Archive for July 2021
Metábasis eis állo génos (2-30)
Baptism is an announcement of adoption; it is no surprise, then, that it is a conferral of glory and honor:
For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (2 Peter 1:17, NKJV)
The Byzantine reading of this passage (“Greeks” rather than “they”) clears up a confusion for me:
Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things. (Acts 18:17, NKJV)
I was confused because it seemed as if the Jews were beating one of their own. It’s certainly possible that God sent them into a judicial confusion, but the Greeks doing so makes a little more sense. However, Calvin points out that this is likely the same Sosthenes as 1 Corinthians 1. Perhaps this provocation is related to his conversion. Also, the fact that the church met next to the synagogue (Acts 18:7) is significant to 1 Corinthians 14 and the identity of the unbeliever.
Garrett Soucy comments on the turning of the age:
Churches are not only closing, but they are also thriving, and this for the simple reason that if ministers of God can tell the people what is happening around them and interpret the story for them in light of the Word of God, the hungry will rightly believe that they have found a people with wine and bread to spare. We are entering an era of preaching . . . not an era of celebrity preaching, or internet preaching . . . but of local preaching. It must not simply be an expository analysis of a text, but a deep understanding of the Word and a proclamation of the cross of Christ in the event of eating. We must be men, not only of math, but of myth. Is there a chief in the house? There is a story that needs interpreting, but first it needs a telling.
Many men have been influential in my turn to what you might call an objective covenant theology. I count Doug Wilson, Mark Horne, James Jordan, and Peter Leithart among the most significant influences. But before spending much time with them I read Geerhardus Vos’s Biblical Theology, and I think that he, together with a little bit of Van Til, set all the conditions in place for my theological avalanche.
Here is the summary of Vos I wrote sixteen years ago. These are the points that stick in my mind the most today:
- Vos makes a point of stressing that the effect of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not magical. I think I am borrowing from other writers than Vos to call the results “judicial,” but the thought that sacramental obedience and disobedience is not magical but is an ordinary working out of our standing before God is significant. For example, as I remark above, to be baptized is to receive an objective declaration from God through his church.
- The unity of God’s work in history through his covenants, and especially the gracious nature of every covenant, is profoundly important.
- The fact that the old covenants are not only shot through with grace, but also founded on faith in the work of Jesus, and involve the life-giving work of the Spirit, is also profoundly important. This casts the old covenants in a very different light.
‘The counsel of Gandalf was not founded on foreknowledge of safety, for himself or for others,’ said Aragorn. ‘There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even though the end may be dark. (Tolkien, The Two Towers)
Metábasis eis állo génos (2-29)
Another pair of things that we must hold together is the distinction between sin and foolishness, or between salvation and maturity.
It is possible to fail to hold these things together rightly by calling foolishness a sin. But it is also possible to fail by exonerating foolishness; it isn’t sin, so shouldn’t we lighten up? No; God considers that to be fully righteous is to be wise:
The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
And his tongue talks of justice.
The law of his God is in his heart;
None of his steps shall slide. (Psalm 37:30–31, NKJV)
Satan is glad to confuse the church in many different ways, but one significant way he is attacking the evangelical church today is to accommodate and even glorify foolishness and immaturity. This has a veneer of plausibility since we want the hypothetical immature Christian to really enjoy the forgiveness they have in Jesus. But we also want them to mature, and calling them to wisdom and maturity does not call their salvation into question—rather, it calls them to make the most of their salvation and Savior.
Foolishness may not be a sin, but its careful cultivation definitely is. No one is ever static; if we become practiced in foolishness, sin will be the resultant fruit. Likewise if we accommodate foolishness, accommodation of sin is not far behind. The tyranny of the weak may earn us the quick approval of the world, but at the cost of our saltiness and the approval of our Savior.
This plays out in many different ways. Even if we granted for the sake of argument all of the antecedents in this list, none of the consequents follow:
- Someone might at some time be permitted to wear this outfit; therefore it is good for me to wear it here and now
- Someone might at some time be permitted to send their children to public school; therefore it is good for me to do so
- At times a wife and mother might be permitted to work outside the home; therefore it is good for me to do so
- Churches at some times might be permitted to close their doors on Sunday; therefore it is good for us to do so now
- Jesus might permit us to wear masks in worship; therefore it is good for me to do so
- Jesus might permit us to delay the baptism of our children; therefore it is good for me to do so
- Jesus understands that at times his church may not be able to celebrate his supper every week; therefore it is good for us to do so
- Jesus understands that at times his church may not be able to use wine in celebrating his supper; therefore it is good for us to do so
- Someone might at some time be permitted to stay home from church; therefore it is good for me to do so today
What is permissible, what is good, and what is best are not the same. This is applicable within the church, but also for parents; we are responsible to disciple our children to maturity. As Sproul points out, Paul’s principle is not merely one of accommodating the weak brother. Paul’s goal for us and for the weak brother is to avoid that which is unprofitable, to edify:
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. (1 Corinthians 10:23, NKJV)
There is an infantile kind of mere Christianity that is content to remain mere; let us instead be the kind that runs—and invites!—further up and further in.
