is not magical.

James Jordan goes on to explain that the noticing that Adam and Eve were both naked and the subsequent fig leaves were because they had taken the knowledge before they were mature enough. They lacked the garments of a king. If they had waited God would have clothed them and then let them eat of the tree. Jordan argues that God has to admit that they are now full of the knowledge and they must be given the garments, so he makes the appropriate animal skin clothes. This of course robs Genesis 3:21 of its sacrificial imagery.
There is a better reading, in my opinion. That the viewing themselves as naked is not a result of fruit, but a result of their sin. The sin had immediate effects, such as guilt and shame. They wanted to hide themselves, not on the outside as much as they did on the inside. They for the first time were polluted. I believe this reading is backed up by the fact that in verse 8 they hide from God. Adam still claims to be naked in verse 10 even though he has a fig leaf outfit that seems to satisfy him in front of Eve for they did not hide from each other when they were naked, but covered themselves. It is when they hear God that they hide. Their nakedness is much more than physical, it is spiritual. God then sacrifices animals to prefigure Christ, and gives them those animals as clothing, and a reminder. This is supported by Cain and Abel sacrificing in the next chapter as if they already knew what was required.

Jordan’s fancy readings of Genesis are important in the Federal Vision system. First, it helps support an eatable grace mentality that will come back again in their sacramentology. Second, it avoids the idea of Adam failing the covenant of works, and makes it an issue of maturity. For them the prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge is not a covenantal obligation, but rather it is a maturity issue that will go away when Adam matures. Third, the downplaying of the sacrificial elements as pointing towards Christ aids their system. While they do not deny that Jesus paid for our sins on the cross, Christ is not here primarily to do that, it is something that is added to his job when Adam sinned. The incarnation itself is bigger and more important than atonement. Thus, the downplaying of atonement symbolism in the Genesis story.

Biography of Jefferson Davis

If you are looking for a fair, balanced, and non-partisan biography of Jefferson Davis, then I have found the book for you. Joseph McElroy’s Jefferson Davis is one of the best biographies I have read. It may not have the literary greatness of David McCullough’s writings, but it is extraordinarily informative, unafraid to tackle the issues, deals honestly with faults, and gives praise where praise is due. There is one problem, and that is you may need to go to Abe Books to find it. I got it at a used book store in Washington D.C. It was written in the early 1920’s, and probably is no longer in print. Oh yeah, the book is just under 700 pages as well, so do not bother if you are not willing to read.

One of the things I appreciated the most about McElroy is that he was not a partisan. Most of the Davis biographies one finds are written by bitter avid Southerner’s. McElroy is up front about condemning Davis’s view of slavery, but he also points out Davis was kinder to his slaves than most plantation owners. The vast majority of Davis’s slaves waited for Davis in Mississippi and worked for him again after the war as freedmen. On the plantation Davis actually had a legal system for his slaves where other slaves would serve as judge, jury, and executioners. Davis did not have white overseers and when whippings occurred, they were administered by other slaves on a slave convicted by a jury of his peers. McElroy also does not agree with Jefferson Davis about the right of the state. Yet, he honestly presents the view of Davis and lets Davis do his own defense.

McElroy also has many helpful points of comparison. He does a very nice comparison between Lincoln and Davis that sheds a great deal of light on the Civil War struggle. This is not the only helpful side by side comparison, but he also compares Davis to his political rivals prior to Lincoln, after Lincoln, and even does some military comparisons of Davis to other great military leaders. Davis was actually a war hero in the Mexican War showing what European military leaders proclaimed, ‘genius’ on the battlefield.

One other aspect of the book that I found interesting was the constant comparisons of the American Civil War to the League of Nations. McElroy talks of how secession from a union is always an option until the majority of the parts become wealthy on account of the union, and then secession is untenable without violence. He then draws a direct line to the League of Nations and makes a bold prediction of violence should the League continue. It should be noted that Japan walked out of the League of Nations shortly before WWII. I believe his criticisms may also hold true for the United Nations. This element of McElroy’s writings add interesting tidbits to the already intriguing biography.

I recommend this book to all lovers of Civil War history.

Incarnation, Election, and Fall Part I

Recently Alastair Adveraria has posted a very well thought out argument about ‘the Big Picture’ of election, which for him the ‘Truly Reformed Tradtion’ does not get quite right. In his argument that Christ is the only elect person, and we only have a mediated election through Christ, he mentions that Christ would have been made flesh even if Adam had never sinned. His is not alone in his view of the Incarnation and election, in fact, it is promoted by James Jordan in the book, the Federal Vision. Since this view is growing in the Reformed world, I thought I would make a few comments.

Let me start with a disclaimer that I need to make for those who may want to scream foul. Not everyone in the Federal Vision holds to such a position. The Missouri Presbytery Report rejects such an idea out right, and that report is quite friendly to the Federal Vision position. I actually believe it is the section of the Missouri report that has taken the most heat. With that being said, let us move on to discussion.

Alastair states the two sides of the debate in the following manner.

[God] is forming an international family for Abraham, to set right what Adam set wrong. However, cosmic purposes like setting the creation to rights and gathering all things together in Christ seem to be downplayed in Reformed circles. In their place there is great attention given to the divine purpose of saving a particular fixed number of predetermined individuals and condemning the rest of humanity. Almost everything else seems to be subordinated to this.

He then goes on to argue that election and reprobation are not to be linked because election was possible without the fall, and the God’s purpose was to bring humanity to maturity. Thus, election would still have been in Christ, who still would have come to the world to lead men into maturity even without the fall. In the comment section he clarifies the Big Picture of Scripture by stating, "Scripture is a story of God’s people growing into the full rights and privileges of sonship."

I fear that this is nothing more than Schaff’s Development Theories applied to Biblical Theology, which is one chief reason that I think Biblical Theology may not be a legitimate enterprise. Not only do I fail to see how the idolatry of Israel and Judah in 1 and 2 Kings is all that more mature than the idolatry shown in the Book of Judges, but also I fail to see how this is the Christ-centered view of the bible it claims to be. I do not believe the Bible is mainly about the people of God maturing their way to privileges. Alastair wants to put Christ back in the center of the story, and not the “narrow, individualistic focus” of Reformed Theology. Yet, here he is saying the Big Picture of Scripture is not Christ at all, but the people of God.

Alastair’s desire to put Christ back in the center of Christianity is admirable. I simply disagree that Reformed Theology has not already done just that. Alastair wants to free the decree of election from the decree of the fall lest we think sin a good thing. Jordan says that any view other than the view of Christ coming to give not merit, but maturity leads to a ‘felicitous fall’, or the idea that the Fall of Humanity in Adam’s sin was actually a good thing (pg.184). The Fall is hardly a good thing in traditional Reformed Theology. Nor can it be said it is good for humanity, as the Fall results in hell for many. But God, in Christ, has shown his mercy by giving us a better standing than the original standing of Adam. Does that mean Adam’s sin was good for the elect? No. Does it mean that the mercy of God was good for the elect? Absolutely.

This also fits with what I believe is the Big Picture of Scripture, namely God bringing glory to himself. It is not individualistic salvation, nor is it man maturing into anything. If you read the Scripture and come away thinking it is primarily about man then I think you have missed a great deal. In the beginning God and in the end it is still God. In Genesis we see creation by God, and in the end we see recreation by God. In the book of Genesis we see the Tree of Life pictured sacramentally, and in Revelation we see the true Tree of Life standing in the New Jerusalem. The primary mover in all of Scripture is the Triune God.

I think that is enough opening comments. I will get into some exegesis in the next post.

History and Paedocommunion

I have put some thoughts about Paedocommunion up at Westminster Brass. I thought here I would continue the subject by examining the claims of Paedo or Infant communionists that history supports the practice of giving infants communion.

Tim Gallant gives a few quotes and comments upon them. Tommy Lee gives a fuller set of quotes and discussion. Neither, in my opinion, proves their case. While I will grant that Africa around the time of Augustine must have practiced giving communion to infants, a wide spread practice of paedocommunion seems hard to establish. Nor can any firm proof be brought forth from 1st or 2nd century documents. A few examples of their overstatement of the facts are in order.

Both men cite the Apostolic Constitutions as proof of Infant Communion. They point out that the document tells the catechumens, hearers, and non-believers to leave before communion is served. It then goes on to state, "Let the mothers take their children" and goes on to give the order in which communion should be received. ". . .the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order." Here we see that children were to receive the sacrament. Sounds like proof, but all is not finished. Gallant neglects to point out the prayer mentioned in the book. Lee shares it with us. It concludes by praying,

sanctify Thy people, keep those that are in virginity, preserve those in the faith that are in marriage, strengthen those that are in purity, bring the infants to complete age, confirm the newly admitted; instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission...