I mentioned that suffering and deformity were the special mark of God’s secret agents. Luther describes how God presents himself to us through a variety of masks; in the same way, we are often the mask of God toward others.
Overheard on Slack:
GM Steve.
Oops wrong channel… anyway if you are Steve, good morning.
Federal vision
A friend passed along this article by Steven Wellum from last April on the federal vision.
In theology there are a great many pairs and triads of truths that we hold in harmony: for example, there is one God who exists in three persons; Jesus is fully God and fully man; we are justified by faith alone, but the faith by which we are justified is not alone; we have been saved (Romans 8:24, Ephesians 2:5-8), we are being saved (1 Corinthians 1:18, 15:2), and we will be saved (Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 3:15). Here are two beautiful examples of this theological harmony from the Westminster confession:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3.1)
God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them. (WCF 11.4)
I love the phrases that John Frame and Vern Poythress use to describe this multifaceted way of thinking: perspectival theology and symphonic theology. There are always many things going on at once in God’s revelation and his works.
Of course, from time to time theology goes lopsided and we must take up a defense of one or another of the voices in each harmony. Trinitarian heresies are a particular great example of this. At other times we must defend the harmonies themselves from the idea that clarity is unimportant, lest they become a muddy theological mush where nothing really matters.
Sadly, it is also a temptation to become overscrupulous and suspicious of one another. Someone who loves the beauty of salvation by faith alone and grace alone may be veering antinomian, or they may be rejoicing in real truth. Someone who considers God’s commandments to be sweeter than honey may be a budding legalist, or they may be rejoicing in real truth that lights the way of life. There are real battles to be fought against antinomianism and legalism; and it is even true that someone may be falling into error unwittingly and in spite of good intentions, and need rescue from it; but there is also real delight to be had in drinking deeply of both the freedom of grace and the perfection of God’s law. Knowing which situation we are dealing with calls for wisdom.
I think that a failure to read one another charitably—the instinct to jump to “either-or” rather than “both-and”—is involved in much of the controversy surrounding Norman Shepherd, the New Perspective, and the Federal Vision. Even if one does not fully accept any of these as a whole package, I believe they have made a valuable contribution to theology.
This is a great over-simplification, but I suggest we could touch on some of the differences Wellum mentions as follows:
- Credobaptists especially appreciate God’s internal and extraordinary work in a believer, while paedobaptists especially appreciate God’s external and ordinary work in a believer. Credobaptists want to stress the importance of calling our children to faith, while paedobaptists—especially paedocommunionists—want our children to have confidence in Jesus’s glad and ready welcoming of their childlike faith.
- Contemporary paedobaptists want to be able to say to a brother, “examine yourself as to whether you are in the faith.” Federal vision proponents want to be able to say to a brother, “do not fear, your sins are forgiven, and you are among the elect of God.”
- “Amber lager” federal vision proponents treasure the initial work of the Spirit in our salvation; “dark stout” federal vision proponents treasure the ongoing work of the Spirit in our salvation especially through the church.
- The traditional perspective on Paul wants to preserve the truth that salvation by our own obedience or merit is impossible. The new perspective on Paul wants to recognize that other forms of spiritual pride are deadly as well, and maybe we should develop a taxonomy of spiritual pride rather than forcing it all to fit in one box.
- Those who emphasize the imputation of Jesus’s active obedience rightly want to protect against smuggling our own merit into our salvation. Those who de-emphasize imputation rightly want to remind us that salvation is not a distant impersonal transaction, and remind us that we receive so much more than merit in receiving Jesus himself; as Piper says, “Jesus is the gospel.” See also Packer and Murray effusing on our glorious union with Jesus.
- Those who emphasize a covenant of works want to preserve the uniqueness of how Jesus redeems us from sin. Those who emphasize a continuity between the covenants want to preserve the truth that every covenant is a gracious, undeserved, unilateral gift from God, whatever its terms or administration, and whether it involves redemption or only testing and maturation. “In everything give thanks.”
Of course, if we are thinking rightly, we appreciate, agree with, and seek to harmonize both poles of each point above. We can appreciate the harmonious voices provided by one another without having to agree with the interpretation of every single scripture, or agree with every single implication and choice of terminology.
Addressing some of Wellum’s specific concerns, I would say:
- I have read several of the rejections of the federal vision (e.g., PCA, OPC, Guy Waters) and I find they have generally failed to appreciate how federal vision proponents are attempting the kind of gospel-faithful harmonizations that I suggest above. More than that, I think the federal vision proponents have advanced a great deal of evidence that they are continuing in a line of faithful covenant theology, at times even contrary to their opponents (e.g., I think it is a mistake to associate R. Scott Clark with traditional covenant theology).
- It is inescapable for us to have to develop a theology that harmonizes objectivity and subjectivity, assurance and apostasy, promise and warning. You may not come out of this with a systematic theology that describes two kinds of election (although Calvin does!) but you must have some kind of language for it nonetheless. I believe the federal vision proponents do justice to both sides of these coins while in some cases their opponents do not. In fact, one of the motivations of the federal vision is the desire to speak both promises and warnings with their full force as pastoral wisdom requires.
- We must admit that modern systematic theology uses “regeneration” in a different way from the Bible and from the reformers. It is perfectly normal for systematic theology to develop precise definitions for words that the Bible uses in a different or broader way (e.g., “salvation”) or for words that do not appear in the Bible at all (e.g., “Trinity”). But in the case of “regeneration,” the waters run deep, because they cover whole the landscape of church, kingdom, covenant, and eschatology. Thus, many will have very different opinions, and this area is ripe for misunderstanding—but I personally find no one advancing the kind of baptismal regeneration that we all rightly reject. On the other hand, it is truly a great and glorious thing for our little ones to be admitted to the covenant and church, to the household of the Spirit—to what some call the regeneration.
- I am convinced that Jesus wants his little ones to participate in the Supper (Is it not the consistent testimony of the church throughout history that they will be seated at Jesus’s table if they die? Why do we deny them this admission here and now?) but it is strange to me that as a credobaptist Wellum is especially concerned about this. Usually the lack of paedocommunion is a “gotcha” employed by credobaptists against inconsistent paedobaptists.
- It is a common accusation that paedobaptists import Israel into the church, the old covenants into the new. Far from this, I have found that what they are doing is recognizing just how much new-covenant grace is shot through the old covenants. No one was ever saved apart from faith, grace, Jesus, and the regenerating work of his Spirit. All of these things are fruit of Jesus’s work in the new covenant but were still the only way of salvation in the old covenants. The truly spiritual nature of the old covenants and of circumcision (e.g., Deuteronomy 10:16) should rightly force us to rethink some of the ways we have claimed the new covenant is unique.
I’ve benefited greatly from the work of many of the FV men and have great affection for them. I consider myself a federal vision “dark stout,” but I love my brothers of other persuasions, because they are my brothers and because we believe and hold to a common gospel.
See also my notes on Believer’s Baptism, for which Wellum was a contributor.
Metábasis eis állo génos (2-28)
Luke 8 also repeats the double twelve of Mark 5.
The longest chiasm in the world is the one that begins with creation and ends with the consummation of the new creation. One great aspect of this is the divisions of Genesis 1 and their removal in Revelation 21:
- Division of light and darkness (Genesis 1:3–5)
- Division of the waters below and the waters above by means of the firmament (Genesis 1:6–8)
- Division of land and sea (Genesis 1:9–10)
- History
- Removal of the sea (Revelation 21:1)
- Division of land and sea (Genesis 1:9–10)
- Removal of the firmament with the union of heaven and earth (Revelation 21:2–10)
- Division of the waters below and the waters above by means of the firmament (Genesis 1:6–8)
- Removal of darkness (Revelation 21:22–25)
I’ve tended to associate the sea with the Gentile nations, so the removal of the sea (Revelation 21:1) followed by the continuing of the nations (Revelation 21:24ff) has been puzzling to me. However, my pastor Duane Garner points out that the sea has a wider sense stretching all the way back to Genesis 1:2 of chaos and fearsome forces that include the nations but extend far beyond them. Thus, what is happening in Revelation 21 is the subduing, governing, and harnessing of nations but also of nature itself.
It’s also interesting that it is the three new things that overcame the formlessness and voidness that endure. Darkness preceded light, but light endures. In a way, highest heaven preceded the earth, but the earth endures. The deep preceded the land, but the land endures.
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3-4, NKJV)
Also reflecting on Duane’s latest sermon, it seems to me that one way to express the difference between Christian conservationism and humanist environmentalism is the locus of the sacred: is nature itself sacred, or is nature a gift from God that we are to improve and return to him?