Now Lee takes this to mean that infants were to be at the table. Yet, he neglects to see if there is a difference between the use of the word infant and the word children. The above proofs all speak of children coming to the table, and the prayer mentions infants specifically. Are they overlapping groups? The prayer seems to indicate not. The prayer is to "bring infants to complete age." What this means is not precisely known, but it seems probably that this is a prayer for infants to come to an age of understanding to partake in the Supper. This is bolstered by the rest of the prayer, "instruct the catechumens, and render them worthy of admission." The same section of the prayer is praying for catechumens, who were dismissed, to be taught so that they might be worthy of admission. It seems likely that the infants need to be of complete age to be worthy of admission as well. At the very least, this is no longer a clear proof for infants having been at the table, and more likely proof they were not allowed.

Let us add to this an earlier citation, one even earlier than Cyprian and Augustine. Justin Martyr tells us of the eucharist and who partakes of it. "This food is called with us the eucahrist, of which none can partake, but the believing and baptized, who live according to the commands of Christ." Clearly, Justin Martyr reports to us that infants were not allowed at the table. For the only ones allowed at the table were baptized, believing, and obedient to Christ. Not something that would be said of infants at their mother’s breast, and probably not something that would be said about very little children. Justin sees more than just baptism as a requirement to gain admission to the table. Remember Justin is not telling us his opinion of the Lord’s Supper, he is merely reporting the common practice of his time, the common practice of the 2nd century Christians.

In the end, the Paedocommunionists can do nothing more than prove that around the 3rd and 4th centuries paedocommunion was practiced in North Africa. This I will grant. But they need to be more honest and admit that the general custom and the earlier custom seems to be forbidding infants from the table.

Presidential Thinking on President's Day

I hope everyone enjoyed President's Day. I know that I did. It is an underappreciated holiday. No one in the non-governmental world gets off to celebrate the birthday of Washington and Lincoln, but many do get off for Martin Luther King Jr., Day. Should not Lincoln get at least as much credit as MLK for Civil Rights? That has always confused me.

Anyway, while reading yesterday I was struck by the similarities in character between Abraham Lincoln and our current President George W. Bush. Both men suffered incredible attacks at the hands of the press, and both seemed immune to it. Both violated Constitutional limits in order to prosecute a war that was unpopular, and that they deemed important. Both used War Powers as justification for that claim although neither was fighting a very traditional war. Both were viewed as honest and trustworthy, despised by the ruling class, but beloved by the ordinary man. I could go on, but it is worth pondering, or at least worth posting. One man can be hated in his day, and given a national holiday after his death. Something to remember.

Some Thoughts on Compromise

Compromise is sometimes a dirty word, and sometimes it is the only way to get things done. The problem comes when we cannot see which one it is at the time. Of course we should compromise in the unimportant, non-essentials. Compromise to help others is a good idea. To never compromise is to be selfish. However, there are times when principles are at stake, and then compromise becomes a dirty word. Sadly, this is seldom seen. History is replete with Compromisers who would sell their soul to keep unity, and they always fail, and more often than not, make things worse. Let us just look at a few examples.

Senator Stephen Douglas is a fantastic example of this. Douglas believed he had found a compromise position in Popular Sovereignty. This was the idea that people within the territory could decide for themselves the issue of slavery while still a territory. Douglas was sure that this would win accolades in both the North and the South. But, he was wrong. His compromise hastened the “irrepressible conflict” by tearing the Democratic Party in half (thirds actually), and giving Lincoln the victory assuring the South would leave and blood would be shed. Had he but stepped aside and let a principled candidate run, like Jefferson Davis, the Democrats would have held onto the White House, and perhaps bloodshed could have been avoided.

Charles Erdman, a professor of Princeton and follower of the Old School theology, sought to be a compromiser and a unifier. While he was the moderator of the 1925 General Assembly, the Assembly upheld complaints against a few ministers who denied the virgin birth of Christ. In response to upholding the complaint many liberal ministers threatened to leave. Erdman compromised with these deniers of the virginity of Mary by creating a commission to study the problems of the church. The committee met and reported back the next year disavowing the idea that liberals were following a different gospel. The 1926 Assembly was controlled by the liberals and they stopped the appointment of Machen to Chair of Apologetics, and the end of the PCUSA and Princeton had begun.

In every major conflict whether it be in the church or in the state many try to find ground that all can inhabit. They propose compromises that do nothing but undermine the position of those who are right. When fundamental principles are at stake there can be no compromise.

Zell Miller and the Democratic Party

While on vacation, I borrowed and read Senator Zell Miller’s book, A National Party No More. This is an excellent book about the Democratic Party, their demise, and Southern politics with a little autobiographical touch thrown in for fun. Zell gets his points across and has some memorable lines. For instance when he says Pat Buchannan is so pessimistic that he "looks both ways before crossing a one-way street."

Senator Miller correctly notes that Southern men like himself a Democrats not by choice, but because it is "in the DNA." He goes through his opinions which include pro-life, pro-second amendment, and pro-education. He is a Democrat so he sees some place for Democrat stances such as a lottery to fund education. Georgia’s is the only one in the nation that actually works for education by the way. He shows how just a little common sense and focus on issues that mean something to normal folks, the Democrats would sweep through the elections as they have in the past. He shows how the only Democrtic Presidential winners in the recent past were those that would be thrown out of the party today. Bill Clinton won by having a common sense approach in the elections. He won several Southern States, but he acted against his campaign promises. Jimmy Carter won Southern states his first time around before going super liberal in office. Even JFK lowered taxes, a must for Southern Democrats. Traditional Democratic values according to Senator Miller.

Miller gives some inside info on how the Special Interest Groups run Washington on both sides of the isle. The book was written in 2003, so it pre-dates Jack Abramoff, but does mention how wives of Senators get jobs as lobbyists. He has some good ideas to save the Democratic Party. If they listen to him, they will put up former Virginia Governor Warner, support the military, lower taxes, and win the election. I do not agree with all of Mr. Miller’s political thought in the book, but it is an honest, well written, and stinging critic.

Worshipping with the President

I have been in Washington D.C. for my brother's wedding. I am still on vacation, but I had to post about my trip.

For the most part Washington D.C. is a "hive of scum and villany" where everyone is super liberal, dress in the same black jackets, and plug their ears with ipods so Bill Gates gets no money and they do not have to speak to you. Eye contact is pretty rare. However, nice people were found, and D.C. is beautiful when it snows.

I got a tour of the capital that was set up by Rep. Stephanie Herseth. This is the way to tour the capital, not the public tours. Just call your reresentatives or senators and see the capital in a little better style. A few of my family met Senator Robert Byrd while going through the underground tunnel from the Senate office building to the capital.

Sunday my wife, two kids and I worshipped at St. John's Episcopal Church. It was across the street from hotel where my brother held the reception. We went to the 7:45 service because we had to drive back to Tennessee. I noticed a few extra trench coats outside and saw the street was blocked off, and became suspicious. To our surprise the Presdient was attending the service, and so we worshipped with the President. It was exciting, but also a little disturbing. Knowing the guy in the aisle behind you has a gun is just as distracting as knowing the President is 3 rows in front of you. Thus, my family and I got a little wave as the President was escorted out after the service through a different door. It made for a nice end to a fun trip.

Just for you doubters out there, the sermon was about the rich man and Lazarus, and was a little more liberal than my taste. See I paid attention.

Defrocking and Tyranny

R.C. Sproul Jr., has apparently been defrocked by his denomination. The charges are numerous, and Rev. Sproul’s response is limited. I do not know which side is right, nor am I taking sides. I have a few friends who attend St. Peter’s Church and I know this must be a troubled time for them. I hope and pray that the discipline of the church results in repentance and restoration, no matter which side is the offending side.

But, church discipline is not tyrannical, as Rev. Sandlin has suggested. In fact, I think that this case is a perfect example of the Presbyterian court system working to avoid tyranny. There were those who felt wronged by St. Peter’s and they had a place to take their complaint. If St. Peter’s had been a congregational church, then the session would have continued in its tyranny, or the unsubmissive complainers would not have had another court reinforce the decision of the St. Peter’s session. Whichever way it works out, it works out for the better. Rev. Sandlin thinks the way to avoid church tyranny is to be autonomous local churches. I disagree. I think a connectionalism, specifically a system of courts, is a much better way to avoid tyranny.

Sunday: A tradition or command?

Rev. Andrew Sandlin argues that Sunday is not the day of worship, but merely a creation of human tradition. He quotes Harold O.J. Brown as saying that the change of worship from Saturday to Sunday is "not demonstrable from Scripture." I disagree. Now if these gentlemen want to argue that there is no direct command, then they are correct, but that does not mean it is not demonstrable at all nor does it mean that is a mere tradition of men.