It is a small thing, but the fact that the Byzantine text has seventy rather than seventy-two here pleases me:
After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. . . . Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” (Luke 10:1, 17, NKJV)
It is fascinating to me that this passage speaks of a future judgment of Tyre and Sidon (and, linking Matthew 11, Sodom), and yet we have already an unbelievably gruesome past judgment of Jerusalem:
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:13–16, NKJV)
The final judgment is more significant than what you read about in Josephus.
The perception gap quiz is interesting. They tell me my score was perfect. It’s mildly encouraging that public sentiment is not so bad; but that minimizes the antithesis. Things are bad because we don’t bow the knee to king Jesus and violate his law left and right.
I don’t know how that ends. Is it worse than Josephus? And who can tell whether we will experience terrible inflation or extraordinary deflation; or whether we will experience violent disintegration or a pathetic fizzling? And yet, the one thing we must know is that special days of the Lord come from time to time, and the one thing we must do therefore—and for which we have no excuse—is live loyally and faithfully:
Then He also said to the multitudes, “Whenever you see a cloud rising out of the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming’; and so it is. And when you see the south wind blow, you say, ‘There will be hot weather’; and there is. Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? (Luke 12:54–56, NKJV)
We have no excuse if we do not “know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:44).
In this week’s Theopolitan newsletter, Peter Leithart reflects on Peter’s preaching of the Abrahamic promise in Acts 3. Some further reflections:
- The pattern of blessings to Israel and the nations and Israel shows up again many times; especially Romans 11. Leithart suggests that Acts “recounts the restoration of Israel,” not in entirety but in the main. I favor this preterist reading of Romans 11.
- This makes me think of the Gibeonites. Canaanite Israel, now a kind of Hagar rather than Sarah, must humble themselves to enter the new Israel that was commissioned to conquer the land and now the world.
- This also reminds me of David’s ascension. There was an interim period of 7.5 years given to Israel to extend their loyalty to him. This transfer in Jesus’s case is so complete that every Jew must be baptized.
- This also brings to mind the great baptisms of 2 Sam chapters 15 (perhaps an infant baptism!) and 19, especially since that is a similar case of Israel falling and being resurrected. It is necessary for Israel to “go outside the camp, bearing his reproach” in order to be “united with him in a resurrection like his.”
The only way to be justified is to justify Jesus.
We were wiring up the launch system for our model rocket:
Asher: Did you know that positive is actually negative?
Scott: Well, yes, in a way.
Amos: Wait, so that means positive encouraging K-Love is really negative encouraging K-Love?
Metábasis eis állo génos (2-27)
I reflected last week on suffering as a special mission. Gene Wolfe’s great short story “Westwind” is a wonderful picture of this. In fact, in Wolfe’s story, you could say that some kind of suffering or deformity is the special mark of all of God’s secret agents. It is their admission ticket to all the places.
I’m still lagging behind on podcasts. My employer promises that we will be back in the office on September 7 but hasn’t announced protocols. I’m not inspired to any kind of optimism by the ridiculous protocols that are in force right now. But although I remain behind in other podcasts, I am caught up on the Theology Pugcast. Recent episodes prompted me to think:
- There is a natural analogy between the mimesis:poeisis spectrum and grammar:dialectic:rhetoric, and also priest:king:prophet.
- Late modernism professes the old and outworn idea that Christianity is an old and outworn idea. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit, we know that Christianity is neither exclusively old, nor outworn, nor merely an idea.
Doug Wilson confirms my hunch that he is not opposed to blasphemy law, only its hasty introduction.
God’s rating system is a twelve-star system:
Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” (Genesis 37:9, NKJV)
Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1, NKJV)
Speaking of twelve, it appears twice in Mark 5:
Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years . . . Immediately the girl arose and walked, for she was twelve years of age. (NKJV)
As Mark Horne suggests, there is clearly meant to be a link between these women. Twelve years must also be significant, though I’m not sure how, other than to say that there is a deadness in Israel, in the old twelve.
In Mark 12, the Sadducees try to entrap Jesus:
Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him; and they asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, and leaves his wife behind, and leaves no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.” (Mark 12:18–23, NKJV)
It never occurred to me until now to read this in a corporate–covenantal register. Since pastor–shepherds are levirs, we could read this as a subtle jockeying for heavenly status as the disciples themselves did in chapter 10. Jesus’s response then is consistent with what we see elsewhere in scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 1, Revelation) in that man is elevated to a position in God’s heavenly court.
Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.” (Mark 12:24–27, NKJV)
I gotta have my orange juice. 