The issue, it seems to me, is how much authority does one give the book of Acts and other historical passages in Scripture. Is the apostolic example of worshipping on Sunday inspired by the Spirit or a mere tradition of a group of men?

The theological argument revolves around the 4th Commandment and its link to redemption as seen in Deuteronomy 5. Thus, when redemption is accomplished there is now a new act and basis for the day with the resurrection of our Lord. Which by the way is on Sunday (John 20:1). Sunday worship can also be seen as prefigured in the Festival of the Booths and the high worship done on the 8th day, a Sunday. However, we will set this argument aside and simply look at the NT worship patterns.

It should be noted that the disciples met and Christ met with them on Sunday in John 20:19. They received the Holy Ghost during this meeting (22). The very next Sunday Christ met with them again in verse 26. It would seem as if Christ established a bit of a pattern of meeting with the disciples when they gathered together on Sundays after his resurrection. But did the disciples see it this way? It would seem so because on Pentecost, which is a Sunday, there were meeting "all with one accord in one place." As you know Pentecost is when the Holy Ghost came and the church baptized 5,000 people on that day. It is also reinforced in Acts 20:7 where we see "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached . . ." Here we clearly see Sunday was a day of worship that included preaching and perhaps the Lord’s Supper. Paul also seems to command a tithe or offering taken up on the first day in I Corinthians 16:2. All of this culminates in Revelation 1:10 when John tells us he was in the Spirit on the "Lord’s Day." The meaning here is that there is a day that is called the "Lord’s" and apparently was used for worship according to not only the context of being "in the Spirit", but any historical record one examines. The church can never be found to worship on any other day after the resurrection than Sunday. Church history is unanimous with this proclamation, Sunday is the day Christians worship.

Now of course all of this is familiar to Rev. Sandlin, I am not shedding any new light. Yet, he persists in calling it a tradition of men. Thus, I believe that the issue revolves around what weight one wants to ascribe to historical accounts. Are they binding? Are they prescriptive or descriptive? Should one assume the Holy Spirit inspired apostles were setting up an example to followed or were they the first tradition makers with no real guidance in what they were doing? Does the fact Christ at least twice met with them bodily after his resurrection on Sunday, and twice gave them the Holy Spirit on Sunday have any significance at all? Does it matter that on 2 of the 5 Sundays in which Christ’s resurrected body on earth the disciples gathered expecting to met with Him, and did just that? By the way it is the only 2 Sundays we are shown, so it very well could have happened every Sunday.

I believe it is significant. I believe the Bible can require things without a written command. The apostles blatant examples preserved for us in Scripture can serve as a binding command. If we are to take Rev. Sandlin’s position then not only does Sunday worship become a mere tradition of men, so too does Presbyterian church government in Acts 15. So too does the office of deacon in Acts 6. These things have the same or less amount of evidence than Sunday worship, so does Rev. Sandlin believe these to be optional traditions as well? While I do not know his answer, mine is a resounding no.

Palestinian Elections

Everyone has been talking on the news about the democratic elections of the Palestinians. Apparently the ruling party stayed in power, but Hamas gained about 40% of the vote. I heard the newsmen discuss the entrance of Hamas into the democratic process, I listened to them discuss the vote of no confidence sent to the ruling party, and I even heard discussions about how America should respond to Hamas ministers in the Palestinians. All of these are legitimate aspects of the story, but in my opinion they are not the real story.

The real story is the debunking of the Moderate Islamic myth. For years people have been claiming the Palestinians want peace, they want their own land, and Hamas is just a small group of radical terrorists. Now we see that easily 40% of the Palestinians support the terrorists. They are not some radical splinter cell, they are a popularly supported group of hate-mongering murderers. Hamas offered no political ideas; they ran on the platform of “kill Israel” and their record of suicide bombings. Thus, the 40% cannot be seen as voting for new ideas, only for terrorists. Before we believe the political line about Islam being a religion of peace, maybe we should examine some of these election results, new state constitutions, and ruling party platforms. So far all the democratic reformers in the Middle East have been able to produce are two oppressively Islamic Constitutions and a government that is fully half-terrorist. Not exactly an endorsement for the religion of peace. Yet, that story will never lead news broadcasts.

Post of Note

A good post by Mr. Baggins on the righteousness of Christ. Worth reading.